Press Room

Riverkeeper Continues to Challenge the Tappan Zee Bridge Project Environmental Review Process

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:20:18 -0600

Concerns about the Legal Procedure, Environmental Impacts, and Commuter Rail Remain

(Tarrytown, NY) Today Riverkeeper is submitting written comments on the new Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 environmental review documents. Riverkeeper is somewhat gratified that, subsequent to its last set of comments which raised the following among its concerns, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) along with other stated federal agencies: (1) has provided this second public scoping comment period; (2) appears to have eliminated at least some aspects of the segmentation of the environmental review process (transit and bridge options are now being considered together); (3) has decided to provide the proposed transit station locations along the corridor; and (4) as stated by the agency in a separate Fall 2008 newsletter, may be committing to do a full Environmental Impact Statement on the integration of the mass transit components and station locations.

Nevertheless, Riverkeeper has continuing concerns about the NYS DOT’s compliance with federal and state laws designed to ensure a full review of all adverse impacts and mitigation measures before a decision is reached. Riverkeeper is also concerned that, so far, inadequate justification has been provided for adding commuter rail to cross the Hudson and that the planned analysis of potential adverse impacts from the proposed replacement of the bridge is inadequate. Due to Riverkeeper’s historic environmental and legal involvement with the Hudson River, and the enormous environmental, economic and social implications for the Hudson Valley from either the rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge with the addition of mass transit, Riverkeeper seeks to ensure that all legal protections be applied -- for both the communities and the Hudson River.

Alex Matthiessen, Hudson Riverkeeper and President said, "Riverkeeper calls on Governor Paterson to ensure a full review of the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with this massive project. The governor has expressed strong support for protecting the imperiled fish of the Hudson River and a commitment to their restoration. Building a new bridge across the ecologically rich but sensitive Tappan Zee portion of the Hudson presents a clear opportunity to apply the best science and planning towards that goal."

“Riverkeeper will continue its vigilance on this matter. We call on all public officials to require full compliance with the laws designed to protect the Hudson River, all other natural resources in the Hudson Valley, and the communities themselves. The impacts will be enormous, and a completely transparent procedure is required,” stated Rebecca Troutman, Riverkeeper Staff Attorney.

Riverkeeper’s newly submitted written comments state that the “tiering” of the environmental review process has still not been adequately explained or legally justified. The dangers of a segmented review process include the potential that a decision involving review of an earlier action could predetermine a subsequent action; and that when a project which might have a significant effect on the environment is divided into separate components, the smaller components may fall beneath the threshold requiring review. Moreover the environmental review process is being conducted in conjunction with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), a relatively new federal statute which shortens the statute of limitations period for which final agency actions can be appealed from six years to 180 days. The NYS DOT and other agencies must clarify when these shortened statute of limitations periods will apply so that the rights of the public to appeal any completed, final decision are not compromised; and so that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which require the consideration of environmental impacts before agency decision-making, are not undermined.

Additionally, with regard to the mass transit options, the locations of transit stations should be clearly identified as soon as possible and a formal commitment must be made to conduct a full environmental review process for the station location impacts. The project team recommended adding Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) from Rockland County across the Hudson to connect with Metro-North’s Hudson line into Manhattan, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) across the entire Suffern to Port Chester corridor. Riverkeeper supports the BRT option, but believes that the data supporting an expensive and environmentally intrusive commuter rail is not presented in a clear and convincing manner.

Riverkeeper is extremely concerned about the potential impacts of construction and bridge operation on Hudson River fish species, habitats, water quality and wetlands. Riverkeeper emphasizes that all environmental impacts to the Hudson River must not be merely “managed,” but should be avoided or mitigated fully. A report commissioned by Riverkeeper and released on May 15, 2008 reveals that ten of thirteen key species of Hudson River fish are in serious decline.

Finally, the September 2008 Scoping Documents state that all bridge “rehabilitation” options have been deemed to be “neither reasonable nor prudent.” Riverkeeper requests that the legal and conceptual standards that were used to arrive at this sweeping decision be clearly explained.

To read Riverkeeper’s comments on the September 2008 Scoping Documents, visit: http://www.riverkeeper.org/document.php/869/Tappan_Zee_Brid.pdf

To read Riverkeeper’s comments on the February 2008 Scoping Document, visit: http://www.riverkeeper.org/document.php/723/Riverkeepers_Sc.pdf

Riverkeeper Press Room

Media Advisory - Riverkeeper and States to hold press conference after arguing Clean Water Act case before U.S. Supreme Court

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:30:41 -0600

WHAT: Riverkeeper will hold a press conference following oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.

WHEN: 11:15am Tuesday, December 2, 2008

WHERE: Steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, One 1st St. N.E., Washington, DC

WHO: Alex Matthiessen, Hudson Riverkeeper and President; attorneys Richard Lazarus, Reed Super, Robert Goldstein, Victor Tafur, Phillip Musegaas; and Special Assistant Attorney General Tricia O’Hare Jedele of the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office on behalf of the six-state coalition.

BACKGROUND: Section 316(b) of The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires power plants to employ the “best technology available” (BTA) to protect fish and other aquatic life. Yet every day, power plants in the United States withdraw over 214 billion gallons from U.S. water bodies to cool their facilities, and kill billions of fish and aquatic creatures in the process. This is largely caused by once-through cooling, an antiquated cooling technology still in use at many old power plants. In contrast, closed-cycle cooling systems, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers BTA for new plants, recirculate most of the water after dispersing heat in a cooling tower, reducing fish kills by 95 percent.

The Supreme Court will rule on whether or not the EPA is authorized to compare costs with benefits in determining BTA for the cooling water intake structures of existing power plants.

Riverkeeper is an independent member-supported environmental organization. Riverkeeper’s mission is to protect the Hudson River, and its tributaries, and the New York City drinking water supply.

For more information, please visit www.riverkeeper.org.

Riverkeeper Press Room

Riverkeeper Will Argue Clean Water Act Case Before U.S. Supreme Court

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:59:20 -0600

Ruling will address EPA’s use of cost-benefit analysis to determine power plant upgrades.

(Washington, D.C.) On December 2, 2008, Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. will be argued in the United States Supreme Court. The case will determine whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to compare costs with benefits in determining the “best technology available” (BTA) for the cooling water intake structures of existing power plants. Richard Lazarus, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center, will argue the case on behalf of Riverkeeper.

Press Call In: On Tuesday, November 25 at 12 noon, Riverkeeper will hold a press call-in to brief reporters on the background of this case. Riverkeeper’s senior attorney on power plants, Victor Tafur; lead attorney for the Indian Point relicensing case, Phillip Musegaas; and attorney Reed Super will be available to answer questions. Call in number: 1-877-358-8255 ID number: 800 5633.

Section 316(b) of The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires power plants to employ the best technology available to protect fish and other aquatic life. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established national regulations for existing power plants as required by the CWA. (Regulations are necessary to specify how BTA should be applied for cooling water intakes; without them, the law is very difficult for permit writers to apply.)

On July 26, 2004, Riverkeeper led a national coalition of environmental groups and worked closely with a coalition of six states led by Rhode Island in a legal challenge to these regulations because they set weak standards and allowed power plants to seek variances to BTA. In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the regulations, and ruled that, in establishing BTA, the EPA should determine whether the cost of the technology can reasonably be borne by industry.

Several energy companies, including Entergy Corporation, owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, NY, petitioned the court to review the Second Circuit’s decision. In April 2008, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to grant the petition with regard to a single issue: “Whether Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(b), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compare costs with benefits in determining the ‘best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact’ at cooling water intake structures.” The Supreme Court will not review the other topics decided by the Second Circuit in Riverkeeper’s favor.

Every day, power plants in the United States withdraw over 214 billion gallons from U.S. water bodies to cool their facilities, and kill billions of fish and aquatic creatures in the process. This is mostly due to the use of antiquated cooling systems, known as “once-through cooling,” which are often employed by older power plants. In contrast, closed-cycle cooling systems, which the EPA considers BTA for new plants, recirculate most of the water after dispersing heat in a cooling tower, reducing the amount of water withdrawn and the number of fish killed by over 95 percent.

“The once-through cooling intakes of Hudson River power plants, which withdraw 5 billion gallons of water each day, have had a devastating effect on the river’s ecosystem. The Clean Water Act clearly mandates the use of ‘best technology available’ without regard to cost-benefit comparisons and was intended to address precisely these types of impacts,” said Alex Matthiessen, Hudson Riverkeeper and President. “With this case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in on this important environmental issue, as we seek to end the era of illegal fish kills once and for all. We have the law on our side and are confident justice will prevail.”

“As the 30 million Americans who go fishing and the scientists who monitor our fish populations every year know, billions of fish are being killed by outdated power plant cooling intakes. This destruction has been going on for decades and must be stopped,” said Nancy Stoner, Co-director of the Water Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, part of the environmental coalition.

“The billions of fish killed needlessly every year by power plant cooling water intakes is another in a long list of compelling reasons why this country must make a fundamental shift in our approach to power generation and our overall energy policy,” stated Scott Edwards, Legal Director of Waterkeeper Alliance, another member of the environmental coalition “It’s only when environmentally harmful industries are forced to cover the costs of the damage they do to our planet that we’ll be able to move on to more sustainable, cleaner, and less damaging technologies.”
###

BACKGROUND AND IMPLICATIONS
History of the Battle for the Best Technology Available
There are four existing power plants on the Hudson River that continue to rely on once-through cooling, a 1950s cooling technology. In these antiquated cooling systems, water is drawn from the Hudson River, absorbs heat, and is then discharged back into the river at an elevated temperature. This technology requires billions of gallons of river water per day, and needlessly kills billions of fish that are impinged on the plants’ intake screens or entrained when drawn through the cooling systems. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Scenic Hudson and Riverkeeper’s battle with these four power plants (Indian Point, Danskammer, Roseton and Bowline) traces back to the historic Storm King Mountain controversy in the 1960s and the settlement that became known as the Hudson River Settlement Agreement (HRSA). Under the 1980 HRSA, Consolidated Edison Company of New York agreed to abandon its Storm King project in exchange for the environmentalists’ agreement not to immediately force the utilities to replace their once-through cooling systems with closed-cycle cooling which would eliminate 95% of the fish kills. Under Section 316(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) enacted in 1972, cooling water intake structures require a National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) permit with standards requiring the best technology available (BTA) to minimize environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues these permits, but can delegate the authority to issue the permits to some states, including New York State. In New York, the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits issued by New York’s Department of Conservation (DEC) for three plants covered under the HRSA (Indian Point, Roseton, and Bowline) expired in 1992. Once a permit renewal application is filed, the expired permit is administratively extended until a new permit is issued. The permits for these HRSA plants, issued in 1987, have thus been “rubber stamped” since their expiration in 1992, allowing the plants to continue using once-through cooling and slaughter massive quantities of Hudson River fish. In 1993, Riverkeeper led a coalition of environmental groups in suing the EPA to obtain national regulations that would spell out how BTA for power plant intakes should be implemented as required by the CWA. The EPA began working on them in 1995. In 2000, after years of litigation and negotiation, the U.S. District Court split the detailed regulations into three separate phases: Phase I for new facilities, Phase II for existing large power plants, and Phase III for existing small power plants and other facilities. Phase I– In December 2001, EPA issued Phase I regulations for new facilities. Phase I mandated closed-cycle cooling as the best technology available. Because these Phase I regulations also contained loopholes that would jeopardize aquatic resources, Riverkeeper again led a coalition of environmental groups in filing a legal challenge against the EPA in January 2002. In February 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City ruled in favor of Riverkeeper, finding that the EPA had exceeded its authority by allowing industrial facilities to attempt after-the-fact restoration of aquatic resources instead of installing technology to prevent fish kills in the first place. The court thus upheld EPA’s regulation mandating closed-cycle cooling as the national minimum technology for new power plants and factories. Phase II - In April 2002, EPA proposed its Phase II regulations for existing power plants. These regulations set weak standards and allowed power plants to seek further variances. Although Riverkeeper mounted a major advocacy campaign in 2002 and 2003 to improve these regulations before they became final, EPA signed the final Phase II rule on February 16, 2004, largely ignoring comments from the environmental community as well as the Second Circuit's decision in the Phase I litigation. On July 26, 2004, Riverkeeper led a national coalition which includes NRDC, Waterkeeper Alliance and Scenic Hudson, in a challenge to the Phase II rule, filing new litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had earlier determined that EPA had exceeded its authority in Phase I. In January 2007, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Riverkeeper. The court held that the Phase II regulations for existing power plants were inconsistent with the mandates of Section 316(b) of the CWA. As in the Phase I ruling, the court found that the EPA had exceeded its authority by allowing restoration of damaged natural resources as BTA. The court also struck down EPA’s improper consideration of a cost-benefit analysis to determine BTA. Further, the court rejected: two of EPA’s variances, one based on comparison of the companies’ actual costs to those costs considered by EPA, and another based on cost-benefit analysis the court determined was improper; its use of wide “performance standard” ranges that allowed facilities to aim for the bottom of the range rather than the top; its definition of “existing facility;” and other aspects of the rule. The EPA and several energy companies, including Entergy, owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, petitioned the court to hear its case challenging this decision, and in April 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition with regard to one issue: whether or not the EPA can consider cost-benefit analyses in determining BTA for power plant intakes. Notably, while the EPA first opposed a Supreme Court review of the appeals by the energy companies, it has now aligned with them on the issue before the court. New York State, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Delaware are aligned with the Riverkeeper coalition, as they were in the lower court. Phase III – In June 2006, the EPA decided not to promulgate regulations for existing Phase III facilities because costs would be disproportionate to the monetary value of the environmental benefits. Riverkeeper’s coalition again filed suit to have the court set aside EPA’s decision and require EPA to issue regulations for Phase III facilities. The case is pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of New Orleans. IMPLICATIONSWhat will the Supreme Court decision determine?
The Supreme Court will determine if Congress, in enacting Clean Water Act section 316(b) in 1972, intended EPA to reject technology that is available and is the best for minimizing adverse environmental impacts on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. If the high court agrees with the lower court that Congress did not allow EPA to compare costs to benefits in determining the “best technology available,” then EPA will be prohibited from doing so. If it reverses the lower court, then EPA will not be required to rely on cost-benefit, but will merely be allowed to do so if it chooses, subject to it not acting arbitrarily in how it compares costs to benefits. National and New York implications of the Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court decision will have an important effect on many ongoing and future proceedings regarding existing power plants, mainly the hundreds of fossil fuel and nuclear facilities across the country that have cooling water intakes. The EPA will be required to draft a new rule based on the Supreme Court decision, stipulating how BTA will be applied to cooling water intakes. Many ongoing proceedings will not wait for this new rule, however, and will be decided in the next 1-2 years in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling and the aspects of the Second Circuit’s ruling that have not been appealed and are now final, including Riverkeeper’s challenges to the draft permits for Indian Point, Danskammer, Roseton and Bowline. Indian Point
The case against Indian Point regarding its SPDES permit is distinct from Riverkeeper’s intervention to oppose Indian Point’s application for a 20-year license extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The DEC and NRC proceedings regarding Indian Point run on parallel tracks. In August, 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which issues SPDES permits, affirmed that the Indian Point nuclear power plant’s cooling water intake system causes adverse environmental impacts on Hudson River fish, and ruled on the issues to be considered in the SPDES proceeding. Although Entergy has filed a lawsuit challenging DEC’s finding of “adverse” environmental impact, the DEC is moving forward with a trial-type hearing to determine whether closed-cycle cooling must be installed at Indian Point. Hearings on the draft SPDES permit, which would mandate closed cycle cooling, are tentatively scheduled for spring 2010. This DEC finding supports Riverkeeper’s position in its Indian Point relicensing case in which Riverkeeper is challenging Entergy’s assertion that the once-through cooling system does not harm fish in the river and should therefore not be taken into consideration as part of the NRC’s environmental review in the relicensing proceeding.

Riverkeeper Press Room

Press Release - RvK and Councilman Eric Gioia Applaud State Enforcement Action Against Newtown Creek Polluter

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:18:53 -0600

60 Days After Riverkeeper and Gioia Announced Intent to Sue, DEC Taking Action Against NYCON For Illegal Concrete Dumping

LONG ISLAND CITY - Today, Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Queens), Chairman of the City Council Committee on Oversight and Investigations, and the environmental watchdog group Riverkeeper announced that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will take legal action against NYCON Supply Corporation. The company has been allegedly discharging concrete waste illegally into the Dutch Kills, a tributary of the heavily-polluted Newtown Creek. The DEC's action comes shortly after Riverkeeper and Gioia announced their intent to file a lawsuit against NYCON. Newtown Creek, the site of a massive oil spill, is one of the most polluted waterways in the United States.

The complaint filed by DEC against NYCON Supply Corporation and other defendants stems from investigations by the environmental watchdog group, Riverkeeper. In September, Gioia and Riverkeeper announced that Riverkeeper had filed a Notice of Intent to Sue the corporation for illegal discharges under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Under those laws, citizen groups are required to wait 60 and 90 days, respectively, before bringing suit against an alleged polluter. This notice period allows time for polluters to stop illegal discharges, while also providing state and federal agencies the opportunity to bring their own enforcement actions.

In this case, DEC Region 2 stepped in and filed its own complaint, alleging 23 separate causes of action against the company based on violations of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. Based on investigations conducted by both Riverkeeper and DEC staff, the complaint alleges that, since at least 2006, NYCON Supply Company has been illegally discharging liquid concrete, cement-laden runoff, gravel, and other pollutants into the Dutch Kills, a tributary of Newtown Creek.

"The recent action taken by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation signals a major step forward in environmental enforcement around New York Harbor," said Craig Michaels, a Riverkeeper Investigator. "It is now abundantly clear that citizens, elected officials and government agencies are working hand in hand to bring environmental lawbreakers to justice. On behalf of our over 10,000 members, Riverkeeper applauds the quick and decisive action taken by regional staff at DEC to stop this continuing source of pollution on Newtown Creek."

"Newtown Creek has for years been the forgotten waterway of New York City, and polluters have taken advantage by dumping at will," said Councilman Eric Gioia. "DEC is sending a strong message that that we will no longer stand for more dumping and more pollution in the Creek. Polluters, beware: we are watching, we are vigilant, and we will go after you."

This DEC action comes on the heels of a recent New York State appellate court decision that reinstated criminal indictments against another concrete company, Quality Concrete, also located on Newtown Creek. That decision reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the indictments against the company and one of its vice presidents and ordered that there was sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to sustain the indictments. That case is currently being handled by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office.

Newtown Creek is a 3 mile long waterway that separates Brooklyn and Queens and is a tributary of the East River, the Hudson River, and New York Harbor. It is also the site of the 17 million-gallon Greenpoint oil spill, currently the center of numerous lawsuits against ExxonMobil by environmentalists, including Riverkeeper; lawmakers, including Councilman Gioia; and private citizens, and was recently identified by the United States EPA as a contaminated area warranting further study under the Superfund law.

###

Riverkeeper Press Room

Press Release - Riverkeeper Commends DEC’s Swift Response to Halt Illegal Landfill Pollution

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:16:32 -0600

Lehigh Cement fined $50,000, ordered to halt illegal discharges
and remediate contaminated wetlands

(Tarrytown, New York) Riverkeeper today commended the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for responding quickly to halt the illegal discharge of landfill leachate into wetlands and the Hudson River from Lehigh Northeast Cement Company’s closed cement kiln dust landfill in Catskill, NY. On September 10, 2008, the DEC and Lehigh Cement entered into an Order on Consent in which Lehigh (1) admitted to violating provisions of the state Environmental Conservation Law, (2) agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000, (3) agreed to implement measures to contain and treat leachate from its landfill, and (4) agreed to remediate damage to adjacent wetlands where sediment deposited by the leachate was found to be up to one foot thick.

The DEC first became aware of this pollution on July 10, 2008 after Riverkeeper served notice of its intent to sue Lehigh Cement Company for violations of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). During the 60-day required waiting period following the filing of a Notice of Intent to Sue (NOIS) under the CWA, the alleged polluter is given an opportunity to come into compliance with the law, and state and federal officials are given an opportunity to bring their own enforcement action. Following the filing of its NOIS, Riverkeeper worked cooperatively with the DEC, providing the state with the evidence uncovered during its investigation. The DEC and Lehigh reached a settlement and entered into the Order on September 10, exactly 60 days after the NOIS filing after which Riverkeeper could have initiated a formal suit under the CWA.

“The DEC should be commended for acting quickly and decisively to halt these illegal discharges and order remediation of these sensitive wetlands,” said Riverkeeper Staff Attorney Josh Verleun. “As a watchdog for the Hudson River, Riverkeeper always welcomes the chance to work cooperatively with the DEC when bringing polluters to justice.”

Riverkeeper’s investigation into these discharges began after a helicopter patrol of the Hudson River revealed bright golden colored ponds on Lehigh’s property which were located between a closed landfill and the Hudson River. Further investigation found that the ponds were full of highly alkaline landfill leachate with a pH similar to household bleach. This leachate was collecting in a rip-rap channel at the base of the landfill and flowing into wetland ponds which are connected to the Hudson River. Lehigh’s landfill, which is adjacent to the Hudson, contains cement kiln dust, a byproduct of the cement manufacturing process which is known to contain metals such as antimony, arsenic, barium, lead, chromium and mercury, in addition to being highly alkaline.

The DEC Order requires Lehigh to implement a permanent plan to contain and treat leachate from its landfill and develop and implement a plan to remediate the contaminated wetlands. Riverkeeper will monitor the ongoing remediation to ensure that this sensitive habitat is protected and restored.

####

Riverkeeper Press Room

Press Release: Riverkeeper Attorney to Testify at Gas Drilling Hearing

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:15:34 -0600

Riverkeeper Attorney to Testify at Emergency Public Hearing
On Natural Gas Drilling Within NYC Watershed

On September 10, Riverkeeper attorney Jay Simpson will testify before the New York City Council Environmental Protection Committee’s emergency public hearing on natural gas drilling within the NYC Watershed. Riverkeeper applauds New York State’s decision to conduct a supplemental review of gas drilling’s environmental impacts throughout New York State; however the NYC Watershed, as the source of drinking water for half the state’s population, is the state’s greatest natural resource and warrants special protection. Riverkeeper welcomes the City Council’s attention to this issue and encourages the public to participate.

Robert Goldstein, Riverkeeper’s General Counsel, stated, “This hearing is critical so that the public can learn about the potential impacts of natural gas drilling on the NYC Watershed. We still have much to learn about the gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking”— the jury is still out on it. But we know for certain that the disruptive surface activity that would accompany any drilling process in the watershed would irreparably damage our precious unfiltered drinking water supply.”

James L. Simpson, Staff Attorney with Riverkeeper’s Watershed Program, said, ”We encourage consumers of New York City’s award winning tap water to participate in this important hearing. As we transform our energy policy, it is critical that we not trample upon critical natural resources.”

The City Council's Environmental Protection Committee emergency hearing on gas drilling will be held at 1pm on Wednesday, September 10 at 250 Broadway, 14th Floor in New York City. The public is invited to attend. Anyone may also submit testimony to the hearing by emailing jgennaro@council.nyc.gov.

ABOUT RIVERKEEPER: Riverkeeper is an independent member supported environmental organization that has an historic presence protecting the New York City Watershed, including helping to craft the MOA. Riverkeeper’s mission is to protect the Hudson River, the New York City drinking water supply, and the public’s right to clean water and healthy communities. For more information, please visit www.riverkeeper.org.

###

Riverkeeper Press Room

Press Release - Riverkeeper and Councilman Eric Gioia Take Aim at Concrete Polluters on Newtown Creek

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:14:16 -0600

NYCON Allegedly Dumping Concrete Illegally in Newtown Creek

NEW YORK- Today, the environmental watchdog group Riverkeeper and New York City Councilman Eric Gioia (D-Queens), Chair of the City Council Committee on Oversight and Investigations, announced legal action against a major concrete manufacturer on Newtown Creek for violations of federal environmental laws. They are alleging that NYCON Supply Corporation, located in Long Island City, Queens, has been illegally discharging concrete waste without a permit into a tributary of the heavily polluted Newtown Creek, in violation of both the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Newtown Creek, the site of a massive oil spill, is one of the most polluted waterways in the United States. During its routine patrols of NYC waterways, Riverkeeper has observed NYCON dumping concrete waste into the Dutch Kills tributary of Newtown Creek without a required Clean Water Act permit. Riverkeeper also observed piles of gravel and layers of concrete covering the riverbed adjacent to the NYCON facility.

Today, Riverkeeper filed a Notice of Intent to Sue NYCON. In addition to the lack of a Clean Water Act permit, Riverkeeper also believes that the current discharge of NYCON’s waste constitutes an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and environment under RCRA. Both the Clean Water Act and RCRA authorize citizen groups to sue polluters, subjecting potential violators to up to $32,500 in penalties per day per violation.

“The pollution issues confronting Newtown Creek and other waterways surrounding New York City cannot be fully addressed without enforcing environmental laws and holding polluters accountable for their actions,” said Riverkeeper Investigator Craig Michaels. “We will continue to work with elected officials and government agencies to track down and prosecute environmental lawbreakers who threaten the environmental and public health of our communities.”

“For too long, Newtown Creek has been the forgotten waterway of New York City, and polluters have taken advantage by dumping with impunity,” said Councilman Eric Gioia. “We're here today to send a strong message that that we will not stand for more dumping and more pollution in the creek. Polluters, beware: we are watching, we are vigilant, and we will go after you.”
###

Background:

Riverkeeper is an independent environmental watchdog organization dedicated to protecting the Hudson River, its tributaries, and the watersheds that comprise the New York City drinking water supply. Since 1965, we have brought thousands of environmental lawbreakers to justice, forcing more than $1 billion in fines and remediation projects.

The notice letter filed today comes on the heels of a recent New York State appellate court decision that reinstated criminal indictments against another concrete company, Quality Concrete, also located on Newtown Creek. That decision reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the indictments against the company and one of its vice presidents, and ordered that there was sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to sustain the indictments. That case is currently being handled by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office.

Newtown Creek is a 3-mile long waterway that separates Brooklyn and Queens and is a tributary of the East River, the Hudson River, and New York Harbor. It is also the site of the 17-million-gallon Greenpoint oil spill – currently the center of numerous lawsuits against ExxonMobil by environmentalists, including Riverkeeper; lawmakers, including Councilman Gioia; and private citizens – and was recently identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a contaminated area warranting further study under the Superfund law.

Riverkeeper Press Room

A Bottled Water Free Event Celebrating New York City’s Water Resources

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:15:08 -0500

Riverkeeper Press Room

Riverkeeper Commends DEC’s Swift Response to Halt Illegal Landfill Pollution

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:11:02 -0500

Lehigh Cement fined $50,000, ordered to halt illegal discharges and remediate contaminated wetlands

(Tarrytown, New York) Riverkeeper today commended the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for responding quickly to halt the illegal discharge of landfill leachate into wetlands and the Hudson River from Lehigh Northeast Cement Company’s closed cement kiln dust landfill in Catskill, NY. On September 10, 2008, the DEC and Lehigh Cement entered into an Order on Consent in which Lehigh (1) admitted to violating provisions of the state Environmental Conservation Law, (2) agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000, (3) agreed to implement measures to contain and treat leachate from its landfill, and (4) agreed to remediate damage to adjacent wetlands where sediment deposited by the leachate was found to be up to one foot thick.

The DEC first became aware of this pollution on July 10, 2008 after Riverkeeper served notice of its intent to sue Lehigh Cement Company for violations of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). During the 60-day required waiting period following the filing of a Notice of Intent to Sue (NOIS) under the CWA, the alleged polluter is given an opportunity to come into compliance with the law, and state and federal officials are given an opportunity to bring their own enforcement action. Following the filing of its NOIS, Riverkeeper worked cooperatively with the DEC, providing the state with the evidence uncovered during its investigation. The DEC and Lehigh reached a settlement and entered into the Order on September 10, exactly 60 days after the NOIS filing after which Riverkeeper could have initiated a formal suit under the CWA.

“The DEC should be commended for acting quickly and decisively to halt these illegal discharges and order remediation of these sensitive wetlands,” said Riverkeeper Staff Attorney Josh Verleun. “As a watchdog for the Hudson River, Riverkeeper always welcomes the chance to work cooperatively with the DEC when bringing polluters to justice.”

Riverkeeper’s investigation into these discharges began after a helicopter patrol of the Hudson River revealed bright golden colored ponds on Lehigh’s property which were located between a closed landfill and the Hudson River. Further investigation found that the ponds were full of highly alkaline landfill leachate with a pH similar to household bleach. This leachate was collecting in a rip-rap channel at the base of the landfill and flowing into wetland ponds which are connected to the Hudson River. Lehigh’s landfill, which is adjacent to the Hudson, contains cement kiln dust, a byproduct of the cement manufacturing process which is known to contain metals such as antimony, arsenic, barium, lead, chromium and mercury, in addition to being highly alkaline.
The DEC Order requires Lehigh to implement a permanent plan to contain and treat leachate from its landfill and develop and implement a plan to remediate the contaminated wetlands. Riverkeeper will monitor the ongoing remediation to ensure that this sensitive habitat is protected and restored.

Riverkeeper Press Room

Riverkeeper Attorney to Testify at Emergency Public Hearing

gchambers@riverkeeper.org — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:29:02 -0500

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 8, 2008 Riverkeeper Attorney to Testify at Emergency Public Hearing On Natural Gas Drilling Within NYC Watershed On September 10, Riverkeeper attorney Jay Simpson will testify before the New York City Council Environmental Protection Committee’s emergency public hearing on natural gas drilling within the NYC Watershed. Riverkeeper applauds New York State’s decision to conduct a supplemental review of gas drilling’s environmental impacts throughout New York State; however the NYC Watershed, as the source of drinking water for half the state’s population, is the state’s greatest natural resource and warrants special protection. Riverkeeper welcomes the City Council’s attention to this issue and encourages the public to participate. Robert Goldstein, Riverkeeper’s General Counsel, stated, “This hearing is critical so that the public can learn about the potential impacts of natural gas drilling on the NYC Watershed. We still have much to learn about the gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking”" the jury is still out on it. But we know for certain that the disruptive surface activity that would accompany any drilling process in the watershed would irreparably damage our precious unfiltered drinking water supply.” James L. Simpson, Staff Attorney with Riverkeeper’s Watershed Program, said, ”We encourage consumers of New York City’s award winning tap water to participate in this important hearing. As we transform our energy policy, it is critical that we not trample upon critical natural resources.” The City Council's Environmental Protection Committee emergency hearing on gas drilling will be held at 1pm on Wednesday, September 10 at 250 Broadway, 14th Floor in New York City. The public is invited to attend. Anyone may also submit testimony to the hearing by emailing jgennaro@council.nyc.gov. ABOUT RIVERKEEPER: Riverkeeper is an independent member supported environmental organization that has an historic presence protecting the New York City Watershed, including helping to craft the MOA. Riverkeeper’s mission is to protect the Hudson River, the New York City drinking water supply, and the public’s right to clean water and healthy communities. For more information, please visit www.riverkeeper.org.

Riverkeeper Press Room