Latest news with #ConservationLawFoundation
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Group claims wastewater permit would let Manchester dump PFAS into Merrimack River
The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is arguing that the state's approval of a permit allows the Manchester Wastewater Treatment Facility to discharge toxic chemicals into the Merrimack River. An appeal filed Thursday with the New Hampshire Water Council claims the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services approved the Manchester facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit renewal on May 13 without evaluating or determining whether 'in light of discharges and emissions of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the Manchester WWTF' the treatment facility's permitted activities will comply with New Hampshire's water quality standard for toxic substances and the Merrimack River's designated use for fish consumption. Merrimack River The Merrimack River in Manchester 'People deserve safe, clean water, and state regulators have a critical role to ensure that's what we have in New Hampshire,' Tom Irwin, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)'s vice president for New Hampshire, said in statement. 'By failing to consider whether PFAS chemicals are violating important safeguards intended to protect water and people from toxic pollutants, regulators are putting our environment and health at risk.' A request for comment from Manchester officials was not immediately returned Thursday. PFAS chemicals, known as "forever chemicals" because they do not break down in the environment or in human bodies, have been linked to several health problems like cancer; fertility issues; child-development disorders; hormonal dysfunction; and damage to the thyroid, kidney and liver. CLF says the chemicals are found in wastewater from industrial users sent to Manchester's treatment facility, the largest such plant in northern New England and the only one in New Hampshire that incinerates its sewage sludge. CLF's appeal argues the state agency failed to evaluate whether releases of PFAS chemicals from the facility — both in wastewater discharged into the Merrimack River, and emitted into the air from the facility's sludge-burning incinerator — violate water quality standards, including regulations aimed at protecting people who consume fish. In its appeal, CLF claims that the WWTF discharges 'treated' wastewater into the Merrimack River but the WWTF's treatment process does not address or remove PFAS. Manchester wastewater treatment plant stack The air emissions pipe from the Manchester wastewater treatment plant, as seen from Gay Street. 'The WWTF has detected PFAS in its influent and 'treated' effluent (wastewater) on a monthly basis since at least 2019,' the appeal says. 'In addition to discharging PFAS into the Merrimack River through wastewater discharges, the WWTF releases PFAS into the air through sludge incineration, as confirmed by data published in a peer-reviewed study in 2023 (the Seay Study).' The Manchester facility receives wastewater from at least 88 industrial users, 14 of which (including the city's closed landfill) are classified as Significant Industrial Users under EPA and local rules, the appeal says. 'The City of Manchester applied for a new (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit in 2019 and, in that application, did not disclose that its discharges contain PFAS,' the appeal says. When waste departs industrial sites in Manchester or surrounding communities like Bedford and Londonderry, it eventually winds up in the city's wastewater treatment facility, where a strainer removes debris. Solids settle at the bottom of a chamber until burned or put in a landfill, and bacteria eat any organic matter in the mix. The water is chlorinated, de-chlorinated, and put back into the Merrimack River. Leachate, a liquid found at landfill sites, is also handled at the Manchester facility. During the permit renewal process, CLF lawyers sent comments to the Department of Environmental Services in June 2024 that sources of PFAS — like wastewater treatment plants, landfills and manufacturing facilities — often disproportionately impact communities of color due to inequitable siting. 'Two U.S. Census Tracts that are located roughly two miles away from the WWTF and its incinerator are overburdened by environmental pollution,' the CLF wrote. 'One of these communities has a population that is 56 percent people of color, 62 percent low income ... another has a population that is 41 percent people of color, 43 percent low income. These two communities are located north and northeast of the facility, exposing them to health risks from breathing contaminated air when wind blows from the south. 'Manchester residents that fish near or downstream of the WWTF are also likely disproportionately impacted by the WWTF's PFAS pollution in water and air.' CLF lawyers claim PFAS pollution from the WWTF also threatens the health of residents in downstream communities that source their drinking water from the Merrimack River.
Boston Globe
12-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Cutting energy efficiency and renewables is not the answer to R.I.'s rising energy costs
Energy efficiency not only cuts Advertisement Rhode Island's 2024 Advertisement Building out more renewable energy in the state and region slowly but surely divorces our bill from polluting, price-volatile fossil gas, more commonly called natural gas. Right now, New England generates roughly 50 percent of its electricity from gas. That's gas we must purchase from a global market, which means prices can fluctuate wildly because of events outside of our control (like Russia's war on Ukraine). Gas companies want you to think that the solution to these cost issues is to commit billions of our hard-earned dollars into their businesses — because they profit from fracking gas and building pipelines to then ship it into our region. Rhode Island doesn't need more gas. What we do need are renewable alternatives that provide more predictable and stable pricing and to build out our clean energy economy, including battery storage for long-term reliability. As energy costs rise, Rhode Islanders deserve to have confidence that every dollar spent on the energy system is to our benefit. The good news is, there are proposed laws that can help. These bills would help make the state's energy system work for its customers by reigning in utility overspending, deploying modern and efficient technology to get the most out of our existing grid, and making sure community members are involved in making decisions. Advertisement Finally, Unfortunately, there isn't one silver bullet solution to cutting our energy bills. We need to make smart, strategic decisions that help Rhode Islanders cut energy demand and upgrade us to price-stable clean energy that is available right here in our state and region. But gas companies don't want that future for us. They are driven by their profits and not our ability to pay the bills. That's why they are pushing so hard to convince us that chopping programs like energy efficiency — which have provided significant cost savings and other benefits to Rhode Islanders — and relying even more on volatile out-of-state energy sources is the answer. Before brashly believing their disinformation, let us take a more thoughtful approach. One that's driven by what our families and businesses want — not one that parrots the talking points of fossil fuel companies and utilities driven by their bottom line. Rhode Islanders have the right to efficient, modern energy systems that cut bills and pollution — and we won't give up on strategies that help make an affordable, sustainable energy future a reality. Emily Koo is senior policy advocate and Rhode Island Program Director at Acadia Center and Jamie Rhodes is a senior attorney and the Director of Clean Buildings for the Conservation Law Foundation. Advertisement
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Clean Air' lawsuit settlement reached with Connecticut school bus company
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (WTNH) — A school bus company is required to stop 'unlawful idling' and purchase six electric school buses as part of a settlement reached with Conservation Law Foundation, foundation officials say Monday. All-Star Transportation was sued over alleged Clean Air Act violations related to tailpipe emissions in Brookfield, New Milford, Seymour, and Waterbury. State leaders, officials push for clean air quality for Connecticut schools As part of the settlement, the company will also have to create charging infrastructure for the new buses. It's all estimated to cost about $2.5 million. They'll also have to enhance their idling training and do walkthroughs to monitor idling. Plus, they'll have to pay $300,000 to R.A.C.C.E. Inc. to fund air quality monitoring projects in Waterbury. AllStar-Ordered-CD-6.5.25Download 'Holding polluters accountable to idling laws protects public health and the environment,' Conservation Law Foundation staff attorney Ameya Gehi said. 'When a vehicle idles, it spews harmful tailpipe pollution into the air, harming our lungs and communities. Less idling and fewer fossil-fueled buses means cleaner, safer air for Connecticut residents.' CLF officials said the lawsuit was part of their anti-idling campaign. Since 2019, they've filed nine cases against transportation companies in Connecticut and Massachusetts. News 8 has reached out to All-Star Transportation for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
States continue with bold efforts to force companies to clean up their mess: 'Not paying their fair share for the ... crisis that they've caused'
Nearly a dozen states have drafted legislation to hold dirty energy companies fiscally responsible for environmental harms and the impact of rising temperatures they've caused. In 2024, lawmakers in Vermont advanced legislation "modeled after the EPA's Superfund program." A year prior, residents experienced unprecedented, catastrophic flooding, a form of extreme weather the state later warned would likely become more common, including because of a warming climate. Vermont's first-of-its-kind legislation was passed in June 2024. At the time, Elena Mihaly of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill was not about "punishing" oil companies. "If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up," Mihaly told the Guardian. According to Grist, Vermont's novel Superfund bill "requires major oil and gas companies to pay for climate-related disaster and adaptation costs, based on their share of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades." The state encountered predictable pushback from dirty fuel corporations and lobbyists, but that hasn't stopped other states from adopting the same approach. Lawmakers in New York passed similar legislation in June 2024, ultimately seeking $75 billion from oil companies. Efforts to make "polluters pay" were already underway in California when swaths of the broader Los Angeles area were devastated by another form of extreme weather — devastating wildfires that engulfed homes, caused chaotic evacuations, and killed 30 people. By March, costs associated with the January 2025 wildfires were estimated at between "$76 billion and $131 billion, with insured losses estimated [at] up to $45 billion." California's efforts to make polluters pay hit a roadblock in the form of a successful, $80 million lobbying effort to spike the bill — but as extreme weather becomes a "new norm" and disaster costs stack up, lawmakers persist in their attempts to hold oil companies accountable. "We realized that these big fossil fuel companies were, frankly, not paying their fair share for the climate crisis that they've caused," said Adrian Boafo, a Maryland state delegate and co-sponsor of a similar superfund bill. Big Oil's big pockets are infamous, and efforts to sabotage state-level Superfund bills are not unexpected. Nevertheless, the costs of a warming globe aren't going anywhere, and neither are the state lawmakers faced with ever-increasing cleanup costs. Do you think gas stoves should be banned nationwide? No way Let each state decide I'm not sure Definitely Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Columbia University climate law fellow Martin Lockman, who said advancing science has made it much easier to attribute emissions to specific companies, told Grist that state-level politicians can't ignore the issue at a budgetary level, due to "really serious questions about how our society is going to allocate the harms of climate change." "I suspect that the lawmakers who are advocating for these bills are in it for the long haul," Lockman observed. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Boston Globe
02-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Federal proposal puts $335m grant for realignment of Mass. Pike in Allston in jeopardy
But since President Trump began his second term, calling Advertisement The state agency declined to comment beyond a spokesperson saying it was 'aware of the proposal.' Advertisement As part of the Republican-led effort to advance Trump's agenda, the 'What we're seeing right now is the Trump administration and a cohort of followers making an extremely partisan play in the executive and legislative branches that would have drastic negative consequences across party lines, whether you look at Massachusetts or elsewhere in the country,' said Seth Gadbois, a clean transportation attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy organization. The move by lawmakers followed a Overall, the transportation agenda of the Trump administration seems geared toward pushing federal dollars toward rural areas, and infrastructure to support private vehicles, and away from mass transit in urban areas with more racially diverse populations, Advertisement 'It's deeply concerning to think that an agency that is meant to safely and accessibly move people and goods around in the best possible way to reduce harm is doing the exact opposite,' Muratore said. In the case of the ambitious proposal for Allston, which would stitch together a stretch of the neighborhood divided by the construction of the Mass. Pike in the 1960s, and has been Already, as state transportation officials have faced The loss of the federal funding would not be surprising given the protracted planning, Kane said, but it would 'speak to a bigger issue, which is the fact that we just can't seem to move big projects quickly around here.' Still, it is early in the complicated budget reconciliation process. The proposal could fail to clear both chambers of Congress — and if it does pass, the move to claw back the funds might end up being challenged in court. Advertisement 'We're kind of in the second inning here of a nine-inning game,' said Tom Glynn, one of the most prominent civic leaders in Boston. 'A lot of this is uncharted territory and needs to get sorted out.' Regardless of what happens, Gadbois, a fierce advocate of the Allston Multimodal Project, said they are confident 'there is still a path forward,' calling the development 'an unfortunate step backwards.' 'But I don't want to treat it like a foregone conclusion either,' Gadbois said. 'In a moment where the federal level of government is attacking these kinds of initiatives, I think it presents an even stronger moment for MassDOT to stand strong to the commitments it's making to the Allston community and build a project that does right by them today and for the future generations of community members that will live there.' Shannon Larson can be reached at
