This Pennsylvania settlement could set the standard for preventing tiny plastic pellet pollution
Given the detrimental effects of plastics on the environment and human health, the legal victory for Three Rivers Waterkeeper and PennEnvironment is a significant step forward in holding polluting companies accountable. By requiring Styropek to not only clean up its pollution but also install monitoring technology to prevent future releases of nurdles, the settlement sets a precedent for other companies in the plastics industry to follow suit.
The connection between plastics and climate change is also an important aspect to consider. As plastics are made from fossil fuels and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions throughout their lifecycle, reducing plastic pollution can help mitigate the impacts of climate change. With the plastics industry being one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, addressing plastic pollution is crucial in the fight against climate change.
Moving forward, it is essential for regulators and the plastics industry to take note of the Styropek settlement and implement similar measures to prevent plastic pollution. By holding companies accountable for their environmental impact and promoting sustainable practices, we can work towards a cleaner and healthier future for our planet.
Plastics have long been a major environmental concern, with their impact on marine life, waterways, and landfills well-documented. But a new lawsuit in Pennsylvania is shedding light on another, lesser-known issue: the climate impact of plastic production.
The lawsuit, brought by environmental groups PennEnvironment and Three Rivers Waterkeeper against plastics manufacturer Styropek, alleges that the company illegally released nurdles into Raccoon Creek, a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Nurdles are small plastic pellets used in the production of plastic products, and their release into waterways can have serious environmental consequences.
As part of a settlement agreement with Styropek, the company has agreed to eliminate nurdles from its stormwater and wastewater outfalls within a specified timeframe. This includes installing monitoring tools capable of detecting nurdles down to the individual particle, with fines imposed for any violations. The settlement also stipulates that these requirements will remain in place if Styropek sells its facility to another company.
While Styropek has not commented on the specifics of the lawsuit, the company has stated that it is committed to upholding the highest standards of safety, health, environmental protection, quality, and sustainability. They have already begun trialing technologies such as turbidity curtains and iron coagulants to remove plastic particles from their wastewater.
This case highlights the need for increased monitoring and regulation of plastic production facilities to prevent environmental harm. A similar settlement reached with Formosa Plastics in Texas, which required the installation of monitoring technology capable of detecting nurdles and other microplastics, serves as a helpful precedent for the industry.
Aiza José-Sánchez, president of Aizaco Environmental Engineering, designed the monitoring system used in the Formosa settlement. While she has not confirmed whether she has been approached about the Styropek case, she has made updates to her equipment with the intention of installing it at other plastics facilities.
The use of advanced monitoring technology is crucial in holding companies accountable for their environmental impact and ensuring compliance with regulations. By detecting and removing plastic particles from wastewater and stormwater, companies like Styropek can help mitigate the climate impact of plastic production and protect the environment for future generations. Flagged samples would undergo testing using chromatography, a method that separates dissolved substances from a mixture. This technique would be used to confirm whether the pollutants in the samples were indeed plastic.
The process works flawlessly every time, according to José-Sánchez. She mentioned that every inspection, conducted at least three times a week as per Formosa’s consent decree, has revealed plastic pollution. As a result of her company’s testing, Formosa has faced millions of dollars in fines.
Masur, from PennEnvironment, emphasized that the inclusion of monitoring technology in their settlement agreement, backed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, was a significant milestone. He believed that this aspect was more crucial than the $2.6 million penalty. Masur expressed his hope to establish a precedent similar to the Formosa case, proving that plastic producers can aim for “no plastic discharges” and monitor their facilities to ensure compliance.
“We wanted this to be the standard under the Clean Water Act,” stated Matthew Dononhue, a senior attorney at the National Environmental Law Center, who spearheaded the complaint against Styropek.
Donohue and Masur refrained from disclosing whether other environmental organizations were considering lawsuits to mandate continuous monitoring at plastic facilities. However, they proposed an alternative approach. Facilities with water pollution permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System have to renew their permits every five years, providing an opportunity for public input. With sufficient advocacy, state environmental protection agencies or the EPA could amend permits to include a monitoring requirement.
“As the facilities in our state seek permit renewals, we should be advocating for continuous monitoring,” Masur emphasized.
In conclusion, the utilization of chromatography for testing flagged samples to detect plastic pollutants has proven to be effective in holding plastic producers accountable for their environmental impact. The push for continuous monitoring at plastic facilities marks a significant step towards ensuring compliance with environmental regulations and reducing plastic pollution.
