buttmasterflex

I agree with the sentiment as well. The unfortunate part of this is people pointing fingers at Ohio EPA when the agency can only act within their legal authority. Ohio EPA cannot grant or deny a business’s ability to operate up front like that. In this scenario they can only set limits for contaminants and enforce them. If bad actors violate those limits, then they can issue violations, assess fines, and refer cases to the AG for criminal prosecution. In extreme cases they can force a company to stop operating until violations are resolved.

Yes, I work on both state and federally administrated RCRA closure and corrective action sites and state administrated CERCLA sites

Totally valid. Most of the sites I work on, the contamination happened before regulations were written. Chlorinated solvents are a big problem from metal degreasing, industrial cleaning, etc. Pre-hazardous waste laws, the manufacturer instructions were to pour spent solvents on the ground and let it evaporate. With current knowledge that is clearly not a good thing to do, but the hazards were unknown to the general public. So that stuff happened in the 1950s to early 1970s is still being cleaned up. It would have been ideal for it not to have happened in the first place, but it’s not like companies are doing that anymore (if they are operating appropriately).

TL;DR Yes, but reality is nuanced, as always.

The recent federal bullshit is a definitely the culmination of decades of industry trying to undo environmental regulations. Moving forward, it’s going to take serious efforts and funds to repair and rebuild how much the US EPA and federal sciences were gutted. Some states are actually doing far better. On the environmental side of things, Ohio is actually pretty good. The programs are based on the federal ones and also have more protective limits to some things. Unfortunately, not all states have the resources or programs in place.

To your specific points, treated sewage solids have been spread on ag land for decades. Concentrates animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been polluting waterways through permit exemptions for decades. A huge issue with land applied sewage solids is PFAS, which is just now publicly coming to light. There are vast deficiencies in the way things have been happening all along that still happened in the “golden era”.

Negligent or intentional releases of hazardous waste onto the surface or into waterways has been greatly curtailed across the board. There are going to to be ups and downs in speed due to the reality of investigation and cleanup work, regulatory review time frames, and the thorough nature of the programs. The “fast” version of a facility cleanup that I’ve been part of, where problems were addressed as they were discovered, still took from 2009 to 2018, then massive reporting efforts that took US EPA 5 years to come back with a final decision.

ETA: Most sites I have worked on in my career have been legacy contamination sites, meaning things happened in tue 50s-80s, and the companies responsible have been purchased 2 or 3 times since (or are entirely defunct). The companies that bought the sites and liabilities generally want to do the right thing and clean up the issues to mitigate human health and environmental risks. They also don’t want to go bankrupt in the process, which is part of why things take so long. Environmental work is expensive, and the time frames for cleanup and monitoring can be years to decades to “in perpetuity” for some issues.

Yes. there are stipulations in the draft water about maximum withdrawal from surface water sources and required continuous monitoring of water temperature of the discharges.

I have worked in environmental consulting for the past decade and have routinely dealt with Ohio EPA on both hazardous waste investigation/remediation and NPDES permitted discharges. I have been part of teams preparing and submitting antidegradation and NPDES permit renewals, as well as maintaining compliance with existing permits. After reading through the news article and then the actual draft permit, the news article is very sensationalized. I am in no way defending the data centers or operators. The news article correctly states the discharges are untreated but fails to mention the strict monitoring requirements that would in place to maintain antidegradation and conform with Ohio Water Quality Standards and public water supply standards. There is also a Notice of Intent that requires the applicant to meet a list of requirements to even be considered for discharging under the general permit. NPDES permitting is a federal program that is also administered by the states. Ohio EPA is setting some pretty stringent limits under their authority in their draft permit, and the public and news organizations are cherry picking and/or don’t have the background to understand the permit requirements.

Draft permit and fact sheets here.