The Alabama Environmental Management Commission held a public hearing last week to receive comments on proposed toxicity standards updates for the state’s water quality. The hearing drew testimony from environmental advocates, industry representatives and residents over how strictly Alabama should regulate harmful pollutants in its waterways.
The hearing, conducted as part of ADEM’s formal rulemaking process, focused on revisions to the Alabama Administrative Code, which sets numeric criteria for toxic substances allowed in surface waters. The proposal would update human health and aquatic life criteria for 12 chemicals, including arsenic, cyanide and several organic compounds, aligning state standards more closely with updated federal guidance and risk assessments.
Supporters of the changes said the revisions are overdue and necessary to protect drinking water sources, fish consumption and downstream communities.
Lucas Allison, field director for Coosa Riverkeeper, urged adoption of the revisions.
“The scope of this decision to update Alabama’s cancer potency factors and reference doses to match the most up-to-date criteria is far larger than this room,” said Allison. “Outside of these walls, outside of your offices, there are real families that will be affected and may even have their lives changed for the better due to this decision.”
Allison said the delay in updating toxicity factors cannot be justified by scientific uncertainty.
“It is clear to me, and to many citizens of Alabama, that the delay in updating these factors is not based on conflicting scientific evidence nor on a conclusion that existing protections are sufficient,” said Allison. “The science points clearly in one direction.”
Eva Dillard, staff attorney with Black Warrior Riverkeeper, argued that the department is obligated to adopt the revised values under existing regulations that reference EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, known as IRIS.
“We believe these proposed revisions are legally required,” said Dillard. “Because ADEM has not established any additional or alternative values, we believe the department must use the values set out in IRIS and incorporated by the proposed revisions.”
Industry and municipal representatives, however, warned that the revisions could have significant regulatory and financial consequences.
J.P. Martin, an environmental engineer with Jacobs Engineering representing the city of Auburn, said the city is concerned about feasibility and cost.
“The city, however, does express strong concern that Adam’s proposed changes to calculating the factors for the 12 pollutants, which would significantly lower existing human health criteria without ADEM identifying corresponding public health benefits, nor providing an economic impact analysis,” said Martin.
Jon Barganier, president and CEO of Manufacture Alabama, questioned the scientific review process behind the proposal.
“It appears the department is proposing the adoption of EPA-recommended values without any showing that ADEM conducted an independent, comprehensive evaluation of the science, public health needs, or economic impacts,” said Barganier.
Barganier added that adopting the values could place Alabama at a competitive disadvantage.
“If these values are adopted, Alabama will become an outlier with some of the most strict standards in the nation,” said Barganier.
Skyler Espy, executive director of the Alabama Pulp and Paper Council, echoed those concerns and called for additional review.
“Because no evaluation was done here, we have no assurance that the proposed changes are based on the best available and most relevant scientific data,” said Espy. “Because of this, we respectfully ask the department not to move forward with the rule making at this time.”
ADEM will now review oral and written comments before making a recommendation to the Alabama Environmental Management Commission, which will ultimately decide whether the proposed revisions move forward.
