A New England environmental advocacy group is appealing a decision by federal regulators to issue a permit to Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant without limits on PFAS, a group of man-made chemicals.
In a filing with a federal environmental appeals board, the Conservation Law Foundation argues the Environmental Protection Agency did not do enough to analyze and address discharges of PFAS from the treatment facility and did not follow its own environmental justice policies — that is, policies designed to address disproportionate impacts on historically under-served communities.
The Manchester Wastewater Treatment Facility’s new permit requires it to monitor for PFAS chemicals in the wastewater that comes into the plant once per quarter. But it doesn’t put a limit on the levels of PFAS that can be in the water that comes out of the plant and is discharged into the Merrimack River.
The treatment plant doesn’t add PFAS to the water. But those so-called forever chemicals from industrial waste and everyday trash get concentrated there and are then released into the environment. Exposure to those chemicals may lead to harmful health outcomes, like certain cancers.
Manchester city officials could set rules that require industrial facilities to pre-treat the wastewater they send through the city’s plant for PFAS chemicals. In Minnesota, state regulators have sought to limit PFAS in wastewater. But last year, federal officials said they don’t yet have enough data to create requirements for PFAS themselves.
In their appeal of the EPA’s permit decision, the Conservation Law Foundation argues the EPA failed to address issues that were raised before the approval of the permit, including the fact that the PFAS the facility is discharging into the Merrimack River may violate New Hampshire’s state water quality criteria.
The appeal also notes that the EPA’s own plan for addressing PFAS pollution says the agency will use the permitting process to “reduce PFAS discharges in waterways,” but argues the permit for Manchester’s facility does not do so.
Federal environmental justice policy is also at issue. The Conservation Law Foundation says the EPA issued a policy in 2024 identifying recommended practices to incorporate environmental justice considerations into permitting. But despite their urging, the advocacy group says federal regulators in EPA’s Region 1, the area that covers New England, did not take those steps.
“Despite Petitioner’s comments and the presence of overburdened communities in Manchester, the Region, contravening EPA’s Program Policy, engaged in no analysis or consideration of environmental justice concerns and failed even to hold a public hearing in the community,” they wrote.
In response to previous comments, the EPA told the Foundation that the permit was in line with the agency’s strategic plan on PFAS and that the Trump Administration has revoked other orders on which their environmental justice policy was based.
The Conservation Law Foundation is asking the appeals board to find that federal regulators violated the law and send the permit back to be re-considered. Their appeal also asks that the board allow oral arguments on the petition.
