As Hg-ATME has reported (several Nevada Posts are here) Nevada began cracking down on gold mining operations in the state, requiring testing to actually determine the levels of mercury being emitted. Heretofore the amounts were only estimated by the mines, and estimated quite poorly I might add. From Yubanet.com an excerpt from a recent article;
New emissions data, obtained from the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), show that northern Nevada gold mines are still under-reporting substantial amounts of mercury air pollution. It also reveals that a number of mines that were previously considered small sources of mercury air pollution are actually very large sources, yet these mines have few pollution controls in place. Until 2006, mines were not required to actually measure mercury releases, only estimate mercury emissions.
[...]
"We now know that hundreds of pounds of mercury are needlessly going into our air from mines that have minimal controls in place," said John Hadder of Great Basin Mine Watch. "This new information is a wake-up call. We want the State and industry to agree to get controls in place right away."
Under Nevada's new mercury regulations, the four largest mercury polluters were prioritized as "Tier 1" mines and all the smaller emitters as "Tier 2" mines based on information available at the time. The new emissions data, however, reveals that a number of the Tier 2 mines are actually large sources of mercury air pollution. For example:
* The Florida Canyon mine submitted no mercury pollution reports to the EPA for the last eight years, yet the new information indicates that the mine is a large source of emissions, reporting 440 pounds of emissions in a 2006 report to NDEP.
* The Rawhide Mine submitted reports to the EPA of just 0-1 pound of emissions for each of previous 8 years, yet it reported 351 pounds of emissions to NDEP in 2006. The mine is currently winding down operations.
Other "Tier 2" mines that are now reporting large emissions include the Newmont Lone Tree mine at 622 pounds and the Glamis Gold mine at 1,010 pounds in 2006.
And this added information from Desert News below;
An employee at the Florida Canyon mine referred questions to mine manager Martin Price, who was not immediately available for comment.
The Rawhide mine is owned by Utah-based Kennecott, a subsidiary of the international conglomerate Rio Tinto.
Rio Tinto spokesman Louie Cononelos said he could not comment until hearing back from Rawhide officials.
Mark Amodei, president of the Nevada Mining Association, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
The three environmental groups gave the two mines a 60-day notice of their intent to sue over alleged failure to report mercury emissions as required under federal law.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Nevada. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Nevada. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Nevada Mines Mercury Emissions Testing Continues
From the Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources. Full article here.
The initial phase of mercury emissions testing at Nevada’s largest precious metal mines is nearing completion, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) reports that the program is on schedule and working as expected.
[...]
“The initial testing results do indeed show that the units are emitting different forms of mercury,” said Colleen Cripps, Ph.D., deputy administrator of NDEP in charge of air programs. “We have not seen any unexpected events, considering the high level of sophisticated testing involving a complex industrial process. In short, the regulatory program is working as we expected.”
This is unique as these are the only mines in the country to perform this type of testing. The preliminary results are interesting and tend to support the early concerns. The issue is discussed in greater detail in the Las Vegas Sun article here. Excerpt follows.
Tests found the presence of an oxidized, vaporous form of mercury, but further tests are needed to determine how much.
"The oxidized form is the most reactive form, the form that is deposited more locally. That's the one that could potentially make it into Nevada waterways," Pistone said.
The Assembly this week unanimously approved AB115, which would require higher fees of mining companies to pay for two new positions at NDEP to regulate mercury emissions. The proposal has support from Gov. Jim Gibbons, Pistone said.
The initial phase of mercury emissions testing at Nevada’s largest precious metal mines is nearing completion, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) reports that the program is on schedule and working as expected.
[...]
“The initial testing results do indeed show that the units are emitting different forms of mercury,” said Colleen Cripps, Ph.D., deputy administrator of NDEP in charge of air programs. “We have not seen any unexpected events, considering the high level of sophisticated testing involving a complex industrial process. In short, the regulatory program is working as we expected.”
This is unique as these are the only mines in the country to perform this type of testing. The preliminary results are interesting and tend to support the early concerns. The issue is discussed in greater detail in the Las Vegas Sun article here. Excerpt follows.
Tests found the presence of an oxidized, vaporous form of mercury, but further tests are needed to determine how much.
"The oxidized form is the most reactive form, the form that is deposited more locally. That's the one that could potentially make it into Nevada waterways," Pistone said.
The Assembly this week unanimously approved AB115, which would require higher fees of mining companies to pay for two new positions at NDEP to regulate mercury emissions. The proposal has support from Gov. Jim Gibbons, Pistone said.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Idaho Board of Environmental Quality Folds Under Industry Pressure
In a state that doesn't even have a single coal fired EGU, the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality caved in to an industry lead attack on its request for a voluntary program for mercury emission reductions. Idaho, a state that pushed hard to get neighboring Nevada to control mercury emissions from their gold mining operations, can't find the backbone internally to support a voluntary program. Seems sort of strange to me.
A reprint from an Idaho Statesman article quoting a post by blogger Rocky Barker follows;
In a cloud of uncertainty, the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality backed off its efforts to strengthen rules to regulate industries that emit mercury into the air.
The board voted down a motion Feb. 12 that would have asked industries to voluntarily (emphasis added) install the best available technology for removing mercury from their smokestacks under a well-coordinated lobbying effort by the Idaho Association of Industry and Commerce, the Idaho Council on Industry and Environment and Monsanto Corp., whose P4 phosphate plant in Caribou County in Southeast Idaho is the state's largest mercury source.
The industry groups rolled over the Idaho Conservation League, which had petitioned to get the board to regulate mercury in the state in an effort to combat the pollutant that accumulates in fish and can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in babies and young children. The ICL and its program manager Justin Hayes had successfully led the effort to get the state of Nevada to require gold mines in that neighboring state to restrict much higher mercury emissions after studies showed that winds were carrying the neurotoxin into Idaho and that at least one reservoir, Salmon Falls Creek south of Twin Falls, had high mercury levels.
Hayes had convinced federal and Nevada officials that their voluntary program was allowing miners to pump thousands of pounds of mercury into the air. Today, Nevada has one of the strongest mercury abatement programs for mines in the world.
But the case for regulation was not as clear in Idaho, and the industry groups were far more sophisticated about exploiting the uncertainty in the science.
They hired one of the world's top mercury pollution experts, Steve Lindberg, a retired environmental chemist from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. He has helped develop mercury rules for states and the EPA and has worked on both sides of the issue throughout his career.
He said in a report and a presentation to the board that the science linking a source like the P4 plant to high mercury levels in fish in nearby reservoirs was not yet clear enough. He raised questions about whether atmospheric mercury pollution was as serious a problem in the American West as it is in the East, where there is more rain and more wet deposition of the pollutant.
And he even raised doubts, based on yet unpublished research, that the high mercury levels in Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir were linked to the massive mercury pollution that had come from the mines in Nevada before they were regulated.
Previously, the board had heard from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency experts that models showed a source like the P4 plant could be linked to the elevated mercury levels in nearby lakes. But even Hayes acknowledged that science was not yet clear.
He urged the board to put in place regulations that would limit mercury pollution, especially in new sources. The current regulations are aimed at keeping mercury inhalation by workers and people near a plant low. But they allow a company to emit huge levels of mercury, as much as 100,000 pounds, which all agree would be harmful to the state's aquatic systems.
But the P4's emissions, at 600-700 pounds, are far below such numbers. They still are higher than coal-fired power plants. Its officials say they have erred on the high side of their estimates because EPA reporting requirements have high penalties for reporting below actual emissions.
And Monsanto says its scrubbers for other pollutants have reduced mercury emissions. It proposed that the state use water quality regulations to control mercury levels in lakes instead of air regulations.
"This confusion and uncertainty makes it hard for us to make rules," said Nick Purdy, a board member from Picabo.
So the state's flawed rules - even by Lindberg's opinion - stay in place for now.
It is situations like this where local industry groups fight a local regulation because they can shed doubt on its local effects that scream for Federal action. No one denies that mercury emissions, like the 600 - 700 pounds per year coming from the Monsanto plant are adding to the global problem of mercury emissions; they simply say our emissions aren't necessarily effecting our waters and thus our citizens, so we should not regulate them. Damn everybody downwind, and oh, by the way, let's get tough with everybody upwind of us and get them to regulate, but not us. What a joke.
A reprint from an Idaho Statesman article quoting a post by blogger Rocky Barker follows;
In a cloud of uncertainty, the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality backed off its efforts to strengthen rules to regulate industries that emit mercury into the air.
The board voted down a motion Feb. 12 that would have asked industries to voluntarily (emphasis added) install the best available technology for removing mercury from their smokestacks under a well-coordinated lobbying effort by the Idaho Association of Industry and Commerce, the Idaho Council on Industry and Environment and Monsanto Corp., whose P4 phosphate plant in Caribou County in Southeast Idaho is the state's largest mercury source.
The industry groups rolled over the Idaho Conservation League, which had petitioned to get the board to regulate mercury in the state in an effort to combat the pollutant that accumulates in fish and can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in babies and young children. The ICL and its program manager Justin Hayes had successfully led the effort to get the state of Nevada to require gold mines in that neighboring state to restrict much higher mercury emissions after studies showed that winds were carrying the neurotoxin into Idaho and that at least one reservoir, Salmon Falls Creek south of Twin Falls, had high mercury levels.
Hayes had convinced federal and Nevada officials that their voluntary program was allowing miners to pump thousands of pounds of mercury into the air. Today, Nevada has one of the strongest mercury abatement programs for mines in the world.
But the case for regulation was not as clear in Idaho, and the industry groups were far more sophisticated about exploiting the uncertainty in the science.
They hired one of the world's top mercury pollution experts, Steve Lindberg, a retired environmental chemist from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. He has helped develop mercury rules for states and the EPA and has worked on both sides of the issue throughout his career.
He said in a report and a presentation to the board that the science linking a source like the P4 plant to high mercury levels in fish in nearby reservoirs was not yet clear enough. He raised questions about whether atmospheric mercury pollution was as serious a problem in the American West as it is in the East, where there is more rain and more wet deposition of the pollutant.
And he even raised doubts, based on yet unpublished research, that the high mercury levels in Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir were linked to the massive mercury pollution that had come from the mines in Nevada before they were regulated.
Previously, the board had heard from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency experts that models showed a source like the P4 plant could be linked to the elevated mercury levels in nearby lakes. But even Hayes acknowledged that science was not yet clear.
He urged the board to put in place regulations that would limit mercury pollution, especially in new sources. The current regulations are aimed at keeping mercury inhalation by workers and people near a plant low. But they allow a company to emit huge levels of mercury, as much as 100,000 pounds, which all agree would be harmful to the state's aquatic systems.
But the P4's emissions, at 600-700 pounds, are far below such numbers. They still are higher than coal-fired power plants. Its officials say they have erred on the high side of their estimates because EPA reporting requirements have high penalties for reporting below actual emissions.
And Monsanto says its scrubbers for other pollutants have reduced mercury emissions. It proposed that the state use water quality regulations to control mercury levels in lakes instead of air regulations.
"This confusion and uncertainty makes it hard for us to make rules," said Nick Purdy, a board member from Picabo.
So the state's flawed rules - even by Lindberg's opinion - stay in place for now.
It is situations like this where local industry groups fight a local regulation because they can shed doubt on its local effects that scream for Federal action. No one denies that mercury emissions, like the 600 - 700 pounds per year coming from the Monsanto plant are adding to the global problem of mercury emissions; they simply say our emissions aren't necessarily effecting our waters and thus our citizens, so we should not regulate them. Damn everybody downwind, and oh, by the way, let's get tough with everybody upwind of us and get them to regulate, but not us. What a joke.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Nevada Groups Settle on Mercury Legislation for Mining Sector
From Nevada Appeal, excerpt below;
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, managed Monday to bring parties from the miners to environmentalists together to support legislation tightening controls over mercury emissions from Nevada mines.
AB115 originally drew protests from those groups, but Leslie told the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee those issues have been resolved by amendments that essentially rewrite the bill.
(...)
The amended bill provides additional regulations to improve worker health and safety in Nevada mines. It also adds two inspectors to the Division of Mines, who will make unannounced visits to mines in the state to make sure they are following rules designed to prevent mercury spills and emissions both in the water and air.
(...)
Steve Robinson of the governor's staff said with that support, Gov. Jim Gibbons will also support the legislation. He said the compromise is proof the state "can address environmental concerns and still have a healthy mining industry."
Kyle Davis, of the Nevada Conservation League, said that organization supports the bill as "something we can all get behind and that will make a difference."
Compromise is such a sweet thing. You can read the full article here.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, managed Monday to bring parties from the miners to environmentalists together to support legislation tightening controls over mercury emissions from Nevada mines.
AB115 originally drew protests from those groups, but Leslie told the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee those issues have been resolved by amendments that essentially rewrite the bill.
(...)
The amended bill provides additional regulations to improve worker health and safety in Nevada mines. It also adds two inspectors to the Division of Mines, who will make unannounced visits to mines in the state to make sure they are following rules designed to prevent mercury spills and emissions both in the water and air.
(...)
Steve Robinson of the governor's staff said with that support, Gov. Jim Gibbons will also support the legislation. He said the compromise is proof the state "can address environmental concerns and still have a healthy mining industry."
Kyle Davis, of the Nevada Conservation League, said that organization supports the bill as "something we can all get behind and that will make a difference."
Compromise is such a sweet thing. You can read the full article here.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Impacts of the Vacated CAMR
I promised to keep up to date on fallout from the recently vacated CAMR. It is my understanding that EPA has until the 24th of March to decide if it wants to appeal the Appellate Court ruling, so until that time we are still in some state of limbo.
Environmental Groups Rally Around Ruling
But that is not stopping environmental groups from using the ruling to now add mercury to their fight against permitting new coal burning power plants. Mercury was always an issue but has recently taken a back seat to Greenhouse Gases. At least for now with the courts siding with MACT as the correct avenue for mercury regulations, previously permitted plants and ones close in the process are now facing new hurdles to clear in their path. An excerpt from a Forbes article on the subject follows;
But for now, as lawmakers wrestle with how best to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the plant's opponents are focused instead on a few dozen pounds of mercury as they fight to keep it from ever coming online.
[...]
'It does give environmentalists another tool, another hook to use when arguing that it's time to phase these things out,' said Scott Edwards, a lawyer for the New York-based environmental group Waterkeeper Alliance. 'And the law gives us that argument. And public health gives us that argument. And ecological and aquatic health gives us that argument.'
Duke's new $2.4 billion generator, at its existing Cliffside Steam Station about 50 miles west of Charlotte, is among more than 20 coal-fired plants now under construction nationwide.
While the rate of construction is the most in more that two decades, environmentalist say they have already helped delay or completely block nearly 60 other projects.
An article in EarthTimes, picked up from PRNewswire, echoes the conclusions drawn by NRDC on the impacts the Feb 8th ruling is having on plant construction across the country. Some pieces from that article follow;
The prospects for 32 coal-fired power plants in 13 states have been shaken up in the wake of a February 8, 2008 federal appeals court ruling that requires each new coal-fired power plant in the U.S. to adopt stringent toxic air pollution control measures meeting the most rigorous standards under the Clean Air Act, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD).
The states identified with the most coal-fired power plants now up in the air are: Michigan (four), Wyoming (four), Illinois (three), Nevada (three), Ohio (three), Pennsylvania (three), Texas (three), Iowa (two), Kentucky (two), Louisiana (two), Georgia (one), New Mexico (one) and North Carolina (one).
The ruling will impact various aspects of three dozen or more coal-fired power plants, including some now already under construction.
Major coal-fired power plants impacted by the ruling include: LS Power White Pine (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Sierra Ely (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Toquop (850 MW - permit pending in Nevada) Desert Rock (Sithe Global's 1500 MW in New Mexico); Longleaf ( LS Power's 1200 MW Plant in Georgia); Cliffside (Duke Energy's 800 MW Plant in North Carolina); Alliant Marshalltown (600 MW - permit pending in Iowa); LS Power Waterloo (750 MW - permit pending in Iowa); AMP (1000 MW - permit challenged in Ohio); LS Power/Dynegy (750 MW in Michigan). For a complete list of all 32 plants, go to http://www.nrdc.org/.
Natural Resources Defense Council Clean Air Director/Senior Attorney John Walke said: "The February 8th court ruling will have far-reaching consequences for coal-fired power plant construction, permitting and pollution controls. This important new legal tool will increase the pollution control obligations for new coal-fired power plants, raise the already considerable expense of these projects, and add to the weight of arguments that the public deploys to oppose conventional coal-fired plants."
Wisconsin DNR Mulls New Mercury Timetable
The WI-DNR may make a trade-off with utilities. They are proposing to extend the deadline for 90% mercury reduction if the utilities will reduce acid rain gases even further. The controversial compromise has received both favorable and critical comments. A few excerpts from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel follow;
State regulators will propose a new plan this month giving utilities more time to cut mercury emissions from power plants if they make reductions in a pair of other key pollutants
[...]
The DNR has called for a 90% cut in the past. But the agency also is offering an inducement for utilities to delay compliance from 2015 to 2021 if they also make reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
[...]
As the public weighs in, a key business group will complain that the change will lead to higher electricity prices. One environmental group likes the approach, while another says it doesn't go as far as neighboring states. And one large utility thinks a national plan is better than a state approach.
[...]
Keith Reopelle, program director for Clean Wisconsin, said his group believes the DNR's latest proposal has merit. He said utilities' claims about the technology needed to make big cuts in mercury are no longer valid.
He cited data from the Institute of Clean Air Companies of Washington, D.C., showing 82 projects making substantial reductions in mercury.
But environmental groups are split on the issue. The Sierra Club believes Wisconsin is moving too slowly. Eric Uram, conservation chair of the club's John Muir chapter, said Illinois will move to a 90% reduction by 2012.
"It's not far enough; it's not fast enough," Uram said.
Milwaukee-based We Energies declined to comment on the proposal until it has a chance to study it.
A spokesman for Madison-based Alliant Energy, which operates in several Midwestern states, said a state rule should follow a federal rule. Spokesman Rob Crain said Alliant thinks that after the defeat in federal court, the EPA will move quickly with another federal mercury rule.
EPA Unionized Workers Voicing Concerns
Union leadership representing more than 10,000 EPA employees have just withdrawn their cooperation with politically appointed leadership. The recent EPA refusal of the California waiver on GHGs and the Feb 8th Circuit Court ruling on CAMR have emboldened (gotta love that word) rank and file members against what they feel has been a disservice to their service. An AP article details some of their concerns;
Nineteen union local presidents representing more than 10,000 Environmental Protection Agency employees signed a letter to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson last Friday accusing him of "abuses of our good nature and trust."
Under Johnson's leadership EPA has ignored jointly developed principles of scientific integrity "whenever political direction from other federal entities or private sector interests so direct," the unions charged.
Asked for comment, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said only: "As a 27-year career EPA scientist, the administrator values the expertise and advice of his staff and will do so through his time in leadership."
The letter cited the California greenhouse gas waiver denial and several other issues, including mercury emissions from power plants.
[...]
"EPA boasts of the principles of scientific integrity before the Congress and the public as an example of EPA's dedication to using only good science in its decision-making, but refuses to agree to an adjudication process for resolving disputes arising from alleged violations," says the letter, released Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
[...]
Evans said that the purpose of the Clinton-era National Labor-Management Partnership Council was for senior agency officials and workers to deal with workplace and other issues before the decision stage.
Instead, "what we found is decisions are being made and they're being presented to us," said Evans.
The union leaders told Johnson they'd be suspending involvement in the partnership council "until we receive from you a clear commitment and specific direction."
To most casual observers and certainly to those paying any attention at all it is a surprise it took so long for the rank and file EPA employees to step up and voice these concerns. I know EPA has lost a lot of talent in the last seven years but the union leadership has been very quiet to this point. Looking out for the job security of some 10,000 dues paying members will do that I suppose.
Environmental Groups Rally Around Ruling
But that is not stopping environmental groups from using the ruling to now add mercury to their fight against permitting new coal burning power plants. Mercury was always an issue but has recently taken a back seat to Greenhouse Gases. At least for now with the courts siding with MACT as the correct avenue for mercury regulations, previously permitted plants and ones close in the process are now facing new hurdles to clear in their path. An excerpt from a Forbes article on the subject follows;
But for now, as lawmakers wrestle with how best to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the plant's opponents are focused instead on a few dozen pounds of mercury as they fight to keep it from ever coming online.
[...]
'It does give environmentalists another tool, another hook to use when arguing that it's time to phase these things out,' said Scott Edwards, a lawyer for the New York-based environmental group Waterkeeper Alliance. 'And the law gives us that argument. And public health gives us that argument. And ecological and aquatic health gives us that argument.'
Duke's new $2.4 billion generator, at its existing Cliffside Steam Station about 50 miles west of Charlotte, is among more than 20 coal-fired plants now under construction nationwide.
While the rate of construction is the most in more that two decades, environmentalist say they have already helped delay or completely block nearly 60 other projects.
An article in EarthTimes, picked up from PRNewswire, echoes the conclusions drawn by NRDC on the impacts the Feb 8th ruling is having on plant construction across the country. Some pieces from that article follow;
The prospects for 32 coal-fired power plants in 13 states have been shaken up in the wake of a February 8, 2008 federal appeals court ruling that requires each new coal-fired power plant in the U.S. to adopt stringent toxic air pollution control measures meeting the most rigorous standards under the Clean Air Act, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD).
The states identified with the most coal-fired power plants now up in the air are: Michigan (four), Wyoming (four), Illinois (three), Nevada (three), Ohio (three), Pennsylvania (three), Texas (three), Iowa (two), Kentucky (two), Louisiana (two), Georgia (one), New Mexico (one) and North Carolina (one).
The ruling will impact various aspects of three dozen or more coal-fired power plants, including some now already under construction.
Major coal-fired power plants impacted by the ruling include: LS Power White Pine (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Sierra Ely (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Toquop (850 MW - permit pending in Nevada) Desert Rock (Sithe Global's 1500 MW in New Mexico); Longleaf ( LS Power's 1200 MW Plant in Georgia); Cliffside (Duke Energy's 800 MW Plant in North Carolina); Alliant Marshalltown (600 MW - permit pending in Iowa); LS Power Waterloo (750 MW - permit pending in Iowa); AMP (1000 MW - permit challenged in Ohio); LS Power/Dynegy (750 MW in Michigan). For a complete list of all 32 plants, go to http://www.nrdc.org/.
Natural Resources Defense Council Clean Air Director/Senior Attorney John Walke said: "The February 8th court ruling will have far-reaching consequences for coal-fired power plant construction, permitting and pollution controls. This important new legal tool will increase the pollution control obligations for new coal-fired power plants, raise the already considerable expense of these projects, and add to the weight of arguments that the public deploys to oppose conventional coal-fired plants."
Wisconsin DNR Mulls New Mercury Timetable
The WI-DNR may make a trade-off with utilities. They are proposing to extend the deadline for 90% mercury reduction if the utilities will reduce acid rain gases even further. The controversial compromise has received both favorable and critical comments. A few excerpts from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel follow;
State regulators will propose a new plan this month giving utilities more time to cut mercury emissions from power plants if they make reductions in a pair of other key pollutants
[...]
The DNR has called for a 90% cut in the past. But the agency also is offering an inducement for utilities to delay compliance from 2015 to 2021 if they also make reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
[...]
As the public weighs in, a key business group will complain that the change will lead to higher electricity prices. One environmental group likes the approach, while another says it doesn't go as far as neighboring states. And one large utility thinks a national plan is better than a state approach.
[...]
Keith Reopelle, program director for Clean Wisconsin, said his group believes the DNR's latest proposal has merit. He said utilities' claims about the technology needed to make big cuts in mercury are no longer valid.
He cited data from the Institute of Clean Air Companies of Washington, D.C., showing 82 projects making substantial reductions in mercury.
But environmental groups are split on the issue. The Sierra Club believes Wisconsin is moving too slowly. Eric Uram, conservation chair of the club's John Muir chapter, said Illinois will move to a 90% reduction by 2012.
"It's not far enough; it's not fast enough," Uram said.
Milwaukee-based We Energies declined to comment on the proposal until it has a chance to study it.
A spokesman for Madison-based Alliant Energy, which operates in several Midwestern states, said a state rule should follow a federal rule. Spokesman Rob Crain said Alliant thinks that after the defeat in federal court, the EPA will move quickly with another federal mercury rule.
EPA Unionized Workers Voicing Concerns
Union leadership representing more than 10,000 EPA employees have just withdrawn their cooperation with politically appointed leadership. The recent EPA refusal of the California waiver on GHGs and the Feb 8th Circuit Court ruling on CAMR have emboldened (gotta love that word) rank and file members against what they feel has been a disservice to their service. An AP article details some of their concerns;
Nineteen union local presidents representing more than 10,000 Environmental Protection Agency employees signed a letter to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson last Friday accusing him of "abuses of our good nature and trust."
Under Johnson's leadership EPA has ignored jointly developed principles of scientific integrity "whenever political direction from other federal entities or private sector interests so direct," the unions charged.
Asked for comment, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said only: "As a 27-year career EPA scientist, the administrator values the expertise and advice of his staff and will do so through his time in leadership."
The letter cited the California greenhouse gas waiver denial and several other issues, including mercury emissions from power plants.
[...]
"EPA boasts of the principles of scientific integrity before the Congress and the public as an example of EPA's dedication to using only good science in its decision-making, but refuses to agree to an adjudication process for resolving disputes arising from alleged violations," says the letter, released Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
[...]
Evans said that the purpose of the Clinton-era National Labor-Management Partnership Council was for senior agency officials and workers to deal with workplace and other issues before the decision stage.
Instead, "what we found is decisions are being made and they're being presented to us," said Evans.
The union leaders told Johnson they'd be suspending involvement in the partnership council "until we receive from you a clear commitment and specific direction."
To most casual observers and certainly to those paying any attention at all it is a surprise it took so long for the rank and file EPA employees to step up and voice these concerns. I know EPA has lost a lot of talent in the last seven years but the union leadership has been very quiet to this point. Looking out for the job security of some 10,000 dues paying members will do that I suppose.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Most Mercury Emission News Coming From Out West - Montana and Nevada in Focus
The news this week is mostly coming from our Western States. It appears the Montana House Bill 586, by Rep. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Rocky Boy, to impose new mercury emission standards on power plants, is dead before it got going. As Hg-ATME reported earlier this was some very aggressive legislation that probably needs some refinement before gaining majority support.
Another interesting article from the Big Sky State is a piece found in The New West by a seemingly knowledgeable (seemingly, only because I don't know him personally) guest writer, Joe Kerkvliet. Joe's article details some of the downfalls inherent in the recent EPA rules regarding portland cement plants. Hg-ATME has discussed this issue before but moreso on the legality of the rules and whether they meet the letter or intent of the Clean Air Act.
Excerpt follows, but I strongly recommend the whole article to anyone interested in the cement plant debate.
EPA’s grandfathering is bad policy because it tilts the playing field in favor of existing plants. By doing so, EPA fails to regulate the largest sources of mercury emissions in the cement industry. Worse, the grandfathering rule will probably result in more mercury emissions than no rule at all. (Emphasis added)
(...)
Another unintended, but sadly inevitable, result of grandfathering is to make environmental regulation increasingly litigious. Reconstruction review is part and parcel of grandfathering because of the need to distinguish between grandfathered and new plants.
Joe is right on many accounts and his perspective is very easy to understand. I suggest reading the full article here.
The Nevada DEP recently announced its first enforcement action against a gold mine under its new pollution standards. This excerpt from Channel 4 in Carson City and the AP.
Nevada's program to control emissions of toxic mercury from gold mines has just issued its first citation, but pending legislation would result in more efforts to curb mining pollution.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie of Renor has authored legislation to establish Nevada's first cap on mercury emissions from mines and require at least a one-quarter reduction of those emissions in five years.
The full article is here.
Another interesting article from the Big Sky State is a piece found in The New West by a seemingly knowledgeable (seemingly, only because I don't know him personally) guest writer, Joe Kerkvliet. Joe's article details some of the downfalls inherent in the recent EPA rules regarding portland cement plants. Hg-ATME has discussed this issue before but moreso on the legality of the rules and whether they meet the letter or intent of the Clean Air Act.
Excerpt follows, but I strongly recommend the whole article to anyone interested in the cement plant debate.
EPA’s grandfathering is bad policy because it tilts the playing field in favor of existing plants. By doing so, EPA fails to regulate the largest sources of mercury emissions in the cement industry. Worse, the grandfathering rule will probably result in more mercury emissions than no rule at all. (Emphasis added)
(...)
Another unintended, but sadly inevitable, result of grandfathering is to make environmental regulation increasingly litigious. Reconstruction review is part and parcel of grandfathering because of the need to distinguish between grandfathered and new plants.
Joe is right on many accounts and his perspective is very easy to understand. I suggest reading the full article here.
The Nevada DEP recently announced its first enforcement action against a gold mine under its new pollution standards. This excerpt from Channel 4 in Carson City and the AP.
Nevada's program to control emissions of toxic mercury from gold mines has just issued its first citation, but pending legislation would result in more efforts to curb mining pollution.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie of Renor has authored legislation to establish Nevada's first cap on mercury emissions from mines and require at least a one-quarter reduction of those emissions in five years.
The full article is here.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Mercury Emissions in Mainstream Media
Mostly I report on localized issues regarding mercury emissions that may not be so readily apparent to parties interested in the subject of mercury in our environment. I get an article from page 10 of the New York Times, or a blurb from a submission to a scientific journal. Rarely is mercury emissions Page 1, above the fold material. The last few days has been unique in this regard, first there was an article in Forbes magazine about a few Nevada mines misreporting mercury emissions. Excerpt below;
Nevada-based Great Basin Mine Watch, the Idaho Conservation League and Earthworks threatened legal action against the Florida Canyon Mining Co.'s operation near Imlay and the Kennecott Mining Co.'s Denton-Rawhide Mine near Fallon.
Contrary to recent data reported to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the mines reported little or no mercury emissions over the last eight years to the federal EPA, said John Hadder, staff scientist with Great Basin Mine Watch.
In 2006, the Florida Canyon mine sent 440 pounds of mercury into the air and the Rawhide mine reported 350 pounds of emissions, according to the NDEP.
"We now know that hundreds of pounds of mercury are needlessly going into our air from mines that have minimal controls in place," Hadder said. "This new information is a wake-up call. We want the state and industry to agree to get controls in place right away."
Then USA Today runs a front page exposé on mercury emissions with a nifty state-by-state interactive map, and a very cool global and state-by-state map of where mercury is landing. For any of us who follow mercury emissions on a regular basis, all 23 or so of us, none of the information in USA Today was really new. What is important though is that mercury emissions and the health effects caused thereby is becoming more and more a mainstream topic of discussion.
If the issue remains in front of the average news follower then the chances of making meaningful improvements in global mercury emissions are dramatically improved. I want to thank USA Today for their brilliant coverage. When USA Today takes on a topic like this they do a phenomenal job of bringing technical issues to the average reader so that they are then able to walk away with a better understanding of whats going on in their world.
There were three articles in USA Today on Tuesday Oct 30th. I have made links to all of them below.
Mercury emitters rush to meet new U. S. rules, by Larry Wheeler, of Gannett News Service
&
Opposition takes on coal plants, by Bobby Carmichael, of USA Today
&
Power plants are focus of drive to cut mercury, by Larry Wheeler, of Gannett News Service
Nevada-based Great Basin Mine Watch, the Idaho Conservation League and Earthworks threatened legal action against the Florida Canyon Mining Co.'s operation near Imlay and the Kennecott Mining Co.'s Denton-Rawhide Mine near Fallon.
Contrary to recent data reported to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the mines reported little or no mercury emissions over the last eight years to the federal EPA, said John Hadder, staff scientist with Great Basin Mine Watch.
In 2006, the Florida Canyon mine sent 440 pounds of mercury into the air and the Rawhide mine reported 350 pounds of emissions, according to the NDEP.
"We now know that hundreds of pounds of mercury are needlessly going into our air from mines that have minimal controls in place," Hadder said. "This new information is a wake-up call. We want the state and industry to agree to get controls in place right away."
Then USA Today runs a front page exposé on mercury emissions with a nifty state-by-state interactive map, and a very cool global and state-by-state map of where mercury is landing. For any of us who follow mercury emissions on a regular basis, all 23 or so of us, none of the information in USA Today was really new. What is important though is that mercury emissions and the health effects caused thereby is becoming more and more a mainstream topic of discussion.
If the issue remains in front of the average news follower then the chances of making meaningful improvements in global mercury emissions are dramatically improved. I want to thank USA Today for their brilliant coverage. When USA Today takes on a topic like this they do a phenomenal job of bringing technical issues to the average reader so that they are then able to walk away with a better understanding of whats going on in their world.
There were three articles in USA Today on Tuesday Oct 30th. I have made links to all of them below.
Mercury emitters rush to meet new U. S. rules, by Larry Wheeler, of Gannett News Service
&
Opposition takes on coal plants, by Bobby Carmichael, of USA Today
&
Power plants are focus of drive to cut mercury, by Larry Wheeler, of Gannett News Service
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Nevada Mines Must Start Actually Measuring Mercury Emissions
From the Reno Gazette Journal
For the first time, Nevada precious metal mines this year were required to measure and report mercury released from smokestacks to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the only state with such a requirement.
"We don't think that anybody truly knows what the releases are," Randolph said. "We do think that it's undermonitored and underreported."
Reno-based Glamis Gold Ltd. officials admitted in October they underreported five years of mercury air emissions by more than 434 pounds at the Marigold Mine in Humboldt County. "We weren't trying to hide anything, otherwise we wouldn't have ... re-calculated our emissions," said Joe Danni, vice president of corporate relations for Glamis Gold Ltd.
Read the full story here.
For the first time, Nevada precious metal mines this year were required to measure and report mercury released from smokestacks to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the only state with such a requirement.
"We don't think that anybody truly knows what the releases are," Randolph said. "We do think that it's undermonitored and underreported."
Reno-based Glamis Gold Ltd. officials admitted in October they underreported five years of mercury air emissions by more than 434 pounds at the Marigold Mine in Humboldt County. "We weren't trying to hide anything, otherwise we wouldn't have ... re-calculated our emissions," said Joe Danni, vice president of corporate relations for Glamis Gold Ltd.
Read the full story here.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Nevada Rebuffed, Oklahoma Dawdles & Michigan Boldly Moves Forward
As the country awaits the decision of the Federal Appeals Court in D.C. on the legality and thus the future of the CAMR, different States are taking different tacks. Nevada sent its plan to comply with CAMR to the EPA back in November of 2006. The plan was recently rejected and sent back for rework. The EPAs decision to reject the plan is open for comment now and has been extended until March 13, 2008.
Oklahoma officials used the pending federal court case as an excuse to delay action altogether. From a recent NewsOK article;
Members of the Department of Environmental Quality's Air Quality Advisory Council voted to delay adopting proposed rules seeking to implement limits within the Sooner State until at least April.
They opted to wait because of an ongoing lawsuit seeking to void the federal rules.
[...]
The advisory council's decision Thursday didn't appear to surprise environmentalists who attended the meeting.
Still, they told council members Thursday stricter standards need to be adopted now.
"When it comes to that decision on the federal lawsuit, whichever way it goes, what is the risk of going ahead with something stricter?” asked Montelle Clark, a member of the Oklahoma Sustainability Network's board of directors.
"You are still allowed to do that” regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, Clark said. "If you went ahead and did it now, you would be ahead of the game.”
Meanwhile, Michigan has all but declared war on mercury in all its forms and releases. A bold 67 point plan, if completely enacted and seen through, would position Michigan as a model for the rest of the country. Some of it requires future legislation but a lot of it is a "call for partnerships with local governments and private groups."
An excerpt from All American Patriots follows;
January 30, 2008 -- The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has released a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use and release of mercury to Michigan's environment. The DEQ's Mercury Strategy Staff Report contains specific recommendations to ensure the protection of Michigan's wildlife and citizens from this persistent toxic pollutant by proposing a comprehensive approach to controlling mercury, including environmental monitoring, inventory development, collaborations and partnerships, information and outreach, and regulatory controls.
Different strokes...
Oklahoma officials used the pending federal court case as an excuse to delay action altogether. From a recent NewsOK article;
Members of the Department of Environmental Quality's Air Quality Advisory Council voted to delay adopting proposed rules seeking to implement limits within the Sooner State until at least April.
They opted to wait because of an ongoing lawsuit seeking to void the federal rules.
[...]
The advisory council's decision Thursday didn't appear to surprise environmentalists who attended the meeting.
Still, they told council members Thursday stricter standards need to be adopted now.
"When it comes to that decision on the federal lawsuit, whichever way it goes, what is the risk of going ahead with something stricter?” asked Montelle Clark, a member of the Oklahoma Sustainability Network's board of directors.
"You are still allowed to do that” regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, Clark said. "If you went ahead and did it now, you would be ahead of the game.”
Meanwhile, Michigan has all but declared war on mercury in all its forms and releases. A bold 67 point plan, if completely enacted and seen through, would position Michigan as a model for the rest of the country. Some of it requires future legislation but a lot of it is a "call for partnerships with local governments and private groups."
An excerpt from All American Patriots follows;
January 30, 2008 -- The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has released a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use and release of mercury to Michigan's environment. The DEQ's Mercury Strategy Staff Report contains specific recommendations to ensure the protection of Michigan's wildlife and citizens from this persistent toxic pollutant by proposing a comprehensive approach to controlling mercury, including environmental monitoring, inventory development, collaborations and partnerships, information and outreach, and regulatory controls.
Different strokes...
Thursday, February 1, 2007
A Little Mercury Emission Humor
From the Reno Independant Media Center
Did You Hear the One About Mercury Pollution?
Activists are hoping a big green and white billboard and a little dose of humor will drive home their point about mercury pollution in Nevada. Dan Randolph with Great Basin Mine Watch says the billboard uses a little joke about a side effect of mercury pollution to call attention to one of the state's biggest health hazards.
(...)
"Most people when they think of mercury pollution, think of coal fired power plants, but here in Nevada the mines are a much bigger source. They formed the top mercury hot spot in the US."
The joke and the rest of the article can be read here.
Did You Hear the One About Mercury Pollution?
Activists are hoping a big green and white billboard and a little dose of humor will drive home their point about mercury pollution in Nevada. Dan Randolph with Great Basin Mine Watch says the billboard uses a little joke about a side effect of mercury pollution to call attention to one of the state's biggest health hazards.
(...)
"Most people when they think of mercury pollution, think of coal fired power plants, but here in Nevada the mines are a much bigger source. They formed the top mercury hot spot in the US."
The joke and the rest of the article can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
