It didn't take long for the opposition to step forward. Several WI business groups have filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court seeking a halt to the DNR's recently proposed rules on mercury emissions (see last post below). The DNR, in response to Gov. Jim Doyle's request, floated the proposal to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2015. There were options included to limit SO2 and NOx below federal and state requirements to buy time to meet the mercury limits until 2021. The fact that environmental groups were disappointed it didn't move faster without the loopholes and that industry was concerned it could meet the stated goals, to me meant it was probably a pretty good compromise.
Now it will move to the courts. The groups are not questioning the limits or timetables set forth in the proposal, they are asking the DNR to follow the procedures for rule making. An excerpt from The Capital Times follows;
The organizations -- including the Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin Utility Investors and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce -- filed the lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court Monday.
The lawsuit is not challenging the merit or substance of the proposed rule, the organizations said in a news release. Instead, they are asking the DNR to comply with public notice requirements of the Job Creation Act of 2004.
[...]
"Had the DNR issued an accurate scope statement for this rule, the affected parties would have had the opportunity to request an economic impact report during a 90-day window provided by the law," the news release said.
"The lack of an accurate scope statement has prevented Wisconsin businesses, lawmakers and electric ratepayers from availing themselves of their due process rights to request preparation of this critical economic report."
"We are still analyzing the lawsuit. We have referred it to the Department of Justice and cannot comment at this point," said Laurel Steffes, a spokeswoman for the DNR.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Back From Costa Rica, Let’s Catch Up On What’s Going On In Mercury Emissions
I just returned from an eleven-day vacation in Costa Rica. It was fantastic! We visited Torteguero, volcanoes Poas & Arenal, Manuel Antonio National Beach and Manzanillo. What an amazing country. I’ll get some photos up here in the near future.
DOJ’s Heart Not In Appeal
According to Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report the DOJ begrudgingly filed the most recent appeal of the DC Circuit Court’s mercury ruling. In fact they use the term “’violent’ DOJ Opposition” in their April 3, 2008 release by Dawn Reeves. The Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report is a subscription only publication. In this article it states, One informed source says DOJ was “violently opposed” to filing an appeal of the CAMR ruling, as were mid-level staff in EPA’s air and general counsel office. “Clearly, someone higher up leaned on them to file,” the source claims.
The UARG filing only asked the three judge panel to reconsider their ruling while the EPA’s request for en banc hearing was, in one source’s opinion, “because they recognize they have zero chance of convincing the original panel.”
And the source says the agency’s request for review uses “strong language,” such as referring to the earlier ruling as “absurd” and “nonsensical” that the source says is highly unusual for a court filing. The source calls this a “reflection of desperation” particularly because the “next administration, whoever it is, is not going to abide by the view.”
The full DC Court could outright reject the appeal, as many think they will. Most of the parties directly involved in the case are not commenting publicly so we will have to wait and see what happens. A last tidbit from the Inside EPA’s article is;
One legal expert says that in order for the court to accept EPA’s request, a majority of the 10 active judges on the court would need to vote in favor of it. “So, if none of the judges on the original panel changes his/her mind, six of the seven remaining judges would have to vote in favor. Seems unlikely,” the source says.
CAMR Vacuum Leaves States In A Lurch
After the CAMR was vacated by the DC Circuit Court and the resulting swift issuance of the mandate, states around the country had no guidance as to how to assess permit applications for new plants or those requiring new permits.
In another article from the April 3, 2008 edition of Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report EPA’s outgoing General Counsel Roger Martella says “the agency is working toward developing guidance for how states should address mercury limits at power plants undergoing the permitting process, in the absence of a federal mercury rule for reducing emissions. The issue is “very much on our minds at EPA,” he said.
[…]
Many state, industry and environmentalist sources have said if the court issued a formal mandate, then the air act’s section 112(g) would apply. That section requires case-by-case reviews of new permits to impose maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements to reduce air toxics.
In the article it was also noted that the EPA has not finalized approval of several of the states plans for mercury and Martella said, “it is unclear whether EPA would complete the process of approving pending state mercury plans. “”That’s a good question,” he said.”
Wisconsin Looks To Move Forward
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is pushing forward with its rulemaking regarding mercury emissions from coal fired EGUs. The DNR recently extended the comment period for its proposal until May 5th allowing industry groups and others a better chance to digest the implications and make informed comments. In an article from Madison, WI’s Capital Times;
"While this rulemaking effort has been ongoing within the department for well over a year, most of us have only just recently seen the rule and underlying documentation," they said in a joint letter. The organizations noted that several materials were not available until early March.
They also asked the department to allow sufficient time to consider all comments before the Natural Resources Board makes a decision, which had been set for its meeting on May 28. The board is now expected to consider the matter at its June 25 meeting.
[…]
"The time allowing for comments isn't huge but, on the other hand, we have been debating mercury since 2000 and the technology has improved a lot in that time," said Keith Reopelle, program director for Clean Wisconsin.
The organization also argues that the deadline for emissions reductions should occur sooner than 2015, the rule's deadline for most changes.
[…]
The proposed DNR rule, supported by Gov. Jim Doyle, would require large power plants (with a capacity of 150 megawatts or more) to either reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent or limit the concentration of mercury emissions to 0.0080 pounds of mercury per gigawatt-hour by Jan. 1, 2015.
Large plants could also choose an option of reducing nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide beyond federal and state regulations by 2015, in exchange for reaching the 90 percent mercury emission cut by 2021.
Smaller power plants would have to reduce mercury emissions to a level defined as best available control technology, also by Jan. 1, 2015.
Oceana and Olin Corp Battle Over Hiwassee River Mercury Contamination
At one of the few remaining Chlor-Alkali plants left in the country (over 100 others have already switched away from mercury in their process), Olin Corp. continues to resist the change. The plant boasts millions of dollars spent combating mercury emissions yet remains a holdout when almost every other plant of its type has switched.
Oceana has fought a very successful battle with chlor-alkali plants around the country and has shown many of them that they actually can save operating dollars for years to come after investing in the switch.
Excerpts from the Cleveland Daily Banner follow;
Oceana is dedicated to protecting and restoring the world’s oceans. It is actively engaged in urging Olin Corp. to switch from mercury cell technology to non-mercury technology.
Olin Plant Manager Tom Tirabasi said the Olin Chlor Alkali Products Charleston Plant is carefully operated to protect the health of the community, employees and environment.
“The fact remains that if we converted to non-mercury technology even though we meet or do better than all government regulations, we would be forced to dismantle most of the plant and rebuild it, interrupting production and impacting the lives of people in this area. Our commitments to health, environmental performance and continuous improvement already protect this community. That is our top priority.”
[…]
Oceana Marine Scientist Kimberly Warner has specialized in studying mercury pollution the past eight years in her work for Oceana. She said power plants are the largest sources of the neurotoxin, Olin’s Charleston plant is the single largest source in Tennessee.
While she expressed no doubt Olin is a good corporate citizen, she said Wednesday evening during a public forum in the Bradley County Courthouse it only makes sense the company is the culprit.
Warner’s study of the Hiwassee shows mercury levels in river sediments are highest directly below Olin’s outfalls and remain elevated downstream compared to upstream. Small fish do not travel as far as top-feeding fish such as largemouth bass. Mercury levels in small prey fish are highest directly in front of the plant compared to upstream and farther downstream. Levels of mercury in game-sized largemouth bass are highest at sites nearest the plant where they exceed the EPA methylmercury safe level.
DOJ’s Heart Not In Appeal
According to Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report the DOJ begrudgingly filed the most recent appeal of the DC Circuit Court’s mercury ruling. In fact they use the term “’violent’ DOJ Opposition” in their April 3, 2008 release by Dawn Reeves. The Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report is a subscription only publication. In this article it states, One informed source says DOJ was “violently opposed” to filing an appeal of the CAMR ruling, as were mid-level staff in EPA’s air and general counsel office. “Clearly, someone higher up leaned on them to file,” the source claims.
The UARG filing only asked the three judge panel to reconsider their ruling while the EPA’s request for en banc hearing was, in one source’s opinion, “because they recognize they have zero chance of convincing the original panel.”
And the source says the agency’s request for review uses “strong language,” such as referring to the earlier ruling as “absurd” and “nonsensical” that the source says is highly unusual for a court filing. The source calls this a “reflection of desperation” particularly because the “next administration, whoever it is, is not going to abide by the view.”
The full DC Court could outright reject the appeal, as many think they will. Most of the parties directly involved in the case are not commenting publicly so we will have to wait and see what happens. A last tidbit from the Inside EPA’s article is;
One legal expert says that in order for the court to accept EPA’s request, a majority of the 10 active judges on the court would need to vote in favor of it. “So, if none of the judges on the original panel changes his/her mind, six of the seven remaining judges would have to vote in favor. Seems unlikely,” the source says.
CAMR Vacuum Leaves States In A Lurch
After the CAMR was vacated by the DC Circuit Court and the resulting swift issuance of the mandate, states around the country had no guidance as to how to assess permit applications for new plants or those requiring new permits.
In another article from the April 3, 2008 edition of Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report EPA’s outgoing General Counsel Roger Martella says “the agency is working toward developing guidance for how states should address mercury limits at power plants undergoing the permitting process, in the absence of a federal mercury rule for reducing emissions. The issue is “very much on our minds at EPA,” he said.
[…]
Many state, industry and environmentalist sources have said if the court issued a formal mandate, then the air act’s section 112(g) would apply. That section requires case-by-case reviews of new permits to impose maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements to reduce air toxics.
In the article it was also noted that the EPA has not finalized approval of several of the states plans for mercury and Martella said, “it is unclear whether EPA would complete the process of approving pending state mercury plans. “”That’s a good question,” he said.”
Wisconsin Looks To Move Forward
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is pushing forward with its rulemaking regarding mercury emissions from coal fired EGUs. The DNR recently extended the comment period for its proposal until May 5th allowing industry groups and others a better chance to digest the implications and make informed comments. In an article from Madison, WI’s Capital Times;
"While this rulemaking effort has been ongoing within the department for well over a year, most of us have only just recently seen the rule and underlying documentation," they said in a joint letter. The organizations noted that several materials were not available until early March.
They also asked the department to allow sufficient time to consider all comments before the Natural Resources Board makes a decision, which had been set for its meeting on May 28. The board is now expected to consider the matter at its June 25 meeting.
[…]
"The time allowing for comments isn't huge but, on the other hand, we have been debating mercury since 2000 and the technology has improved a lot in that time," said Keith Reopelle, program director for Clean Wisconsin.
The organization also argues that the deadline for emissions reductions should occur sooner than 2015, the rule's deadline for most changes.
[…]
The proposed DNR rule, supported by Gov. Jim Doyle, would require large power plants (with a capacity of 150 megawatts or more) to either reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent or limit the concentration of mercury emissions to 0.0080 pounds of mercury per gigawatt-hour by Jan. 1, 2015.
Large plants could also choose an option of reducing nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide beyond federal and state regulations by 2015, in exchange for reaching the 90 percent mercury emission cut by 2021.
Smaller power plants would have to reduce mercury emissions to a level defined as best available control technology, also by Jan. 1, 2015.
Oceana and Olin Corp Battle Over Hiwassee River Mercury Contamination
At one of the few remaining Chlor-Alkali plants left in the country (over 100 others have already switched away from mercury in their process), Olin Corp. continues to resist the change. The plant boasts millions of dollars spent combating mercury emissions yet remains a holdout when almost every other plant of its type has switched.
Oceana has fought a very successful battle with chlor-alkali plants around the country and has shown many of them that they actually can save operating dollars for years to come after investing in the switch.
Excerpts from the Cleveland Daily Banner follow;
Oceana is dedicated to protecting and restoring the world’s oceans. It is actively engaged in urging Olin Corp. to switch from mercury cell technology to non-mercury technology.
Olin Plant Manager Tom Tirabasi said the Olin Chlor Alkali Products Charleston Plant is carefully operated to protect the health of the community, employees and environment.
“The fact remains that if we converted to non-mercury technology even though we meet or do better than all government regulations, we would be forced to dismantle most of the plant and rebuild it, interrupting production and impacting the lives of people in this area. Our commitments to health, environmental performance and continuous improvement already protect this community. That is our top priority.”
[…]
Oceana Marine Scientist Kimberly Warner has specialized in studying mercury pollution the past eight years in her work for Oceana. She said power plants are the largest sources of the neurotoxin, Olin’s Charleston plant is the single largest source in Tennessee.
While she expressed no doubt Olin is a good corporate citizen, she said Wednesday evening during a public forum in the Bradley County Courthouse it only makes sense the company is the culprit.
Warner’s study of the Hiwassee shows mercury levels in river sediments are highest directly below Olin’s outfalls and remain elevated downstream compared to upstream. Small fish do not travel as far as top-feeding fish such as largemouth bass. Mercury levels in small prey fish are highest directly in front of the plant compared to upstream and farther downstream. Levels of mercury in game-sized largemouth bass are highest at sites nearest the plant where they exceed the EPA methylmercury safe level.
Friday, April 4, 2008
It Is Going To Take More Than Minimata To Save Flipper, OPS May Have The Ticket
This is a bit off my beat, I cover mercury emission regulations, but this story was one I got hooked into earlier with a post "How Minimata May Save Flipper". This follow-up highlights a covert operation by a brave bunch of Conservationists. The Oceanic Preservation Society (OPS), with some heavy funding by Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape, secretly filmed something I am sure every one of them wish they never saw, and no one else would ever have to see. But without exposing this tragedy it may continue and that is just unacceptable.
A graphic story of the annual Taiji, Japan murders of thousands of dolphins is brought to life in text form in an article by Boyd Harnell (and soon in film form produced by OPS and Directed by Louie Psihoyos). Boyd tells the story about how and why these brave filmmakers risked their lives to capture the horror so others around the world could see for themselves what was going on in the name of fishing. The ironic part is the dolphins are so contaminated with mercury that their own government warns against eating the meat. So this annual dolphin kill continues, I assume, mainly for tradition.
One scary fact is uncovered in the process and that is that many dolphin trainers and others you wouldn't expect to be complicit apparently watch and laugh as the killing goes on and they select dolphins they want to keep for themselves to train. How could they, how could they show so little compassion for an animal from which they make their livings?
The story is pretty much the same on both these sights but the pictures on Nemo's Notes show a little more of the story. Go to Cyber Diver News Network (CDNN) or Nemo's Notes for details. Not for the squeamish.
A graphic story of the annual Taiji, Japan murders of thousands of dolphins is brought to life in text form in an article by Boyd Harnell (and soon in film form produced by OPS and Directed by Louie Psihoyos). Boyd tells the story about how and why these brave filmmakers risked their lives to capture the horror so others around the world could see for themselves what was going on in the name of fishing. The ironic part is the dolphins are so contaminated with mercury that their own government warns against eating the meat. So this annual dolphin kill continues, I assume, mainly for tradition.
One scary fact is uncovered in the process and that is that many dolphin trainers and others you wouldn't expect to be complicit apparently watch and laugh as the killing goes on and they select dolphins they want to keep for themselves to train. How could they, how could they show so little compassion for an animal from which they make their livings?
The story is pretty much the same on both these sights but the pictures on Nemo's Notes show a little more of the story. Go to Cyber Diver News Network (CDNN) or Nemo's Notes for details. Not for the squeamish.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Monday's CAMR Appeal Catches Everyone By Surprise
I follow mercury legislation pretty closely. When the three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) on Feb 8th I asked in my column headline, What's Next? I considered an appeal en banc, asking the full court to rule. I even considered an appeal to the Supreme Court. I speculated that neither appeal would happen because the panel of judges in the initial ruling, a) included judges deemed both pro environment and pro business, b) the ruling was unanimous and swift, and c) the language in the opinion was very strong and critical of the EPA's positions.
It seemed the die was cast, the EPA and the country were going to move toward a MACT standard for mercury. In support of that prognosis the same Court, on March 14th, fully 2 weeks ahead of schedule, granted petitioners request for issuance of a mandate in the CAMR case. This mandate all but sealed the deal. It seems the operative words in that last sentence are "all but".
As proof this last minute appeal on behalf of the EPA by the DOJ caught everyone by surprise I refer you to the website of a respected industry consulting group RMB Consulting and Research. RMB consults for, amongst others, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), who simultaneously with the EPA appeal, asked the Court to reconsider the Feb 8th ruling. However, right on the RMB site (removed as of 3/28) it states (said) in bold letters CAMR is Officially Dead (3/19/08). I point this out not to jab at RMB, hardly, they are a well respected and plugged in consulting group. I point it out because apparently not even they knew this appeal was coming. They do (did) point out in their post that a petition for rehearing was still possible and if granted would recall the mandate, but the headline they chose was more in line with what we all were thinking.
It is unclear to me whether the petition for rehearing has been granted. We will know more in a few days. But you have to feel for the utilities who seem to be going up and down like yo-yos as this all plays out in the courts. I'll try to keep you on top of this story as it unfolds.
It seemed the die was cast, the EPA and the country were going to move toward a MACT standard for mercury. In support of that prognosis the same Court, on March 14th, fully 2 weeks ahead of schedule, granted petitioners request for issuance of a mandate in the CAMR case. This mandate all but sealed the deal. It seems the operative words in that last sentence are "all but".
As proof this last minute appeal on behalf of the EPA by the DOJ caught everyone by surprise I refer you to the website of a respected industry consulting group RMB Consulting and Research. RMB consults for, amongst others, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), who simultaneously with the EPA appeal, asked the Court to reconsider the Feb 8th ruling. However, right on the RMB site (removed as of 3/28) it states (said) in bold letters CAMR is Officially Dead (3/19/08). I point this out not to jab at RMB, hardly, they are a well respected and plugged in consulting group. I point it out because apparently not even they knew this appeal was coming. They do (did) point out in their post that a petition for rehearing was still possible and if granted would recall the mandate, but the headline they chose was more in line with what we all were thinking.
It is unclear to me whether the petition for rehearing has been granted. We will know more in a few days. But you have to feel for the utilities who seem to be going up and down like yo-yos as this all plays out in the courts. I'll try to keep you on top of this story as it unfolds.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
CAMR Ruling Appealed by DOJ at the Last Minute
In what some may call a surprise move the Department of Justice on behalf of the Bush administration and the EPA has filed a last minute appeal of the Circuit Court of Appeals Feb 8 ruling that struck down the CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule) and its mercury cap-and-trade program. They have asked the full Court of Appeals to reconsider the ruling that went in favor of New Jersey, 16 other states, several environmental groups, tribes, and some health associations.
Because the ruling by the three judge panel was unanimous and so decisive, using very strong language in rejecting EPA's case for delisting, it seemed unlikely an appeal would follow. But EPA is not going down lightly on this one and is seeking a broader opinion of the case to see if it will result in a more favorable decision.
An excerpt from an AP article is below;
The Justice Department, in seeking a review of the decision, argued in a filing late Monday that the three-judge panel misinterpreted the federal clean air law and required "inappropriate and unnecessary emissions standards for power plants."
It maintained the ruling would needlessly delay mercury emission reductions by forcing the EPA to abandon its 2005 regulation that calls for a 70 percent cut in mercury releases over the next decade.
[...]
Separately, a group of electric utilities also filed a petition with the full appeals court, asking for a review. The Utility Air Regulatory Group, argued that the EPA has the discretion to regulate emissions in a way it considers necessary and appropriate.
The group includes electric generating companies and trade associations representing power companies and coal interests.
And so on it goes.
Because the ruling by the three judge panel was unanimous and so decisive, using very strong language in rejecting EPA's case for delisting, it seemed unlikely an appeal would follow. But EPA is not going down lightly on this one and is seeking a broader opinion of the case to see if it will result in a more favorable decision.
An excerpt from an AP article is below;
The Justice Department, in seeking a review of the decision, argued in a filing late Monday that the three-judge panel misinterpreted the federal clean air law and required "inappropriate and unnecessary emissions standards for power plants."
It maintained the ruling would needlessly delay mercury emission reductions by forcing the EPA to abandon its 2005 regulation that calls for a 70 percent cut in mercury releases over the next decade.
[...]
Separately, a group of electric utilities also filed a petition with the full appeals court, asking for a review. The Utility Air Regulatory Group, argued that the EPA has the discretion to regulate emissions in a way it considers necessary and appropriate.
The group includes electric generating companies and trade associations representing power companies and coal interests.
And so on it goes.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I'm Back, and the Discussions About Mercury Have Never Been Hotter
I took a short golf vacation to Hilton Head last week and upon my return found things were still abuzz since the Feb 8 Appeals Court Decision.
The Debate Rages On
The implications of the ruling were the topic of interviews by Monica Trauzzi on E&ETV's OnPoint with John Walke of NRDC and Jeff Holmstead a former EPA official and now lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani (as in Rudi Giuliani), a lobbying group specializing in concerns of the electric utility industry. I think both men state their cases quite eloquently, but somewhat diametrically opposed. Interesting listening.
The John Walke transcript and video from March 5th can be found here.
The Jeff Holmstead transcript and video from March 12 can be found here.
Cement Kiln Crackdown?
Elsewhere, the EPA seems to be revisiting its rules regarding cement kiln mercury emissions. In an AP article by John Flesher it is discussed how Michigan and eight other states have forced the issue with a lawsuit. But is EPA really responding or are they simply delaying any decision until the current administration is gone. The following excerpts from John's column will show you what I mean.
Whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changes the rules will depend on test results of technology that could reduce the emissions, spokesman Dale Kemery said Thursday.
But an environmental law firm that has battled the EPA for a decade over the matter said the agency promised in a court filing last month to set standards it previously had resisted.
"They've turned 180 degrees," said James Pew, attorney for Earthjustice, based in Washington, D.C.
[...]
The agency in December 2006 set limits on mercury and hydrocarbon emissions from cement kilns built after Dec. 2, 2005. But for kilns built earlier, the EPA imposed lesser requirements.
The states sued in February 2007, saying the federal Clean Air Act requires mercury emission limits for all plants, not just new ones.
[...]
In a motion filed last month with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, the EPA asked for more time to gather and analyze data from cement plants.
Peter Tsirigotis, director of the EPA division working on the standards, told the court in a written statement that he expected the agency to issue a proposed regulation by mid-September and a final version nine to 12 months afterward.
Well that ought to get the ball rolling.
More on this subject in an Earthjustice Press Release on CommonDreams News Center;
Under intense pressure from states and local and national environmental and public health groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in a recent court document plans to regulate mercury pollution from over 100 cement kilns across the country by September 2009. The announcement marks a dramatic shift in EPA policy which, until now, had been to resist requiring mercury controls for cement kilns.
"After nearly a decade of litigation and multiple court orders directing EPA to regulate mercury from cement kilns, it seems the agency is finally paying attention," said Earthjustice attorney James Pew.
Three times in the last ten years, federal courts have ordered EPA to set emission standards to control cement kilns' mercury emissions. Until now, EPA has ignored these orders or sought to evade them. EPA finally indicated that it would set mercury emission standards in papers filed on February 20, 2008, in a fourth case brought by Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends of Hudson (NY), Montanans Against Toxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA), and the Huron Environmental Activist League (MI). The States of New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also filed suit.
"Cement kilns are among the nation's worst polluters, and their free ride on mercury pollution needs to end at long last," said Jane Williams, executive director of Desert Citizens Against Pollution.
Maine Judge Seeks More Information on Penobscot River Mercury Pollution
A retired chemical plant HoltraChem owned and operated by Mallinckrodt had deposited significant amounts of mercury containing sludge into the Penobscot river for decades. The long battle and millions of dollars later we still do not have a solid plan for remediation, or even if remediation is possible. Excerpts from the Bangor Daily News follow;
Senior U.S. District Judge Gene Carter concurred last week and has directed the court-appointed research team to conduct more detailed studies into whether it is better to attempt to remove the mercury — likely at enormous costs — or let nature take its course.
"The court is fully satisfied … that the Penobscot River, north of the Fort Point Light, is contaminated with significant quantities of mercury deposited at the HoltraChem site," Carter wrote in his March 7 ruling.
Carter’s decision is the latest in a string of recent legal defeats for the former owners of now-defunct HoltraChem. Attorneys for the company, Mallinckrodt Inc., had sought in court filings to delay beginning the next phase of the study.
Mallinckrodt officials pointed out Tuesday that the company has already spent more than $30 million to clean up the manufacturing site in Orrington. The company has worked cooperatively with state and federal environmental agencies on that ongoing project.
The Debate Rages On
The implications of the ruling were the topic of interviews by Monica Trauzzi on E&ETV's OnPoint with John Walke of NRDC and Jeff Holmstead a former EPA official and now lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani (as in Rudi Giuliani), a lobbying group specializing in concerns of the electric utility industry. I think both men state their cases quite eloquently, but somewhat diametrically opposed. Interesting listening.
The John Walke transcript and video from March 5th can be found here.
The Jeff Holmstead transcript and video from March 12 can be found here.
Cement Kiln Crackdown?
Elsewhere, the EPA seems to be revisiting its rules regarding cement kiln mercury emissions. In an AP article by John Flesher it is discussed how Michigan and eight other states have forced the issue with a lawsuit. But is EPA really responding or are they simply delaying any decision until the current administration is gone. The following excerpts from John's column will show you what I mean.
Whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changes the rules will depend on test results of technology that could reduce the emissions, spokesman Dale Kemery said Thursday.
But an environmental law firm that has battled the EPA for a decade over the matter said the agency promised in a court filing last month to set standards it previously had resisted.
"They've turned 180 degrees," said James Pew, attorney for Earthjustice, based in Washington, D.C.
[...]
The agency in December 2006 set limits on mercury and hydrocarbon emissions from cement kilns built after Dec. 2, 2005. But for kilns built earlier, the EPA imposed lesser requirements.
The states sued in February 2007, saying the federal Clean Air Act requires mercury emission limits for all plants, not just new ones.
[...]
In a motion filed last month with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, the EPA asked for more time to gather and analyze data from cement plants.
Peter Tsirigotis, director of the EPA division working on the standards, told the court in a written statement that he expected the agency to issue a proposed regulation by mid-September and a final version nine to 12 months afterward.
Well that ought to get the ball rolling.
More on this subject in an Earthjustice Press Release on CommonDreams News Center;
Under intense pressure from states and local and national environmental and public health groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in a recent court document plans to regulate mercury pollution from over 100 cement kilns across the country by September 2009. The announcement marks a dramatic shift in EPA policy which, until now, had been to resist requiring mercury controls for cement kilns.
"After nearly a decade of litigation and multiple court orders directing EPA to regulate mercury from cement kilns, it seems the agency is finally paying attention," said Earthjustice attorney James Pew.
Three times in the last ten years, federal courts have ordered EPA to set emission standards to control cement kilns' mercury emissions. Until now, EPA has ignored these orders or sought to evade them. EPA finally indicated that it would set mercury emission standards in papers filed on February 20, 2008, in a fourth case brought by Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends of Hudson (NY), Montanans Against Toxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA), and the Huron Environmental Activist League (MI). The States of New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also filed suit.
"Cement kilns are among the nation's worst polluters, and their free ride on mercury pollution needs to end at long last," said Jane Williams, executive director of Desert Citizens Against Pollution.
Maine Judge Seeks More Information on Penobscot River Mercury Pollution
A retired chemical plant HoltraChem owned and operated by Mallinckrodt had deposited significant amounts of mercury containing sludge into the Penobscot river for decades. The long battle and millions of dollars later we still do not have a solid plan for remediation, or even if remediation is possible. Excerpts from the Bangor Daily News follow;
Senior U.S. District Judge Gene Carter concurred last week and has directed the court-appointed research team to conduct more detailed studies into whether it is better to attempt to remove the mercury — likely at enormous costs — or let nature take its course.
"The court is fully satisfied … that the Penobscot River, north of the Fort Point Light, is contaminated with significant quantities of mercury deposited at the HoltraChem site," Carter wrote in his March 7 ruling.
Carter’s decision is the latest in a string of recent legal defeats for the former owners of now-defunct HoltraChem. Attorneys for the company, Mallinckrodt Inc., had sought in court filings to delay beginning the next phase of the study.
Mallinckrodt officials pointed out Tuesday that the company has already spent more than $30 million to clean up the manufacturing site in Orrington. The company has worked cooperatively with state and federal environmental agencies on that ongoing project.
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, February 26, 2008
Polar Ice Crystals Aid Mercury Deposition - Then What?
A research team headed by Prof. Joel Blum of the University of Michigan studied how ice crystals formed by rising sea vapors captured almost all of the airborne mercury each polar spring. How the crystals performed their collection and which crystal types were best at it formed the basis of some very interesting research. Aided in his study by others from the Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory and the University of Alaska, Professor Blum hopes to take the study into the next phase where they study the snow melt and its effect on mercury accumulation in the tundra. Look for their full results in the cover article of the March 1, 2008 issue of Environmental Science & Technology, whose lead author is Thomas Douglas of the CRR&EL. A preview excerpt from an article on PhysOrg.com follows;
"Previous measurements had shown that in polar springtime, the normally steady levels of mercury in the atmosphere drop to near zero, and scientists studying this atmospheric phenomenon had analyzed a few snow samples and found very high levels of mercury," said Joel Blum, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Geological Sciences at U-M. "We wanted to understand what's controlling this mercury deposition, where it's occurring and whether mercury concentrations are related to the type and formation of snow and ice crystals."
[...]
"Alaska receives air masses originating in Asia, and with China adding a new coal-fired power plant almost every week, it's not surprising that we find significant amounts of mercury there," Douglas said. "The concentrations we measured in some snow are far greater than would be found right next to a waste incinerator or power plant in an industrialized location."
[...]
Blum and co-workers discovered that certain types of ice crystals—frost flowers and rime ice—contained the highest concentrations of mercury. Because both types of crystal grow directly by water vapor accretion, the scientists reasoned that breaks in the sea ice, where water vapor rises in great clouds, contribute to Arctic mercury deposition.
"The vapor that rises through these openings in the ice brings with it bromine from the sea water. That gets into the atmosphere, where sunlight plus the bromine cause a catalytic reaction which converts mercury gas into a reactive form. If any ice crystals are present, the mercury sticks to them and comes out of the atmosphere," Blum said.
The greater the surface area of the crystals, the more mercury they grab, which explains why frost flowers and rime ice, both delicate formations with high surface areas, end up with so much mercury. The mercury-tainted crystals aren't, however, confined to the edges of breaks in the ice, the researchers determined. Bromine can travel great distances, resulting in mercury deposition in snow throughout the Arctic coastal region.
[...]
"Research like this will help to further the understanding of mercury deposition to a region that is generally considered pristine," he said. "In the next phase of our work, we are expanding our knowledge by tracking the mercury during and following snow melt and studying its accumulation on the tundra."
In addition to Blum and Douglas, the paper's authors are Matthew Sturm of the Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory in Fort Wainwright, Alaska; William R. Simpson and Laura Alvarez-Aviles of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Gerald Keeler, director of the U-M Air Quality Laboratory; Donald Perovich of the Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.; U-M post-doctoral fellow Abir Biswas and U-M graduate student Kelsey Johnson.
The full article which goes into some interesting detail of how hard it is to perform research and capture representative samples in the freezing temperatures can be found here. I look forward to seeing what they uncover in phase two.
"Previous measurements had shown that in polar springtime, the normally steady levels of mercury in the atmosphere drop to near zero, and scientists studying this atmospheric phenomenon had analyzed a few snow samples and found very high levels of mercury," said Joel Blum, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Geological Sciences at U-M. "We wanted to understand what's controlling this mercury deposition, where it's occurring and whether mercury concentrations are related to the type and formation of snow and ice crystals."
[...]
"Alaska receives air masses originating in Asia, and with China adding a new coal-fired power plant almost every week, it's not surprising that we find significant amounts of mercury there," Douglas said. "The concentrations we measured in some snow are far greater than would be found right next to a waste incinerator or power plant in an industrialized location."
[...]
Blum and co-workers discovered that certain types of ice crystals—frost flowers and rime ice—contained the highest concentrations of mercury. Because both types of crystal grow directly by water vapor accretion, the scientists reasoned that breaks in the sea ice, where water vapor rises in great clouds, contribute to Arctic mercury deposition.
"The vapor that rises through these openings in the ice brings with it bromine from the sea water. That gets into the atmosphere, where sunlight plus the bromine cause a catalytic reaction which converts mercury gas into a reactive form. If any ice crystals are present, the mercury sticks to them and comes out of the atmosphere," Blum said.
The greater the surface area of the crystals, the more mercury they grab, which explains why frost flowers and rime ice, both delicate formations with high surface areas, end up with so much mercury. The mercury-tainted crystals aren't, however, confined to the edges of breaks in the ice, the researchers determined. Bromine can travel great distances, resulting in mercury deposition in snow throughout the Arctic coastal region.
[...]
"Research like this will help to further the understanding of mercury deposition to a region that is generally considered pristine," he said. "In the next phase of our work, we are expanding our knowledge by tracking the mercury during and following snow melt and studying its accumulation on the tundra."
In addition to Blum and Douglas, the paper's authors are Matthew Sturm of the Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory in Fort Wainwright, Alaska; William R. Simpson and Laura Alvarez-Aviles of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Gerald Keeler, director of the U-M Air Quality Laboratory; Donald Perovich of the Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.; U-M post-doctoral fellow Abir Biswas and U-M graduate student Kelsey Johnson.
The full article which goes into some interesting detail of how hard it is to perform research and capture representative samples in the freezing temperatures can be found here. I look forward to seeing what they uncover in phase two.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Analysis and Speculation "What were they thinking?" - EPAs Contradictory Behavior
We are all scratching our heads. The more information that comes out the more damning the evidence. As we reported yesterday when we covered the AP Story by Joe Hebert, EPA was pressuring States to abide by the Federal CAMR even when they said they were not. I came across a very well written post by John Walke of NRDC on his blog that picks up on more of the nuances and tries to understand the thinking going on in EPA inner circles. An excerpt follows;
In perhaps the most wan and non-responsive response from an EPA spokesperson this year -- which Hebert highlights as a stand-alone paragraph that reads like a punchline to a bad joke -- "An EPA official said the agency's job 'is not to pressure states.'"
Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. EPA Spokesman. We hope that's not the EPA's "job" -- so why was EPA doing it? Stay tuned as EPA predictably tries to deny it was pressuring states, contradicting numerous state officials and squirming uncomfortably when presented with the agency’s own emails.
As this unfolds before our eyes and ears I am only reminded of the old line "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
In perhaps the most wan and non-responsive response from an EPA spokesperson this year -- which Hebert highlights as a stand-alone paragraph that reads like a punchline to a bad joke -- "An EPA official said the agency's job 'is not to pressure states.'"
Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. EPA Spokesman. We hope that's not the EPA's "job" -- so why was EPA doing it? Stay tuned as EPA predictably tries to deny it was pressuring states, contradicting numerous state officials and squirming uncomfortably when presented with the agency’s own emails.
As this unfolds before our eyes and ears I am only reminded of the old line "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
Monday, February 18, 2008
Why EPA Pressured States Over Mercury Emissions
Environmental Defense recently obtained internal EPA documents showing a pattern of pressure and arm twisting the EPA used to get individual States to play along with the Fed's plan for mercury emissions control. The Federal CAMR was based on a cap-and-trade scheme much like the ones used for SO2 and NOx emissions. An excerpt from an AP article over the weekend follows;
"There was an extraordinary degree of aggressiveness by EPA in pressing states to abandon a more protective mercury program. EPA devoted enormous effort to preventing states from doing more," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense. The group obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act filing.
The push to rein in uncooperative states continued until the eve of the Feb. 8 appeals court decision that struck down the EPA's program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agency did not adequately address the health impact of its plan.
The administration was poised to take even tougher measures against maverick states. A day before the ruling, the White House Office of Management and Budget approved a draft regulation to impose a "federal implementation plan" for mercury reduction in states whose mercury control measures did not meet EPA approval.
It would have required power plants to comply with the national cap-and-trade provisions, even it that meant ignoring state restrictions.
Both the emissions trading approach and any further requirement on states have been put on hold after the court ruling, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar. He denied that the agency was pressuring states.
"Our goal is to have a federal rule. ... Our job is not to pressure states," he said.
It is my opinion that the reason the EPA became so determined to push States into the trading program was simply because if enough States opted out of the trading program there would not be enough credits to run a successful cap-and-trade program. The market would not be big enough to sustain the plan. So, as many States began to opt out and create plans stricter than CAMR, EPA got concerned and tried to "steer" States into the program.
Of course it all became moot with the Feb 8 ruling.
"There was an extraordinary degree of aggressiveness by EPA in pressing states to abandon a more protective mercury program. EPA devoted enormous effort to preventing states from doing more," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense. The group obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act filing.
The push to rein in uncooperative states continued until the eve of the Feb. 8 appeals court decision that struck down the EPA's program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agency did not adequately address the health impact of its plan.
The administration was poised to take even tougher measures against maverick states. A day before the ruling, the White House Office of Management and Budget approved a draft regulation to impose a "federal implementation plan" for mercury reduction in states whose mercury control measures did not meet EPA approval.
It would have required power plants to comply with the national cap-and-trade provisions, even it that meant ignoring state restrictions.
Both the emissions trading approach and any further requirement on states have been put on hold after the court ruling, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar. He denied that the agency was pressuring states.
"Our goal is to have a federal rule. ... Our job is not to pressure states," he said.
It is my opinion that the reason the EPA became so determined to push States into the trading program was simply because if enough States opted out of the trading program there would not be enough credits to run a successful cap-and-trade program. The market would not be big enough to sustain the plan. So, as many States began to opt out and create plans stricter than CAMR, EPA got concerned and tried to "steer" States into the program.
Of course it all became moot with the Feb 8 ruling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
