EPA Exempts Refineries From Hazardous Waste Control Requirements

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today tentatively denied a plea from citizens groups to reconsider a Bush-era loophole that allows petroleum refineries to burn more than 300,000 tons of hazardous waste every year without meeting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA) protective standards for storing and transporting hazardous waste and without meeting the Clean Air Act's requirements for burning it.

Because hazardous waste has the potential to cause serious harm to public health if it is released into the environment, RCRA specifies protective "cradle-to-grave" requirements for storing, handling and disposing of it. Additionally, the Clean Air Act requires protective emission standards for the air pollution generated by facilities that burn hazardous waste.

The Bush administration created the loophole in 2008. Based on the Obama administration's stated commitment to protect public health and respect the law, Earthjustice petitioned the EPA on behalf of Sierra Club and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network and asked the agency to reconsider the loophole. But nearly two years after that request was made, the EPA has now proposed to reissue the Bush-era exemption word for word.

The loophole allows refineries to burn their hazardous wastes as fuel in incinerators that EPA euphemistically refers to as "gasification units." These units do not have to meet the protective Clean Air Act emission standards otherwise required for all facilities that burn hazardous wastes. As a result, the fenceline communities that are already overburdened by refineries' toxic pollution are also subjected to additional toxic emissions from the unregulated combustion of hazardous waste.

"Burning hazardous waste generates toxic pollution that is incredibly dangerous to those who breathe it," said Jane Williams of the Sierra Club. "Calling hazardous waste 'fuel' doesn't in any way change those toxic emissions, but it does mean that petroleum refineries don't have to comply with laws that were designed to protect people from such pollution. This is a favor to petroleum refiners, plain and simple, at the expense of communities who live near refineries."

"Communities in the Gulf region already suffer enough from refineries' toxic pollution," said Wilma Subra of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "The last thing we need is uncontrolled burning of their hazardous wastes."

Notwithstanding the text of RCRA, which makes clear that hazardous waste does not cease to be waste just because it is processed to produce a fuel, the loophole also allows refineries to avoid safe storage and transportation requirements under RCRA for the waste they plan to burn in gasification units.

"The EPA's decision to side with the Bush administration and polluting refineries is shocking," said Earthjustice's Khushi Desai. "The agency does not dispute that the exempted 300,000 tons of toxic material are, in fact, hazardous waste. And yet it is somehow willing to let refiners store and transport this harmful waste without taking safety measures that Congress enacted to protect people from just such a danger. It's unbelievable."

"This troubling decision could cause major environmental damage in California, which ranks third in the nation for refining capacity," said Denny Larson, Executive Director of Global Community Monitor, a group that works with refinery neighbors nationally. "This is extremely disappointing news coming from this EPA, which has promised so much."

"It's sad that the communities which need the most help, the most protection and the most attention from environmental agencies instead continue to shoulder an increasing burden on their health and quality of life," said Matthew Tejada, Executive Director of Air Alliance Houston. "The well-being of folks in areas like the Houston Ship Channel, which has a number of refineries, should be a priority for the EPA. This exemption must be eliminated."

"The EPA has a duty and an obligation, and that is to protect the health and well-being of people and the environment by upholding laws such as the Clean Air Act," said Hilton Kelley, Executive Director of Community In-power and Development, based in Port Arthur, TX. "This exemption does exactly the opposite. Children, the elderly, and other vulnerable members of our communities need the EPA to do everything that it can to protect those who have no other means of protection."

EPA will accept public comments on its tentative determination to deny the petition, 76 Fed. Reg. 5107 (January 28, 2011), until March 14, 2011.

Four toxic settling ponds behind Honeywell Plant

BY D.W. NORRIS AND ROB CROW THE SOUTHERN

METROPOLIS - At the Honeywell plant in town, temporary workers convert uranium, a process that deals with some of the most dangerous chemicals of any plant in the nation.
Just outside the plant's boundaries, on U.S. 45, unionized workers stand and protest in shifts. Because of a bargaining dispute between Honeywell and the United Steel Workers union, more than 200 employees have been locked out since the end of June. It's a situation that's bad and only gets worse with each passing day, as bitterness between the company and the union continues to grow.
But the biggest problem at the plant may not be the labor dispute. It may not be those picketing, locked-out employees that draw honks along U.S. 45.
Instead, it may lie in four toxic settling ponds behind the plant.
Honeywell plans to fill those ponds with cement, locking in toxic chemicals for years to come, but that plan does not sit well with some people living near the Honeywell complex. They view the ponds and Honeywell's plans to stabilize and cover them as sus-pect.
The project
Honeywell's in-situ, or "in-place" solidification and stabilization project has multiple steps and is expected to be finished sometime in 2016. Among the chemicals to be encased in cement are calcium fluoride, which may be toxic, and uranium, which is highly toxic.
The process officially began Nov. 29, when the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency received a request to change Honeywell's RCRA hazardous waste permit. Construction is expected to start in 2013.
Before construction begins, Honeywell will perform optimization tests to select the final mix design of the cement and/or addi-tives such as fly ash, lime or other materials and demonstrate its performance. The ponds will then be filled with the final mixture.
Once the ponds are solidified, low-permeability cover systems will be constructed over the materials in each pond. Each cover system will include additional fill soil, a geosynthetic clay liner, a geomembrane or rubber-like barrier, a surface water drainage layer and a protective soil cover.
Honeywell spokesman Peter Dalpe said the company will conduct quality assurance tests during construction to show that the "solidified materials satisfy the design requirements."
Dalpe said solidification and stabilization is not new. It has been used at more than 160 badly contaminated sites since 1982, ac-cording to the EPA. At least two of those sites were polluted by uranium. Most of the sites met government standards after the projects were completed.
Still, at least one question persists for the people who live within miles of Honeywell's four settling ponds.
Is it safe?
The plan has outraged several people in Southern Illinois, as they are concerned about the possibility of the ponds leaking and creating a disaster in the region.
Don Lowery, a retired judge who unsuccessfully ran for the Illinois' Republican U.S. Senate nomination last year, said he be-lieves the plan has major flaws and could put Massac County in the national news for all the wrong reasons.
"We don't need another Love Canal - people died, birth defects were rampant. We don't need another Three-Mile Island," he said, referencing a pair of infamous environmental disasters in the late 1970s. "The materials in those ponds are dangerous."
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, agreed. Last week, Phelps urged agencies to step in and shut down the Honeywell plant while union workers are locked out, saying the current staffing creates unnecessary health risks for those in the community.
But the ponds, he said, could be a bigger risk, as he believes the risk of the ponds starting to liquefy and create massive problems is too great to ignore.
If liquefaction occurs, Phelps said, "it'll leak into the ground and into our water system, and it is going to be a catastrophe. We don't want this to turn into Three-Mile Island."
Honeywell assured all proper steps will be taken to make sure no such leak occurs, and that testing will take place to make sure the solidification happens without a hitch. But during a public meeting earlier this month with engineers and Honeywell executives, Lowery was told there is no contingency plan in place should there be a leak.
"It is a concern; (the waste) is there," said Mike Riley, a former longtime Honeywell employee who is now the USW's health and local safety representative. "I don't see how putting concrete with it is going to get rid of the problem.
"I think people need to be educated on the hazards at that sight - the hydrofluoric acid, the ammonia, sulfuric acid, what those things can do, and the quantities that are out there. We're not talking about a 55-gallon drum; we're talking about thousands of pounds of these chemicals."
Honeywell's past
Several people, Lowery included, said they simply don't trust Honeywell on matters of safety and transparency. And the plant has had issues.
In December, a small leak of hydrofluoric acid occurred at the Metropolis plant, although there were no injuries and NRC offi-cials said it was properly handled within the plant.
In April, Honeywell's quarterly financial report stated that the EPA and Department of Justice were investigating whether sludge produced at the plant had been properly stored, and that a grand jury was convened to investigate the matter.
In 2009, the NRC gave Honeywell a violation for not reporting 37 contamination events at the Metropolis plant. A uranium hexafluoride leak in December 2003 resulted in the plant being shut down for three months.
However, during inspections throughout the end of last year, the NRC said there were no significant safety concerns with the Metropolis plant.
"We take our regulatory responsibilities very seriously and will continue our oversight to ensure the Honeywell facility is operated in a way that protects workers, people living nearby and the environment," said Tony Gody, NRC Region II director of the Division of Fuel Facility Inspection.
The region's future
In 2000, an EPA report on stabilization and solidification projects at badly polluted sites across the country found that concen-trations of toxins at those sites were reduced enough to generally meet government standards.
Unfortunately, the EPA also noted in the same report that the long-term effectiveness of solidification and stabilization is un-known.
The EPA quoted various studies showing that "cement-based stabilized wastes are vulnerable to the same physical and chemical degradation processes as concrete and other cement-based materials," which means they have the "potential to disintegrate over a period of 50 to 100 years."
That timeframe is what concerns Metropolis Mayor Billy McDaniel. But, McDaniel said, there also comes a time when citizens have to rely on "the people you're paying to keep you safe."
"I want it where, 50 years from now in our community, we don't have an issue at Honeywell or at any other plant, that could be taking lives or having babies born with deformities," McDaniel said. "We want things done right, and in the right way, the first time."

Extremely high levels of toxic chemical in coal tar found in booming suburb

By Michael Hawthorne

If a company dumped the black goop behind a factory, it would violate all sorts of environmental laws and face an expensive hazardous-waste cleanup.

But playgrounds, parking lots and driveways in many communities are coated every spring and summer with coal tar, a toxic byproduct of steelmaking that contains high levels of chemicals linked to cancer and other health problems.

Nearly two decades after industry pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to exempt coal tar-based pavement sealants from anti-pollution laws, a growing number of government and academic studies are questioning the safety of the widely used products. Research shows that the tar steadily wears off and crumbles into contaminated dust that is tracked into houses and washed into lakes.

In Lake in the Hills, a fast-growing McHenry County suburb about 50 miles northwest of Chicago, researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey found that driveway dust was contaminated with extremely high levels of benzo(a)pyrene, one of the most toxic chemicals in coal tar. The amount was 5,300 times higher than the level that triggers an EPA Superfund cleanup at polluted industrial sites.

High levels also were detected in dust collected from parking lots and driveways in Austin, Texas; Detroit; Minneapolis; New Haven, Conn., and suburban Washington, D.C. By contrast, dramatically lower levels were found in Portland, Ore.; Salt Lake City and Seattle, Western cities where pavement sealants tend to be made with asphalt instead of coal tar.

The findings raise new concerns about potential health threats to people and aquatic life that went undetected for years.

"This is a real eye-opener, even for scientists who work frequently with these chemicals," said Barbara Mahler, a USGS researcher involved in the studies. "Such high concentrations usually are found at Superfund sites, but this could be your church parking lot or your school playground or even your own driveway."

About 85 million gallons of coal tar-based sealants are sold in the United States each year, according to industry estimates. There are no comprehensive figures on where it is applied, but in Lake in the Hills, researchers determined that 89 percent of the driveways are covered in coal tar.

Manufacturers promote the sealants as a way to extend the life of asphalt and brighten it every few years with a fresh black sheen. Contractors spread a mixture of coal tar, water and clay using squeegee machines and spray wands, or homeowners can do it themselves with 5-gallon buckets bought at hardware stores.

The makers of coal tar sealants acknowledge that the products contain high levels of benzo(a)pyrene and other toxic chemicals known collectively as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. But they deny their products are responsible for the chemical contamination found in government studies, saying it could be coming from vehicle exhaust or factory emissions that travel long distances and eventually settle back to earth.

As more research identifies coal tar sealants as a top source of PAH-contaminated driveway dust and lake sediment, manufacturers have started to fund their own research to question the findings. Lobbyists also are offering contractors free admission to an upcoming seminar that promises to show them ways to "protect the industry," including a promotional DVD they can use to "help market sealcoating to your customers."

"Nobody in our industry wants to hurt anybody," said Anne LeHuray, executive director of the Pavement Coatings Technology Council, an industry trade group. "The science is still evolving. If our products are a source, they are a very localized source."

The supply chain for the sealants begins at about two dozen factories, most of them around the Great Lakes or in western Pennsylvania, that bake coal into high-energy coke used in steel production. Companies figured out a century ago that much of the waste could be refined and sold to make other products, and they started adding it to pavement sealants after World War II.

One of the biggest suppliers is Koppers, a Pittsburgh-based company that processes coal tar at a plant in west suburban Stickney. The plant made about a third of the nation's refined coal tar in 2007, most of it used in aluminum production, according to an industry slide presentation. A company spokesman declined to comment.

Coal tar remains in widespread use even though its dangers have been known for centuries. During the late 1700s, many chimney sweeps exposed to tar in coal-heated London developed scrotal cancer, and decades later doctors determined that workers who coated railroad ties with tar-based creosote had high rates of skin cancer.

More recently, federal and state officials have prosecuted dozens of companies for illegally dumping coal tar and fouling neighboring areas with PAHs. At least 40 percent of the polluted industrial sites on the EPA's Superfund cleanup list have problems with PAH contamination, as do scores of other sites that haven't made the list.

Major cleanups in the Chicago area include a site in west suburban Oak Park, where a factory that turned coal into natural gas during the late 1800s dumped coal tar on property that later became a village park. Utilities spent at least $50 million digging 40 feet down into Barrie Park during the mid-2000s to haul out more than 300,000 tons of contaminated soil.

In 2007, the U.S. EPA ordered a company to dig up the yards of more than three dozen homes in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood where coal tar had oozed from an abandoned roofing plant nearby. The agency also urged residents to prevent their children from playing in dirt around their houses and to avoid gardening.

The amount of PAHs that triggered the Oak Park and Little Village cleanups was substantially lower than what researchers found in driveway dust in Lake in the Hills — 0.3 and 10 parts per million, respectively, compared with up to 9,600 parts per million.

Despite the EPA's long-standing worries about the chemicals, industry successfully lobbied to exempt coal tar pavement sealants when the agency tightened hazardous-waste rules for coke ovens during the early 1990s. The little-noticed change made it easier for manufacturers to keep selling the products, which can contain as much as 50 percent PAHs by weight.

Agency spokesmen declined to make anyone available to discuss the exemption, but said in a statement there are no plans to revise it. "EPA regulations allow for the legitimate recycling of coal tar under certain specified parameters," the statement said.

Scientists started to track the movement of coal tar sealants into homes and lakes about a decade ago, after pinpointing the source of alarmingly high levels of PAHs in Barton Springs, a popular swimming hole in Austin, the Texas capital. Tom Bashara, an environmental investigator, noticed that pollution hotspots in a creek flowing into the pool were near parking lots coated with coal tar.

The finding led Mahler and her colleagues at a USGS center in Austin to expand the research to other communities around the nation, including Lake in the Hills, where the number of households more than quadrupled between 1990 and 2006.

Among other things, they found rising amounts of PAHs in the sediment of lakes where coal tar sealants are commonly used, but dramatically lower amounts in areas where asphalt-based sealants are preferred.

In Austin, the scientists also found that dust inside apartments next to parking lots coated with coal tar was 25 times more contaminated than the dust in units next to lots coated with asphalt or left unsealed. Young children could be the most vulnerable to exposure, the researchers concluded, because they play on or near floors where dust collects.

After industry lawyers challenged the findings, arguing that other sources were to blame, the USGS scientists published another peer-reviewed study late last year that traced the contamination back to coal tar sealants.

By analyzing several feet of sediment, they determined that concentrations in the biggest lake in Lake in the Hills, known as Woods Creek Lake, didn't begin to spike until the area was more intensely paved with parking lots and driveways in the early 1990s. They spotted similar trends in other cities, including Orlando, Fla., and suburban Washington.

"You just don't otherwise see these kinds of concentrations in a typical urban, residential environment," said Peter Van Metre, another USGS scientist working on the research.

Coal tar sealants have been banned in Austin; Dane County, Wis.; Washington, D.C., and several Minnesota cities. Home Depot and Lowe's have pulled coal tar-based sealants from their shelves, though they remain widely available elsewhere.

In Lake in the Hills, officials posted a one-page brochure at Village Hall outlining the difference between coal tar- and asphalt-based sealants. The village stopped using coal tar sealants on its own property but declined to ban them outright.

"We've already solved the problem," said Gerald Sagona, the village administrator.

PAHs are of particular concern because they don't break down easily. The USGS found that although concentrations of banned chemicals like DDT and PCBs are slowly declining in the environment, levels of PAHs are increasing.

"There is a very clear connection between the use of these sealants and high levels of contamination downstream," said Alison Watts, a University of New Hampshire researcher whose own studies tracked PAH-contaminated runoff from parking lots. "The problem isn't going to go away if you keep putting this stuff down every three years."

Environmental Enforcement: Two New England Shipyards Settle EPA Claims

Two New England shipyards have agreed to pay penalties to settle claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that they violated federal environmental laws.

Rose’s Oil Service, a shipyard and fuel oil distributor in Gloucester, Mass., was cited for violations of federal water and oil pollution prevention laws. The company agreed to pay $130,000 to resolve EPA allegations it discharged pressure wash water and storm water without authorization under the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, Rose’s Oil Service failed to prepare a Facility Response Plan and an adequate Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan in violation of federal oil pollution regulations.

Promet Marine Services, which builds, repairs and retrofits vessels in Providence, R.I., agreed to pay $290,000 to settle EPA claims that it violated federal clean air and clean water laws. According to the agency, Promet’s use of paints exceeded volatile organic compound and hazardous air pollutant limits of the Clean Air Act. Promet violated the Clean Water Act through the unauthorized discharge of contaminated pressure wash water into the Providence River, EPA said.

The company is now using paints that comply with regulatory limits, has applied for required air permits, and has a process water recycling system at its facility to eliminate illegal discharges of copper, lead, zinc and solids in pressure wash water, according to an EPA statement.

Both settlements include a certification by the shipyards that they are now complying with all requirements.

NIPSCO reaches $600MM settlement with EPA for violation claims at its coal-fired facilities

Source: Northern Indiana Public Service Company

Following discussions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, NIPSCO has finalized a settlement outlining about $600 million in new environmental investments, conservation initiatives, and clean energy programs designed to improve the environmental and economic sustainability of northern Indiana.

Outlined in the settlement are environmental controls and clean air technology that further reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions at the company's coal-fired electric generation facilities.

The settlement is the 17th reached by the EPA and DOJ as part of a national initiative to control emissions from coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements. It follows a 2004 Notice of Violation of the EPA's New Source Review process alleging that NIPSCO made upgrades or modifications to its generating facilities in the 1980s and 1990s without obtaining the proper permits.

NIPSCO is among more than 50 U.S. electric companies receiving a Notice of Violation since 1998 as part of the EPA initiative, and NIPSCO maintains that it acted in accordance with the regulations and conducted only routine maintenance and upgrades on the units. This settlement resolves all matters related to the New Source Review and future claims through 2018.

Importantly, the investments contemplated in the settlement support and complement the environmental improvements NIPSCO has already made to date.

Benefits of the Settlement

By the close of 2018, NIPSCO will invest approximately $600 million in improved environmental technology and related projects. Key benefits of these investments will include:

• Cleaner Air: NIPSCO's electric generating fleet is expected to be among the cleanest in Indiana, with NOx emissions lowered by an additional 35 percent from current rates, SO2 emissions lowered by an additional 80 percent from current rates, and other benefits, such as reduced fleet vehicle emissions and improved air quality monitoring, will be achieved. These improvements will have an added benefit of helping NIPSCO achieve compliance with anticipated tighter future emission standards.

• Jobs and Economic Development: Installation of new environmental controls at NIPSCO's R.M. Schahfer, Bailly and Michigan City generating stations are projected to create hundreds of new jobs for locally contracted companies during the next eight years, as well as new positions within the company.

• Conservation and Clean Energy: NIPSCO also will invest $9.5 million over the next five years in new environmental conservation and clean energy projects, including:

- Working with local communities and organizations to develop new publicly available electric vehicle charging stations – powered exclusively with renewable energy

-Replacing and retrofitting diesel engines with hybrid and/or electric vehicles throughout our service territory

- Partnering with the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and other regional conservation groups to acquire and conserve environmentally sensitive properties in the region

Under the terms of the settlement, NIPSCO will also pay a $3.5 million civil penalty. The additional environmental investments have been planned as part of anticipated ongoing capital spending.

Just Leaked: Industrial accident death

Affton, MO (KSDK) -- The OSHA is investigating a fatal accident at a St. Louis County industrial plant.

The accident occurred Friday morning at Kerry Sweet Ingredients at 8021 New Hampshire around 11 a.m.

Investigators tell NewsChannel 5 a man got stuck between two forklifts. Michael Muessig was rushed to St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he died that afternoon.

The company said they are shocked and saddened by Muessig's death and that their thoughts and prayers are with his family.

KSDK

Update for Hazwaste Regs

DNREC is in the process of updating the state’s hazardous waste regulations to maintain equivalency with the federal RCRA program and retain state primacy for the program.
The proposed amendments would:

• Adopt federal requirements for the export of batteries to OECD countries
• Adopt federal corrections to the Uniform Manifest rules
• Add clarification regarding subsequent notifications for generators concerning EPA ID numbers
• Strike a confusing date regarding recordkeeping deadline regarding generator Annual and Exception Reports
• Allow use of amended SPCC plan as a contingency plan for TSDFs
• Clarify TSDF submittal of manifest copies to the generator state
• Strengthen secondary containment by adding requirement for coating and water stops for tanks in TSDF containment requirements
• Add requirement that generators must keep records on-site for 3 years regarding written records of shipments of used oil

The EPA's New Year's resolution for the Chesapeake

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally unveiled a plan to restore the Chesapeake Bay by 2025, a regulatory framework officials called "historical" and "monumental." But whether that's true depends a lot on what happens in the next two years.

As anyone old enough to recall the days when oysters were harvested by the millions and rivers bubbled with spawning fish in the spring can attest, the road to a polluted Chesapeake Bay has long been paved with good intentions.

This latest restoration plan gives the EPA a far bigger say in what Maryland, five neighboring states and the District of Columbia must achieve to reduce what is known as the TMDL — the total maximum daily load of pollution, chiefly in the form of sediments and nutrients that have so badly choked the bay and its tributaries. States that fail to achieve long-term pollution-reduction goals of 20 percent to 25 percent may be ordered to implement harsher regulatory measures than their governors or legislatures might otherwise have approved.

But just how tough is the EPA prepared to be? The cost of these measures, particularly for such big-ticket items as new sewage treatment plants or storm water management controls to prevent run-off from fouling creeks and streams, could run into the billions of dollars. The agency already softened some of its more ambitious requirements in recent months, as officials negotiated with states over the specifics in what some have called a "pollution diet plan."

With states like New York already facing back-breaking budget deficits — and post-election Washington with a Republican-controlled House and a tea party ethos seemingly in no mood to bail them out — it's hard to believe the Obama administration will want to spend much effort pushing a clean water agenda between now and 2012. Words are one thing, deeds are another.

That the last Congress failed to approve landmark legislation sponsored by Maryland's U.S. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin and others that would have helped states in the watershed defray a portion of their cleanup costs does not bode well. Such a proposal would seem to have little chance of passage now in the realigned Congress.

These realities are no cause to abandon the effort, only to face the harsh realities ahead. Among the half-dozen states in the watershed, Maryland's cleanup plans received the highest marks, and Gov. Martin O'Malley has pledged to meet the goals five years earlier than his neighbors.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation's most recent report card on the bay's health also gives some hope for the future. Though a "D-plus" for overall health is not exactly a parent-pleaser, it indicates some modest improvement.

The recent rebound of blue crabs in the Chesapeake is just one of the more visible positive signs noted in the evaluation. Gains were also reported for submerged aquatic vegetation, disease-resistant oysters and dissolved oxygen, to name a few more.

So while an economic recession may not be the ideal time for such a sweeping environmental initiative, it is as good a time as any. There is always an excuse to delay and defer: cost, inconvenience, jobs put at risk. Everyone knows what that gets us — the nation's largest estuary simply becomes more polluted, the solutions that much more difficult.

What is needed is not just a legally enforceable EPA plan with tough but fair pollution standards, like the one unveiled last week. What is needed are the will and resources to actually enforce it. Agency officials say that is their intention, but we have heard such promises before.

As is the case with all regulatory solutions, what matters is the details. Will Maryland poultry producers be held accountable for animal waste? Will Pennsylvania curb storm water run-off? Will New York upgrade sewage plants? Will local governments adopt smart growth principles that preserve open spaces from development sprawl?

Actions in the coming months by local, state and federal authorities could speak volumes about what may be accomplished over the next 15 years to clean up and protect this important environmental treasure. Let 2011 be remembered as the year when the dream of a restored Chesapeake Bay resulted in something more than just another broken promise.

Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun

Oil refineries sue EPA over ethanol plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — A ruling by the Obama administration allowing the sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol is running into legal hurdles from trade groups opposing the plan.

The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday over the decision to allow the sale of gasoline containing higher blends of corn-based ethanol, the second major group to protest the ruling.

The Obama administration said in October that gas stations could start selling the ethanol blend for vehicles built since the 2007 model year, increasing it from the current blend of 10 percent ethanol. The decision has been criticized by boosters of ethanol who say it doesn't go far enough and by engine manufacturers who contend it could damage engines in vehicles, boats, snowmobiles and outdoor power equipment such as lawnmowers and chainsaws.

The refiners group asked a federal appeals court to overturn the decision, arguing that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to approve a plan for fuels used in some engines but not others. The trade association also said EPA based its decision on new data submitted shortly before the ruling, failing to give the public a chance to review it.

Charles T. Drevna, the NPRA's president, said Monday the EPA had "acted unlawfully in its rush to allow a 50 percent increase in the amount of ethanol in gasoline without adequate testing and without following proper procedures." His group was joined in the lawsuit by the International Liquid Terminals Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.

EPA declined to comment on the lawsuit. The agency has said a congressional mandate requiring increased ethanol cannot be met without the higher blends. Congress has required refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels, mostly ethanol, in automotive fuel by 2022.

The EPA is expected to consider the higher ethanol blends for vehicles built from 2001-2006 this year.

Last month, trade groups for the auto industry and engine manufacturers sued EPA over the ruling, citing concerns it would lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and damaging the vehicles' engines. Opponents say the problem, called misfueling, could intensify if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite future engine problems.

The ethanol industry says the EPA should have approved the ethanol blend for more vehicles. They say there is enough evidence to show that a 15 percent ethanol blend in motor fuel will not harm engine performance.

Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said the lawsuits "only serve to delay the inevitable" and that increased ethanol use "is the only proven and abundantly available tool to reduce our reliance on imported oil today."

The lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Serious flaws found in EPA's coal ash rule cost-benefit analysis

By Sue Sturgis

When the federal Environmental Protection Agency prepared a cost-benefit analysis for the two coal ash regulatory options it released last year for public comment, it overestimated the benefits of recycling coal ash and underestimated the benefits of safe disposal -- thus hurting the chances for an adequately protective rule

That's the finding of a review of the analysis [pdf] by the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Stockholm Environment Institute's U.S. Center at Tufts University. The groups charge that the EPA's haphazard and unsupported assumptions slant the playing field against the stricter version of the proposed regulations.

"The agency is assuming many times more benefits from recycling than it can support with data," said EIP Director Eric Schaeffer during a press conference held last week to publicize the groups' findings, which were also submitted to the EPA during last year's comment period on the two coal ash regulatory proposals.

The agency is currently considering whether to regulate coal ash as a special hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or whether to oversee it more loosely as nonhazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle D.

The electric utility and coal-ash recycling industries are fighting the stricter rule by arguing that regulating the material as hazardous waste would create a stigma that would discourage recycling. But environmental advocates dispute that claim. In fact, they say that tough coal ash disposal rules would create greater incentives to recycle the material in order to keep it out of unsafe surface impoundments like the one that collapsed two years ago at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston coal plant in eastern Tennessee.

In its cost-benefit analysis, the EPA claimed that recycling coal ash into wallboard and other products is worth more than $23 billion a year, based on the annual life-cycle benefits of avoiding pollution and reducing energy costs. However, that estimate is more than 20 times higher than the $1.15 billion that the federal government's own data shows as a more realistic figure.

Among the problems with EPA's calculation is that it overstated emissions from cement kilns, double-counted pollution reductions under Clean Air Act rules, mistakenly applied a formula designed to measure fine particle health costs to the reduction of larger particles from gypsum manufacturers, and assumed savings from reducing energy consumption at cement kilns and gypsum plants that contradict federal data.

At the same time, the agency neglected to consider the full range of public health benefits from strict regulation of coal ash disposal. For example, while it considered the cost benefits of avoiding lung and bladder cancers associated with arsenic from coal ash groundwater contamination, it did not consider the benefits of avoiding other cancers and illnesses associated with heavy metal exposure such as heart disease, birth defects and nervous system disorders.

"It should come as no surprise that requiring safe landfills for coal ash is less costly than allowing ash dumps to contaminate water in hundreds of communities around the country," said Earthjustice Attorney Abigail Dillen. "What is surprising, in the face of this major public health threat, is that the books are being cooked to accommodate the coal industry."

U.S. EPA Removes Saccharin From List Of Hazardous Substances

December 21, 2010

Saccharin, an artificial sweetener in the form of a white crystalline powder, is 300 times sweeter than sucrose or sugar. It is typically an ingredient in diet soft drinks, juices, sweets, and chewing gum. Saccharin can also be found in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

In December, 2010, EPA amended its regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to remove saccharin and its salts from the lists of hazardous constituents and commercial chemical products which are hazardous wastes when discarded or intended to be discarded.

EPA also amended the regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to remove saccharin and its salts from the list of hazardous substances.

In response to a petition submitted to EPA by the Calorie Control Council (CCC) to remove saccharin and its salts from RCRA and CERCLA, EPA will no longer list these substances as hazardous on the above mentioned lists.

EPA granted CCC's petition based on a review of the evaluations conducted by key public health agencies concerning the carcinogenic and other potential toxicological effects of saccharin and its salts. In addition, EPA assessed the waste generation and management information for saccharin and its salts, concluding that the wastes do not meet the criteria for hazardous waste regulations.

EPA must overcome lobbying to fight pollution

BY NICOLE LOWEN
Nicole Lowen is a state associate at Ann Arbor-based Environment Michigan.

This holiday season, many Americans have made New Year’s resolutions for healthier lifestyles — vowing to exercise more and eat healthier foods, and swearing away bad habits like smoking. Sadly, while there are many things we can do to maintain good health, we face a number of unseen threats to our health that we can do little about.

There are myriad pollutants that attack our health from all fronts every day. Soot and smog are a particular problem here in Michigan, where, according to the Clean Air Task Force, 678 people die and 1,097 more have heart attacks every year because of these nasty pollutants. This air pollution also means that more of the nearly 721,000 Michiganders who suffer from asthma are rushed to the emergency room gasping for air every year.

Mercury and lead in the air, contaminates our water where it then seeps into the food chain and puts children at risk of brain damage and developmental disorders. In fact, one in every six women has enough mercury in her body to put her baby at risk of neurological damage should she become pregnant. Additionally, unchecked global warming also is threatening our health with the spread of infectious diseases, an increase in asthma attacks and respiratory disease, and more heat-related deaths from record high temperatures.

All of these pollutants share a common culprit: every year coal-fired power plants and polluting industrial facilities spew hundreds of thousands of tons of dangerous pollution into our air and water, contaminating our environment and making us sick.

Fortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is stepping up to protect our health by requiring that big polluters clean up their act. During the next three years, the EPA is planning to issue new standards to cut dangerous pollution — including mercury pollution, soot and global warming pollution. These standards will save thousands of lives each year, prevent millions of incidents of illness and avoid many billions of dollars in health care costs.

But as the EPA moves forward to clean our air, some of the biggest culprits, including coal and oil companies, are mounting a huge opposition and pushing the agency to weaken or block new life-saving standards.
What’s worse, many of the pollution rules that EPA is planning already have been put on hold for decades. For example President George W. Bush’s administration delayed cleanup standards for a variety of harmful pollutants, and even when standards were proposed, they were often so weak that courts found them unlawful and returned them to EPA for improvement.

Now, as the Obama administration has pledged to finally clean our air and protect public health, those same Bush-era EPA officials are lobbyists for the biggest coal utilities, continuing their legacy of life-threatening delays.These corporate insiders have put our health at risk for too long; Michiganders and all Americans deserve cleaner air and better health.

It’s time to stop letting big coal and oil companies stand in the way of a healthier future. The current EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, can protect our families and prioritize health and the environment. Her New Year’s resolution should be to issue the strongest possible standards to control dangerous pollution and protect public health. Just as Americans will resolve to improve their health this holiday, we hope that Jackson will do so for the nation as well.