Environmental

May Add Riverside Industrial Park to Superfund List

May Add Riverside Industrial Park to Superfund List

On September 14, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding the Riverside Industrial Park to the Superfund list.  The industrial park is located on the Passaic River in Newark, NJ. 

An oil spill occurred in 2009 from the industrial park.  The EPA found that chemicals like benzene, mercury, chromium and arsenic were all being stored improperly on the site and took immediate action to stop the chemicals from entering the river system.  The chemicals are extremely toxic and, apart from causing cancer, can damage the immune, reproductive, and nervous systems.  PCBs and volatile organic compounds are believed to have contaminated the soil and ground water around the park. 

Judith A. Enck, the EPA Regional Administrator, stated, “We have kept people out of immediate danger from this contaminated industrial park and can now develop long-term solutions to protect the community.” 

In its first attempts to stop contamination, the EPA capped several discharge pipes from surrounding buildings and two tanks that contain the contamination.  Additionally, the EPA found between 12,000 and 15,000 abandoned underground storage takes that still contain hazardous waste.  There is also a large amount of aboveground storage tanks containing harmful chemicals. 

The EPA has proposed to add the site to the Superfund list but needs to respond to public comment before making the final decision.  The EPA created the Superfund to take the burden off of taxpayers and find the parties responsible for the contamination.  The search for responsible parties at the Riverside Industrial Park is still going on. 

If you want to submit comments, you have several options.  You can submit comments online at the following link: https://www.regulations.gov.  You can email comments to superfund.docket@epa.gov, or you can mail comments to the following address:

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CERCLA Docket Office

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Make sure to identify your comments with the following docket number: EPHA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0603

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

Cleanup in Old Bridge New Jersey

Cleanup in Old Bridge New Jersey

On September 26, 2012, the EPA announced the finalized plan for the Evor Phillips Leasing Company Superfund site on the six-acre site in Old Bridge Township, New Jersey.  Industrial activity in the past released volatile organic compounds into groundwater. 

The Evor Phillips site was used from the 1970s until 1986 for industrial waste treatment and operations for metal recovery.  The liquid waste was treated on the site in two different waste disposal areas that neutralized acidic water.  Additionally, the site operated 19 small-scale furnaces that melted photographic film and circuit boards in order to recover silver and other metals. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection stopped the liquid waste treatment in 1975 after it failed to meet state requirements, and all operation were shutdown in 1986. 

The site was added to the EPA Superfund list in 1983, but the cleanup process required three different phases.  The first phase required the removal of about 40 buried drums of industrial waste.  Also, the New Jersey DEP ordered several companies that were responsible for the contamination to construct a water treatment system that prevent contaminated ground water from exiting the site. 

The EPA will begin the second phase of the cleanup this fall which requires the removal of contaminated soil.  After the soil is removed, the EPA will begin the newly approved third phase.  The final phase requires the contaminated ground water to go through a process called chemical oxidation.  The process uses certain chemicals to break down the harmful chemicals in the soil and ground—only leaving behind water and carbon dioxide.  The ground water will be monitored for several years before the EPA declares decontamination. 

The EPA Regional Administrator, Judith A. Enck, stated, “The chemical in the ground water at the Evor Phillips Superfund site pose health risks.  Removing and treating them is the best way to protect the health of people who live and work in the area.”

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

New York Receives $1.4 Million for Invasive Species

New York Receives $1.4 Million for Invasive Species

On October 2, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that New York State will receive $1.4 million to combat invasive species.  The grants are a part of 21 grants offered the EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.  

The grants are listed below:

1. Paul Smith’s College of Arts and Sciences will receive $399,891 for the Lake Ontario Headwaters Watercraft Inspection Program.  The project will help to prevent the spread of invasive species by allowing the College to conduct inspections on watercraft entering the western part of Adirondack Park.  

2. Central Michigan University, NY, will receive $356,154 in order to assess the risk of invasive species in the Erie Canal Corridor.  The project will catalog non-native species throughout the Mohawk-Hudson River and Lake Champlain basins.  By conducting the study, the project will try to find pathways for the invasive species.  

3. The Nature Conservancy will receive $315,059 to develop models that can forecast the spread of invasive species like Hydrilla verticillata in New York, northwestern Pennsylvania, and eastern Ohio.  

4. Cornell University will receive $277,484 in order to work with government and nongovernmental agencies to raise awareness among anglers and boaters about the dangers of invasive species.  

5. SUNY-Buffalo State College will receive $99,756 to access the potential dangers of the invasive Ponto-Caspian fish from European shipping ports.  The data will be used to develop early detection techniques for the invasive fish that is capable of adapting to the waters in the Great Lakes.  

EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck stated, “Invasive species is a very serious problem facing the Great Lakes.  These EPA grants will help prevent larger costs and damage to the environment in the future and will help ensure the continued revitalization of western New York’s economy.”

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

York Company Settles Hazardous Waste Violations

York Company Settles Hazardous Waste Violations

 

On October 2, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that Bimax, Inc. in York County, Pennsylvania agreed to pay a $36,455 penalty for hazardous waste violations.  The violations occurred at the company’s chemical manufacturing facility on 158 Industrial Road in Glen Rock, Pennsylvania.  
 
Bimax has also agreed to install a system that costs $305,000 in order to reduce the hazardous emissions from the facility by 99 percent.  
 
After a compliance inspection at Bimax, the EPA found that hazardous waste was improperly stored.  Some of the hazardous chemicals were solvents, and the storage violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  The EPA reports that the Act is in place to “protect the public health and the environment, and avoid costly cleanups, buy requiring the safe, environmentally sound storage and disposal of hazardous waste.” 
 
The EPA noted specific violations that included operating a treatment and storage facility without a proper permit.  The second violation occurred because the company failed to analyze and determine if the waste was dangerous.  The third violation occurred because the company should have received certification from a professional engineer that said the tank system was strong enough and made of the right materials to store the waste.  The last violations occurred because the company failed to monitor pump leaks every week and valves for emission leaks. 
 
After the project is completed, the company will operate above the requirements of the EPA and state environmental policies.  The air pollutants and volatile organic compounds will be reduced by 99 percent because the company is installing a thermal oxidizer.  
 
The EPA states that the settlement showcases the company’s efforts to comply with the environmental standards.  The company had not admitted or denied liability for the violations, but has simply worked with the EPA to meet current standards under the RCRA.  
 
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Two Washington Fruit Companies Violate Air Regulations

Two Washington Fruit Companies Violate Air Regulations

 

On October 2, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that two fruit companies in east Washington State failed to meet requirements under the Clean Air Act.  The violations result from the misuse of ammonia, and the two companies will have to pay fines and submit numerous reports.  
 
The EPA reached two separate settlements with the Dovex Fruit Company and the Clasen Family Company.  According to the Clean Air Act, companies that handle and store a large amount of chemicals need to form a risk management program that includes an accident prevention program as well as an emergency response plan.  The companies failed to establish such risk managements programs.  
 
According to Wally Moon, the EPA’s Pacific Northwest Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Unit Manager, “Preventing an accidental release of dangerous chemicals like ammonia protects the lives of workers, responders and nearby residents.” 
 
The EPA reports than both companies store and use over 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.  The chemical is currently one of the most “potentially dangerous chemicals” currently used for refrigeration and agriculture.  According to the EPA, “Ammonia is a colorless gas that can cause severe burns to skin, eyes, throat, lungs, and with high enough exposure, death.” 
 
The Dovex Fruit Company is located in Wenatchee, Washington and processes fruits and vegetables.  The company is ordered to pay a fine of $134,613 to the EPA because they failed to meet risk management requirements since August of 2008.  The company was also fined $98,241 in 2008.  
 
The Clasen Family Company is located in Union Gap and Yakima, Washington.  The company stores cold fruit and they were fined $17,030 for failing to submit a risk management plan.  The company is ordered to spend at least $58,800 on the implementation of an environmental project that will reduce the risk of ammonia releasing into the air.  
 
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

New Clean Cities Projects Address Alternative Fuel Instrastructures

New Clean Cities Projects Address Alternative Fuel Instrastructures

 

On November 19, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced funding for 20 new projects that will help states and local governments develop infrastructure, training, and planning to increase the demand for cars and trucks running off of natural gas, electricity, and propane. 

Some of the cities and funds projects are listed below:

Accelerating Alternatives for Minnesota Drivers

The project is led by the state’s American Lung Association and plans to develop plans for statewide natural gas implementation and more. 

California Fleets and Workplace Alternative Fuels Project

The project is led by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and will develop templates for an AFV refueling infrastructure and more. 

Southeast Regional Alternative Fuels Market Initiatives Program

The project is led by the Center for Transportation and the Environment in Atlanta and will help municipalities obtain alternative fuel vehicles, technician training for the vehicles, and more.

Central Texas Fuel Independence Project

The project is led by the city of Austin and Austin Energy and hopes to expand an alternative fueling infrastructure through training and workshops. 

Michigan Fuel Forward

The project is led by the Clean Energy Coalition in Ann Arbor and will recommend changes of codes, regulations, and permit requirements to encourage alternative fuels and AFV options. 

Fast Track to Ohio AFV Adoption

The project is led by Clean Fuels Ohio in Columbus and plans to speed up state and local processes needed to develop alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and supporting infrastructure. 

Pennsylvania Partnership for Promoting Natural Gas Vehicles

The project is led by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in Philadelphia and plans to work with municipalities and school district to convert buses to run off of natural gas and more. 

Removing Barriers, Implementing Policies, and Advancing Alternative Fuel Markets in New England

The project is led by the Greater Portland Council of Governments in Portland and plans to make alternative fuels more available across New England States excluding Connecticut.  The project will pull together permits for alternative fuels, create safety protocols, and develop standards for fuel assessments and labeling. 

Advancing Alternative Fuel Markers Adoption and Growth

The project is led by the Greater Washington Region Clean Cities Coalition, Inc in Washington D.C. and plans to develop fire and building codes for alternative fueling, creates uniform signs for alternative fuel, and more. 

Unlocking Private Sector Financing for Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Fueling Infrastructure

The project is led by the National Association of State Energy Officials in Alexandria, Virginia and plans to create statewide energy planning guidelines for alternative fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. The project hopes to further explain the benefits of alternative fuels to state energy officials. 

Advancing Alternative Fuel Markets in Florida

The project is led by the University of Central Florida and plans to develop model codes, ordinances, guidelines for purchases and training programs, and more.  The project intends to develop a plan for statewide alternative fuel infrastructure. 

You can view the whole list of funded projects on the DOE’s website.  The smallest amount of funding went to St. Paul ($248,788), and the most went to San Francisco ($1,000,000). 

Source: Department of Energy

WTO Rules against Successful Canadian Clean Energy Program

WTO Rules against Successful Canadian Clean Energy Program

 

On November 19, 2012, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against Ontario’s renewable energy incentives program, a program intended to lower carbon emissions and create more clean energy jobs.  The WTO ruled that the program, or “feed-in-tariff,” violated rules that make it unlawful for a nation or state to favor local and domestic firms and products over foreign firms and products. 

The Sierra Club and Public Citizen Global Trade Watch expressed disappointment with the WTO’s ruling and even called the WTO’s recent and former actions a threat against development of clean energy in the future. 

Ilana Solomon, a Sierra Club Trade Representative, stated: “As countries take steps to address the climate crisis, the last thing we need is the WTO interfering with innovative climate programs.  Ontario’s solar and wind incentives program seeks to reduce dangerous carbon pollution and create clean energy jobs, and it should serve as a model for other countries, not a punching bag.” 

The Sierra Club and Public Citizen also showed disappointment with the United States.  The United States submitted a third-party brief during the case and showed how Ontario’s program violated rules imposed by the WTO.

Solomon continued, “Instead of attacking another countries’ clean energy program, the U.S. government should focus on how we will build on our own solutions to tackle the climate crisis and create clean energy jobs.” 

The incentives program in Ontario was formed under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009.  The incentives ensured that that the Ontario Power Authority, Ontario’s public electricity utility, paid competitive prices for green technology they produced over the next 20 years.  Since 2009, the program showed considerable success by forming contracts for about 4,600 megawatts of clean energy and creating over 20,000 jobs. 

The Sierra Club has called the recent ruling a trend by the WTO against green energy and health policies.  For example, the WTO ruled that U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labels were unsafe in May 2012 because they discriminated against Mexican tuna fishers.  In April 2012, the WTO ruled against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 that stopped the sale of candy cigarettes.  In June 2012, the WTO ruled against country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for meat that helped Americans identify where their food was coming from and helped health officials track food disease outbreaks.

Lori Wallach, the Public Citizen Global Trade Watch Director, stated: “Only an attack on this sort of job-creating, climate-chaos-combating policy could put the WTO in worse repute than last year’s string of WTO rulings ordering us to gut popular U.S. laws on country-of-origin meat labels, dolphin-safe tuna labels and limits on candy-flavored cigarettes marketed to kids.”

Source: Sierra Club

Wind Energy Tax Credit May Expire by End of 2012

Wind Energy Tax Credit May Expire by End of 2012

 

On November 21, 2012, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) announced the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) may expire by the end of the year unless legislation extends the tax credits.  The PTC is one of the main contributing factors to wind energy growth within the United States in the last decade because it allows more financial return on wind energy investment and allows companies to competitively price their generation. 

The PTC was enacted in the 1992 Energy Policy Act and replaced former incentives for wind investment and generation in the Energy Tax Act of 1978.  The first tax credit amount was 1.5 cents per kilowatthour (in 1992 dollars), and the credit is now valued at 2.2 cents per kilowatthour. 

The PTC contributed to an explosion of wind investment and wind generation over the last 20 years.  In 1992, the United States only generated 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of wind power.  At the start of 2012, the United States was generating 45 GW from wind.  State incentives—like the mandate in Minnesota to produce 425 megawatts of power from wind by 2003—have helped increase wind energy production in the last decade as well, but the PTC has pushed for the most wind energy production overall. 

There is hope legislation may extend the PTC though.  Congress let the PTC expire a total of three times from 1999 to 2004.  During these periods, there is usually a large amount of construction on wind energy projects during the year before expiration of the PTC, followed by a year of lower production as the tax credit is discussed and reinstated. 

The PTC has not expired since the Working Families Tax Relief Act was passed in 2004, and substantial year-to-year growth has occurred from 2005 to 2010.  New generation fell again in 2010 as natural gas prices became competitive, but new wind generation picked back up in 2011. 

Some recent projects have taken advantage of an investment tax credit known as the 1603 Grant.  Projects that began construction before 2011 receive a cash grant in lieu of the investment tax credit by electing the 1603 Grant. 

2012 saw a continuing increase in the generation of new wind production.  In the months up to October, 6 GW of new installations have occurred.  The PTC will expire at the end of this year unless legislation extends the credit, and projects that started construction before the end of 2011 are still eligible for the 1603 Grant. 

Source: Energy Information Agency

Patriot Coal with End Mountaintop Removal in Appalachia

Patriot Coal with End Mountaintop Removal in Appalachia

 

On November 15, 2012, the Sierra Club announced that Patriot Coal Corporation will immediately begin to phase out large scale surface mining throughout Appalachia. Patriot is one of the largest mountaintop coal removal companies in Appalachia. 

Patriot Coal filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 9, 2012.  A court order and settlement within certain groups persuaded Patriot to reach an agreement with the Sierra Club, and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.  Attorneys with Appalachian Mountain Advocates required Patriot to install new pollution controls, but Patriot agreed to cease mountaintop removal mining if granted an extension on the time allowed to install the new controls. 

Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, stated: “This is an historic moment for people hardest hit by mountaintop removal coal mining.  Tens of thousands of people have worked tirelessly to put an end to this destructive process, and today’s agreement is a major step towards ending this abhorrent form of mining and repairing the damage done to communities and ecosystems across the region.”

Patriot is granted additional time on installing selenium treatment at designated mines if it goes through its plan to stop mountaintop removal mining.  The dragline at the Catenary mine complex will stop immediately, and Patriot will retire the dragline at the Hobet mine complex by 2015. 

As part of the agreement, Patriot is also required to withdraw applications for Clean Water Act section 404 valley fill permits.  The permits—currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers—allow companies to dump mountaintop removal waste into valleys.  The waste can bury streams and headwaters. 

Additionally, Patriot will not apply for new large-scale surface mine permits and will not open any new stand-alone surface mines.  Patriot is still allowed to continue with the opening of a new metallurgical coal mine under its pending 404 permit application, but groups have the right to challenge the pending application. 

The court order for selenium controls by Patriot at the Hobet mine has been extended 15 months.  The installation of selenium controls at 42 other mines is extended 12 months. 

Cindy Rank with the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy stated, “We've been saying for many years that if companies had to pay the real costs of mountaintop removal, it would not be economically feasible.  Hopefully, it’s now become clear that when coal companies are required to prevent illegal selenium pollution and pay the costs for cleanup themselves it’s simply doesn’t make economic sense to continue this destructive form of mining.”

Source: Sierra Club

BP Ordered to Suspend New Contracts with Government

BP Ordered to Suspend New Contracts with Government

 

On November 28, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) temporarily suspended BP Exploration and Production Inc, BP PLC and all affiliate companies from entering into new contracts with the federal government.  The EPA has decided to take such action because it states BP lacked business integrity and showed poor conduct after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the following oil spill, and overall response. 

BP was subject to a private class action lawsuit by individuals and businesses affected by the oil spill, and the federal government also filed a criminal lawsuit against BP. 

The BP Claims Program accepted claims filed by the private sector under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 in June of 2012.  BP agreed to a settlement of approximately $7.8 billion for the class action lawsuit, but the federal government also charged BP with gross negligence, willful misconduct, violation of the Clean Water Act, breach of federal safety and construction regulations, and more. 

BP agreed to pay the largest criminal fine ever issued by the federal government on November 15, 2012.  The EPA reports that the company pled guilty to 11 counts of Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers, one count of Obstruction of Congress, one misdemeanor of violating the Clean Water Act, and one misdemeanor of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

BP agreed to pay a criminal fine around $4.5 billion on top of the $7.8 billion settlement with private businesses and individuals affected by the oil spill.  The criminal fines and compensatory settlement are being paid from BP’s $20 billion Trust.  BP was exempt from securities and shareholder claims as part of the settlement. 

The BP oil spill was the worst environmental disaster in U.S. History.  The suspension of new contracts with the federal government was not announced at the time of the settlement on criminal fines, and the recent announcement showcases stronger enforcement by both the federal government and environmental agencies. 

The EPA was declared the head agency in charge of actions for suspension and debarment.  Such actions are taken to protect the integrity of federal programs and make sure the programs are only operated by responsible companies and individuals. 

All new federal government contracts, grants, and other transactions are suspended until BP can prove to the EPA that it meets all federal business standards.  Past agreements still in operation are not affected by the suspension. 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency