Tomorrow, the Environmental Protection Agency will issue its final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay, setting a pollution cap for the Bay that is comprised of 92 individual caps for each of the tributary segments that flow into the Bay. The Bay TMDL represents another important milestone in the long-running effort to clean up the Bay, the largest estuary in North America, and return it to health. Part of EPA’s release will include its response to the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) submitted to EPA this fall by the six watershed states and the District of Columbia, which all contribute to nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution in the Bay. The WIPs set forth the states’ planning to date to implement the pollution-control efforts that the TMDL will demand.
Since the states submitted their plans, a panel of CPR Member Scholars has been evaluating them, and we will shortly release grades for each state’s WIP. We’re eager to see EPA’s response to the plans, and intend to incorporate into our own report anything from EPA’s release that materially affects the WIPs themselves.
Without scooping our own report, I can say that the WIPs as a whole were still disappointing. Some plans are better than others, either in terms of the pollution-control programs they sketch out, or in terms of the transparency the states say they intend for their efforts. But by and large, the states’ plans simply don’t go far enough or commit to enough to demonstrate that they will indeed lead to significant improvement in the water quality of the Bay without additional prompting from EPA.
That makes EPA’s release tomorrow all the more important, and why it’s going to be so very critical that EPA and, for that matter, the public keep the pressure on the states to pursue genuine efforts to clean up the Bay. Too often in recent years, the efforts have sounded a whole lot more impressive in press releases than they have been on the ground or in the water. It’s long past time for that to change, and we remain hopeful that EPA is on track to help – or make – the states do just that.
We plan to publish our evaluation of the states’ WIPs in a matter of days, but of course want to take a look at what EPA has to say tomorrow. Watch this space.
Full textThe 111th Congress saw two attempts to provide legislative impetus to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Now that the lame duck session has ended, the results are in:
Of equal importance for the Bay: this week, EPA will finalize and publish the Bay TMDL. Stay tuned for updates and analysis. A panel of CPR water quality experts will also release grades on the final Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans.
Full text
Two years ago this week, an earthen wall holding back a giant coal ash impoundment failed in Kingston, Tennessee, sending more than a billion gallons of coal ash slurry over nearby land and into the Emory River. The ash had chemicals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. Clean up costs could be as much as $1.2 billion.
The coal ash issue is not "new" -- toxic chemicals from unlined coal ash pits have been leaching into the ground for a long time. But the Kingston disaster, and a new administration, brought attention back to the issue and its continuing danger. One-third of some 629 dump sites that hold ash mixed with water were not designed by a professional engineer, and 96 are at least 40 feet tall and 25 years old.
Just weeks after Kingston, in January, 2009, Lisa Jackson faced her confirmation hearing for EPA Administrator. Senators asked about coal ash, and Jackson pledged she would take on the issue. On October 16 of that year, EPA sent OMB a draft of a proposed rule to regulate coal ash waste. We suspected then, and know now, that the rule was a strong one. Finally, we were on track to fix this wrong.
But the train would be derailed. On that same October day, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB hosted two representatives from the electric power industry to discuss coal ash. Things soon got busy; by a month later, OIRA was hosting multiple meetings on the coal ash rule every week. The meetings finally slowed down in March 2010. There were 47 meetings, and most, though not all, were with industry representatives opposed to EPA's proposal.
Full textA few stories from the last week that I thought deserved noting:
In October, EPA requested nominations for substances that it should evaluate under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Today CPR releases Setting Priorities for IRIS: 47 Chemicals that Should Move to the Head of the Risk-Assessment Line -- a paper that we've submitted to EPA as our nominations for priority chemicals.
Following up on our recent IRIS reform white paper, which made recommendations for how to improve the IRIS process and complete more reviews of basic toxicology information, CPR has completed additional research into how EPA sets priorities for IRIS assessments. The paper was written by CPR President Rena Steinzor, Policy Analyst Matt Shudtz, and myself.
We found 253 chemicals that have been identified by EPA regulatory program offices that are missing key IRIS information. From this list, we named 47 that we believe need to be the highest-priority, based on the air toxics, drinking water, and Superfund program offices’ most pressing needs. EPA is currently working on assessments for 17 of these substances.
Regulatory decisions under the Clean Air Act, Superfund, and Safe Drinking Water Act are all dependent on risk assessments which rely on the numerical toxicology data contained in the IRIS database. Delaying these assessments requires EPA program offices to rely on less rigorous estimates of the risks associated with toxic substances. This can negatively impact regulatory decisions -- how can you properly protect the public from exposure to chemicals if you haven't first adequately assessed the health effects of those chemicals?
Full textCross-posted from Legal Planet.
I thought it might be interesting to see the general trajectory of CERCLA litigation over the years. The figures for reported court decisions are readily available on Westlaw. (I searched for CERCLA or Superfund by year.) Part of the trajectory makes sense, but part is puzzling.
There’s a clear pattern up through 2002 that’s fairly easy to understand. CERCLA cases began slowly, with one in 1981 and 11 in 1982. The number of cases per year then builds steadily until at peak of 356 cases in 1993. After the peak, the number slowly subsides to 155 in 2002. That pattern seems to make sense for a new law that is mostly designed to fix a finite set of existing sites.
You would expect the number of cases to continue declining or maybe to stabilize at around 150 for a while. But that’s not what happened. In 2003 the number of cases began to rise again, and by 2006 the number was back up to 267. For comparison purposes, that’s higher than any year before 1991 or any prior year after 1996 or any year before 1991. The rate has remained around that level ever since, with a slight dip in 2008 but returning to 269 in 2009.
Note that the turnaround occurred during the Bush Administration after a steady decline during the second Clinton Administration, so presumably this isn’t due to a sudden increase in aggressiveness by EPA. Either something was happening from 1997-2002 to reduce the number of reported cases, or something happened after 2002 to reverse the trend.
Full textApparently feeling their oats after the Republicans captured control of the U.S. House in November’s elections, several GOP representatives from western states are already galloping out of the gates to attempt to roll back species protections in the West. They’ve initially set their sights on gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, which were returned to the Endangered Species Act’s protected list by a court decision in August.
A leader of the anti-wolf posse is Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who introduced bills last week to delist wolves in Utah – and everywhere else for good measure. Riding flank for Bishop is Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who declared that "returning wolf management to the states isn't a partisan issue that pits Republicans against Democrats. It's about states' rights." However, so far no House Democrats have joined the group of Republican gunslingers in co-sponsoring the bills.
Western Republicans in the House are up in arms about wolves in part because they pin the blame on the predators for declines in elk and deer populations; the states of both Wyoming and Idaho have issued reports blaming wolves for ungulate declines. Other scientists, however, have pointed the finger at climatic extremes and the actions of another dangerous critter – western lawmaker's own gun-toting constituents. A report released in November by Oregon’s department of fish and wildlife concluded that illegal take of deer is equal to the number of animals killed lawfully.
Full textWith the 40th anniversary of EPA last week, there's been some useful writing on the big picture of the history. I wanted to highlight:
Important reminders, I think.
Full textMaryland submitted its final Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan for Chesapeake Bay restoration this afternoon.
It's the strongest blueprint of any of the states, and if implemented and funded sufficiently would allow Maryland to achieve its needed share of pollutant reductions. Maryland has pledged to implement, by 2017, the pollutant controls necessary to achieve 70% of its needed reductions, and to an accelerated timeline by implementing all necessary pollutant controls by 2020.
The plan has the most promise of any of the state plans of meeting its targets because it identifies specific strategies for reducing pollution, provides detailed cost estimates for implementing the plan, and provides strategies for pursuing the necessary funding. Now that Maryland has identified how much funding is needed for its pollution reduction strategies, the challenge will be acquiring that funding and maintaining the political will to implement the plan.
Maryland's plan is a considerable improvement from the draft plan because it fills in missing details on specific pollutant reduction strategies, cost estimates, and timelines.
A couple more observations for now:
a(broad) perspective
In 1974, atmospheric scientists discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the alarming depletion of the protective ozone layer that shields all life on Earth from the harmful ultra-violet radiation from the sun. These CFCs were present as propellants in aerosol cans and also used as refrigerants. The global scientific consensus and the severity of ozone depletion motivated the international community to establish the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), one of the most successful international environmental treaties to date. The Protocol established specific targets for the reduction and eventual elimination of ozone-depleting substances. The Protocol’s success comes from the scientific expertise on ozone-depleting substances and universal participation. Developed countries also provide significant technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which encourages and enables them to reduce their dependence on these compounds.
EPA estimates that in the United States alone, every dollar invested in ozone protection yields $20 in societal health benefits. Between 1990 and 2165, that would amount to benefits of approximately $4.2 trillion, the agency says.
The Montreal Protocol made headlines with the 22nd Meeting of the Parties in Bangkok earlier this month. The United States, Canada, and Mexico proposed the use of the Protocol to phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which contribute to climate change. Daniel Reifsnyder, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Development, noted that “the global community cares not where action on climate change is taken: only that it is taken.”
Full text