Tag / EPA

by Frank Maduri

Zero Hour: EPA Superfund Follow Up

The EPA Superfund program has come under fire recently from the new Trump Administration which has cast a shadow of doubt over the future activity from this vital program. The significant amount of sites still being actively contained and remediated by the Superfund program has caused concern within residents of those areas.

The concern comes from the potential budget cuts for the program that could come from the Trump Administration in the coming months. The Superfund provides focused attention on the most contaminated or hazardous areas from past industrial, chemical, or other types of pollution.

The program also has a National Priorities List (NPL) designation for these sites as well. The specifics on the list and the foundation of the program can be found in my earlier article series on the Superfund program.

The follow up to that series will focus on some sites that have made the news recently, particularly in my home state of New Jersey and the New York metro area. The State of New Jersey has the most Superfund sites of any other state in the country.

The main misconception with Superfund sites from certain factions of the federal, state, and local governments as well as some groups of the general public is that the program is not producing results. The rationale behind that misconception is largely because of the many years it can take for a site with that level of contamination to be remediated.

The other component involved is the sheer time it takes for the entire Superfund process to move through all of the necessary steps prior to remediation work even beginning to take place. This process and the various steps it takes through the public and community input stages can be found in my earlier article series on the Superfund program.

The reality is that the program is effective in maintaining, treating, and remediating very complex areas of environmental contamination. The multiple steps involved are necessary – and the process, while taking a significant time horizon to transition from start to finish, has been proven to work in rehabilitating sites of increased pollutant exposure.

The EPA is currently focusing their efforts on the NPL sites that have been progressively difficult to contain and clean in particularly contaminated industrial areas throughout our country.

Diamond In The Rough

A Superfund site that is recently in the mainstream news here in the Northeast, is the former Diamond Alkali site in Newark, New Jersey. The site is part of the Passaic River Superfund cleanup focus area as well. It is a particularly complicated site because of the types of chemicals used there, and the level of widespread contamination of those chemicals and industrial materials.

The site has housed production of chemicals since the 1940s, when according to the EPA studies, DDT was manufactured there on the premises. The Diamond Alkali Company made several products there in the 1950s and 1960s including the herbicide known as “Agent Orange”, which the process to manufacture creates a dangerous by-product known as dioxin.

The company eventually sold the land, and the EPA conducted site studies in the early 1980s which yielded elevated amounts of dioxin, PCBs, and other dangerous toxins. The plan for the site, as with any other Superfund designated location, included immediate, interim, and longer term countermeasures to contain and remediate the area.

The process took many years and several steps and is still ongoing. The most recent plan to fully remediate the Diamond Alkali site and the greater Lower Passaic River project is slated to take 10 years to complete. The project made headlines recently when the EPA and municipal government officials announced that the companies involved in the pollution of the Passaic River are going to foot the bill for the cleanup.

The Lower Passaic River site encompasses an area of eight miles and it will take, according to NJ.com and other sources, 1 year to negotiate and 10 years to conduct the actual cleanup and remediation work. The cost of the entire project is $1.4 billion (yes billion with a “b”) and any enthusiasm regarding the corporations allegedly involved picking up the tab should be tempered by the fact that none of them have signed up to do so at this time.

The plan calls for dredging and draining of sediment from the river. The sediment will then go through a process known as dewatering, then the sediment will be transported to a remote area for disposal by train. Finally, the entire stretch of the site identified as the Lower Passaic River site (the entire 8 miles) will be capped, which is the process I described in my initial article series, it involves the application of a sand and stone barricade of about two feet in depth to seal off the area.

The companies involved will be in negotiations with the EPA regarding the cleanup costs, and I am certain that the pressure of public opinion will also help benefit this project. It is a long term and large scale job, but the proper cleanup of that site requires that type of diligence.

Ring of Doubt: Ringwood Ford Site

The EPA does not always enjoy the benefit of positive public opinion. The situation in Ringwood, New Jersey is a case in point of that type of scenario. The EPA, the residents, and the municipal government are all at odds over the course of action needed in the Ford site along a river in Upper Ringwood.

The residents are upset because the EPA has seemingly changed course over the plan to recover the site from years of pollutants. The original plan was for the excavation and remediation of over 160,000 tons of polluted soil from the site.

Instead, the proposal from the EPA is now pushing for the town to put a recycling center on the site. The pollutants would be contained by a “cap” and would not be excavated. The recycling center would cost the township about $5 million and the remediation work will cost the town around $30 to $35 million depending on the estimates.

Ford used the site as a waste dump essentially for all the chemicals and other toxic products from their plant in nearby Mahwah.

The 500 acre site has been relisted numerous times on the Superfund NPL because of repeated attempts to remediate the widespread contamination of the site. This latest plan by the EPA to cap the site has resulted in upset groups of local residents that want Ford to be held responsible for the cleanup and for the site to be remediated in a more comprehensive way.

The general public sentiment is understandable, the feelings of distrust of the EPA can also be completely valid in this case. Ford is a multi-billion dollar corporate goliath that used that land to get rid of waste from their plant for decades, and now they want to shirk the cost of the cleanup.

The resolutions proposed by the EPA would both entail the taxpaying residents foot the bill for the recovery of the site. This is patently unfair, and this is a case study example of why the EPA has been under such intense scrutiny in recent weeks. The two resolutions they provide in this Ringwood Superfund site will not address or solve the underlying pollution there in an effective manner.

The EPA has to consider other remediation alternatives, determine a whole new course of action, and they need to get Ford involved in the cost of the cleanup process. The whole situation there is a literal and figurative mess.

The legal ramifications of the process are another area where this situation could be very troublesome for all parties involved. It definitely merits watching in the weeks and months ahead.

Down to Zero

The new proposed federal budget from The White House carries huge cuts to a variety of agencies including the EPA. This obviously casts a doubt on the future of the agency and the Superfund program.

The cuts, according to CBS News and other major news sources, to the EPA budget are around 30% and the Superfund projects currently open or active face a great deal of uncertainty. The budgetary constraints take on an added significance when you take into account the duration of time it requires to remediate many of these highly polluted sites.

The Gowanus Canal site in New York City was one of the projects I featured in my series of articles on the Superfund. This project was in the news again on Tuesday with the Attorney General of New York and other Congressional representatives who held a media event at the site urging Congress to reject the budget.

The Gowanus Canal site is one of the worst in the nation as far as pollutant levels and toxicity. They have commitments from several companies to cover about $500 million in cleanup costs, according to estimates from the site proposal. The budget cuts could defund the entire project, which is in the “design” phase with remediation work set to begin in 2018.

In the event that the program was defunded that would essentially waste four years of time that many entities committed to pursuing a solution for this environmental disaster. I understand that big government waste is a real issue, but it should not come at the cost of environmental safety.

Conversely, there are other programs that function well, that is the real cost of some of these cuts: the time, money, and resources already dedicated by countless groups of people. Those groups include volunteers, concerned citizens, local government officials, and numerous professionals from a variety of backgrounds. In this specific case of the Superfund, the cuts or the defunding of the budget create a scenario where there are tax dollars already utilized to evaluate the respective site and develop the cleanup procedure, so the cuts essentially compound the waste of resources.

The future of the EPA and the Superfund program hang in the balance as the budget proposal moves through the legislative mechanism in Congress. The future of our environment, the potential for neglect of catastrophic waste sites, and the very real possibility of untold amounts of chemicals causing illness to Americans is all at stake.

The Superfund program, for the most part, was an example of a government program which actually was effective. The program got the polluters to pay for the damage they caused, which is also a novel concept when applied to a big government run scenario.

The sad reality is that without the Superfund in place, these big corporations would never comply with paying for the damage they caused to the environment. In the event that anyone thinks that these corporate giants will comply in the future, without the enforcement of the Superfund, they are sorely mistaken. That type of negligence comes at a cost, a huge cost, to our American society.

by Frank Maduri

Left Untreated: Flint Michigan Water Crisis – Follow Up

In a follow up to an earlier story on this terrible tragedy in Flint, Michigan where the water supply has been unsafe and slowly making the residents there very sick; some new information emerged today. It was originally reported in the Detroit Free Press and AP who have both done some insightful reporting on this shocking story.

The mystery behind why the water from the Flint River was allowed to flow freely without being properly treated stems from two issues: a mistake by a state level official and an equipment upgrade to the city water treatment facility that Flint could not afford. Those two issues combined to cause a horrible disaster where for 14 months contaminated water entered every house, school, business, and park in Flint.

First, the mistake by the state level official, Mike Prysby, from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was asked by the plant supervisor of the Flint water treatment facility about the addition of phosphate to the water, which is an anti-corrosive to prevent the leaching of lead into the water supply. The response from Prysby, according to AP, was that phosphorous did not have to be added for an entire year, which was a completely incorrect answer with horrendous consequences.

Second, there are other media reports out of Michigan that explain that the Flint water treatment plant needed upgraded equipment in order to properly add the amount of phosphate and other anti-corrosive additives in the correct amounts to deal with that large a water supply. The reason why the plant upgrades were not done was because Flint was broke and was already operating with a city manager that was making budget cuts on a widespread level.

The city eventually formally submitted a grant for the money, about $8 million, for water plant facility upgrades, but this was several months after the change in the supply was made to the local water supply instead of from the Detroit water supply chain. The damage was essentially already done.

Damage Control

The current situation there calls for a complete removal and replacement of all the pipes in the City of Flint, which they have petitioned to Congress for that funding. This entire tragedy, the backdrop to it being a combination of human error, negligence, and potentially being dishonest with the public about how widespread the financial issues facing Flint were begs the question: How can we fix this terrible situation? How can we prevent it from happening again, if it has not already occurred? What changes need to be made to the model of how the typical American city is managed?

I do not know the answers to these questions, but maybe someone in the audience does have some feedback or ideas in this regard. I am still researching and trying to determine how this damage can be reversed, how it can be controlled, but I know that some of it cannot be reversed. The damage to children and other more susceptible residential populations with regard to lead poisoning has already been done.

No Guidelines

The news on Flint also comes amid reports of potentially similar water contamination problems in many other American cities, towns, and communities. The EPA came under fire last week regarding the lack of commitment to any type of new guidelines regarding the levels of lead in the water supply. The agency made some indications about a year ago that it was readying a protocol for lead in municipal water systems. The EPA has come under intense scrutiny for the fact that in the wake of the events in Flint, they are still not coming forward with any type of guidance regarding this horrendous public health problem.

The agency has stated that they are still investigating and evaluating certain methods to determine the correct lead contamination protocols and testing procedures. The EPA has taken the position that they do not want to rush to judgement on the issue.

Conversely, there is a growing public sentiment that believe that the EPA needs to release some guidelines for the handling of lead in the water supply because it poses such a significant public safety risk. The situation, unfortunately, is very political and it should not be.

The news revealed this week that the tragedy with lead poisoning in the water supply in Flint could have been averted will only stand to make the residents there and in other parts of America increasingly angry and distressed. It will do nothing but add salt to the wounds of the parents with sick children in that Michigan city.

My original article posed the question: how could this happen? This story reveals the answer. It is proof of the consequences of actions when things are left untreated, in this case literally. Many questions still remain including: what happens next? How can it be fixed? I do not have those answers sadly, and I am deeply upset that I even have to ask them in the first place.

by Frank Maduri

Supreme Court Decision on EPA Clean Air Act: Follow Up

In a follow up story to a previous article I wrote on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) via the Clean Air Act the Supreme Court announced their ruling today. The Court ruled, in a close decision, to allow the EPA to continue to oversee the regulation of greenhouse gases particularly in the industry areas of energy and other industrial manufacturing.

 

The decision from the high court did place some limitations on the authority of the EPA, but for the most part, it upheld the notion that the EPA had the authority to regulate the air emissions policies relative to current and future proposed manufacturing plants.

 

In my initial article on this subject, the industry leaders in many segments related to energy and other industrial manufacturing groups were upset regarding the requirements instituted by the EPA relative to the construction of new coal plants and other energy generating facilities.

 

These groups maintained then, and their position has not changed despite the ruling today, that the EPA overreached their authority in interpreting the Clean Air Act and that the proposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions would require new technology which was cost prohibitive. They argued that only Congress, and not the EPA, had the authority to enact any such regulations on their business.

 

Furthermore, these industry groups asserted that these changes would result in a decrease in new coal plant construction and a net loss in jobs. They challenged the EPA in multiple lawsuits which were combined and heard as one case by the Supreme Court, which reached the final verdict earlier today.

 

Big Impact

 

The ruling today will have a big impact moving forward on the future of coal and other energy producing plants. The industry is looking at having to adapt and change their normal business practices, which will have a cost both in time and money to those respective manufacturers.

 

I had mentioned in my prior article that these energy producers may attempt to pass along the increase in the cost of these plant upgrades to the consumer. That would mean increased energy costs for many already cash-strapped American families.

 

The one section of today’s ruling where the Supreme Court provided some limitations to the EPA was with regard to the size of the industry types they could regulate within the confines of the Clean Air Act.

 

Initially, the EPA was seeking to regulate entities which emitted 100 – 250 tons of greenhouse gases and had to increase that amount to 75,000 – 100,000 tons of emissions in order to adequately address the issues with air quality. The Supreme Court decision today reinforced that methodology in their opinion the EPA does not have the authority to start mandating that business across a wide scale have to endure a permitting process.

 

In response to the assertion that the agency did not have the proper authority to require these changes to the policy, the Court wrote that, in essence, the EPA was acting in the best interests of Congress and the American people by regulating this area and saving the costs of creating a separate government program or regulatory entity to do so.

 

This decision has huge positive environmental protection ramifications because it provides the EPA with the authority to regulate the entities which contribute the most carbon emissions into our air. The effective management of these emissions will have a dramatic impact on the protection of the ozone layer and reverse the negative aspects of global warming and climate change.

 

The Future

 

The EPA, through the ruling today, will be able to regulate the entities responsible for 83 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The industry groups involved and their representative interest groups are obviously unhappy with the decision today, and they will mobilize a concerted effort to file more legal suits and injunctions in an effort to reverse this decision.

 

In the end, whether you think the EPA overreached its authority or not, the vast emissions of huge amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases has been linked in numerous scientific studies to have a negative effect on the quality of our air.

 

I also think that the government should look into some sort of cap on the amount the energy industry could potentially raise on rates to the consumer. I understand they have to maintain profitability, but it would be patently unfair to pass along a large percentage of the cost to the average American family based on these new potential regulatory requirements.

 

A government sanctioned regulatory process, whether it is via the EPA or Congress, was bound to be instituted based on the evidence at hand. I know I would like our children and future generations to be able to take a deep breath when they turn 30, and I think we all have a vested interest in having cleaner air. If you disagree with that sentiment, then this society has more problems than I initially thought we had.

 

(Statistics and some background information courtesy of The Washington Post and Associated Press)

 

 

by Frank Maduri

Superfund: Cleaning America – Part 5

This article series has reviewed the EPA and their Superfund program from the start of the program in response to the Love Canal environmental emergency, through the new protocols of the program, through to the most recent Superfund efforts at the Gowanus Canal site in Brooklyn.

 

This final section of the series on the Superfund will focus on the feedback I received before writing these articles as well as while I was in the process of writing them. It will also look at the future of the Superfund program with its role in an evolving American industrial landscape.

 

The future

 

The future of the Superfund program, in my view, appears to be very robust because the number of sites and proposed sites continues to grow each year. The economic climate and the extreme disapproval of the American public toward new forms of taxation of any kind will continue to funnel more environmental cleanup responsibilities to the federal level.

 

The Superfund, as stated earlier, utilizes the funds from the potentially responsible parties or (PRP) to pay for the remediation functions required to fully clean the respective site. In the cases where the PRP cannot be found, or they no longer exist, the Superfund used to receive funds from a tax levied on the oil, gas, and petroleum industry.

 

That tax is no longer utilized, though many environmental groups think it should be restored, and the Superfund receives the funds in those cases from a general spending fund through Congress. They also have a trust fund in place to handle certain aspects of the functionality of the program.

 

In my experience with the EPA, I have found them to be very professional and they have the right expertise needed to solve some very difficult pollution or contamination issues. Their approach is not the “quick fix” solution, rather it is the big picture, long term solutions that they favor to adequately address the pollution to insure that the affected area remains clean for a sustained period in the future.

 

Their approach also works, in my opinion, because it has several steps involved which account for changes in the priorities of a given site remediation project. It also incorporates the community in the decision making process and has set protocols that work very well for that exchange of ideas. This portion of the process is particularly important in today’s world of interactivity and social media, so the general public and the business community feel involved in the project, which creates a scenario where effective changes to the site can take place.

 

Furthermore, in my research and in my past interactions with the EPA, I view the Superfund as an example of a federal government program that is well thought out and actually works effectively. It is essentially the public’s check and balance against the potential for corporate or industrial disregard for environmental safety protocols.

 

I also understand the criticism of the Superfund, that it can be a cumbersome process filled with “red tape” and that it is costly to clean the sites to their standards. However, the central task I see being posed to both the EPA and the Superfund is concerning the public safety and the safety of our natural resources.

 

If you view the Superfund through that prism, with the public safety aspect as well as the safety of our resources such as drinking water; then I pose to those critics: How much money is that worth to you and the future of your family?

 

The future of the Superfund is one where it will likely take on an important role in the changing landscape of American industry. Anyone watching the evening news or checking out the CBS News website on their laptop or mobile device knows that America has seen the manufacturing sector shipped overseas to Asia and other emerging markets.

 

However, as the push back of the American public for more “made in America” products continues to gain traction, the EPA has to be ready to insure that the return of manufacturing is not correlated with the return of heavy industrial pollution.

 

The other major area for Superfund involvement is the before mentioned fracking, and other energy or mining activities which could perilously endanger our drinking water and other natural resources. I predict a future where the EPA will, through Superfund, play a vital role in the restoration of areas used for energy or mining development.

 

I wrote this article series because in many conversations I was having, I realized that many people were not aware of what the Superfund was, or what it was designed to achieve. I covered a great deal of information, and I feel like I only scratched the surface. The program has so many layers and sub-sections associated with it, that you can certainly feel free to visit the EPA website for further information on the role of the Superfund.

 

The other question which I was asked often when I told people that I was working on this article series was: which state has the fewest Superfund sites?  I presume it is out of curiosity because New Jersey has the most sites on the list (113 sites). However, some of those people told me that they wanted to look into moving their families to that state. Other states with a large number of Superfund sites are California with 97 and New York with 95.

 

 

The answer to that question is North Dakota with 0 sites on the list, though that could change in subsequent years based on the recent increase in fracking activities there by big energy producing corporations.

 

Some other states with very small numbers of sites are Nevada with 1, South Dakota with 2, Wyoming with 2, and Hawaii has 3.

 

The future for the Superfund will be marked with increasingly difficult potential chemical remediation projects, projects which feature sites that have seepage of pollutants deep into the ground as a result of new technologies such as fracking for natural gas or in the mining of other resources. In any case, the EPA will be ready and prepared for the complex challenges ahead as they strive to keep our land and water clean and safe both today and for the generations to follow.

 

 

 

by Frank Maduri

Superfund: Cleaning America – Part 4

The article series on the Superfund has provided a detailed view of the foundation of the program, the types of contamination commonly found on industrial sites, the enforcement methods used by the EPA against the parties responsible for the pollution, the involvement of the community, and spill response protocols. The previous section, Part 3, looked at New Jersey, the state with the highest number of Superfund sites and explored the state level program for environmental cleanup compared to the EPA program.

This installment of the series will examine the criticisms facing the Superfund program from the American public and business community. It will then focus on the Gowanus Canal site in Brooklyn, one of the most challenging sites the Superfund has ever faced.

 

 

Criticisms of Superfund

 

The critics of this government program for environmental cleanup of the worst and most heavily polluted sites in the country feel that the Superfund program is too costly and that it is overly bureaucratic.

 

These criticisms can be easy for someone outside of the system to make without the full knowledge of what the EPA and the Superfund set out to accomplish. On the surface, it can look like a very expensive program with too much “red tape” and regulations.

 

However, the reality is that the levels of pollution and toxicity are so rampant and have permeated so deeply into some of these sites, the approach to cleaning them properly is often unclear. In some cases, the polluted materials have sat there for several years, even decades, which creates conditions which are very complicated to remediate.

 

The argument could be made that the Superfund program is so expensive because of the negligence of the actions by the corporations or entities that operated on the respective sites.  The regulations involved in Superfund are necessary because these types of site cleanups are highly complex and that requires a multi-layered approach to insure the integrity of the process is maintained.

 

In the event that some of the regulations were relaxed in relation to the Superfund procedures, then the risk of an error in the process would bring a tremendous amount of scrutiny to the entire program. The money involved has the tendency to create an environment where they could have wasted resources involved in the process. The “red tape” creates safeguards to prevent funds from being spent incorrectly.

 

The types and methods for cleanup of these highly polluted sites characteristically are very time consuming in order to be done thoroughly. This long duration of time involved in the remediation of the respective site also creates a situation where the program is criticized, and sometimes harshly criticized.

 

America is defined by a society of instant gratification where results are expected in a very short time frame. The Superfund site remediation process requires several years of activity from start to finish. This lengthy process timeline can be criticized by members of the government, the media, and the general public.

 

In response to this criticism, the EPA has made a concerted effort to maximize the news of their successful remediation projects from the Superfund program. The news of this type of success can have very positive impact on the public opinion of the Superfund program. It is easy for most people and groups to get excited about the news of a clean and safe area which used to be polluted with toxic materials.

 

 

The Gowanus Canal Site

 

This site already has generated a great deal of news headlines over the years since it was added as a Superfund site in March 2010, but especially in the closing months of 2013 when the EPA announced their plans for the final stages of the remediation of this heavily polluted area.

 

In my view, the component of this particular site which is the most compelling is that it is located within such a densely populated area in Brooklyn. This setting made it very difficult to clean up, yet a pressing priority to do so, amidst some very complex circumstances.

 

Additionally, the canal site was further complicated by the sheer volume of the contamination there which took place over a period of over 150 years. The canal was most heavily trafficked from 1860 -1960 and residents complain of the smell emanating from the area in recent years (www.nytimes.com).

 

This site will be one of the biggest challenges for the EPA since their first site remediation project at Love Canal in upstate New York. It would require them to go back to the drawing board with multiple plans for the site cleanup based on community and state government feedback.

 

The Plan to Clean the Canal

 

The EPA plan for the remediation of the Gowanus Canal site was just recently finalized, and according to a variety of media sources and the EPA press release, the cleanup will take place over the course of 10 – 12 years and cost $506 million.

 

The plan calls for the removal of contaminated sediment, a cap on the dredged areas, and the disposal of most of the sediment will be done out of the area at another facility. The original plans called for the construction of a facility to handle the disposed waste on the shores of the canal in the Red Hook area, but through community input, that plan was scrapped.

 

The canal has very high levels of contamination from the industrial activity that took place there as well as from sewage discharge from overflows in the New York City sewer system. The EPA estimates that the Gowanus site might be one of the worst and most polluted waterways in the entire country.

 

The industrial contaminants involved include: PAH, PCBs, and coal tar. All of these substances are very hazardous on their own, but this site has each one of them present. PAH is a group of chemicals caused by the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, and garbage (www.epa.gov). PCBs are a group of chemicals which were contained in coolants and lubricants used in transformers and other electrical equipment until their use was banned in 1979. Both of these chemical groups are cancer causing.

 

Coal tar is present as a result of the heavy burning of coal which took place in the factories and plants along the canal during the Industrial Revolution. The coal tar remained at high levels and is a very hazardous material particularly when it penetrates underground, as it has at the Gowanus Canal site. When coal tar is gasified it releases cancer causing vapors (www.epa.gov).

 

The EPA has segmented the canal into 3 portions for the cleanup process:

 

  1. Upper: includes the area from the top of the canal to the 3rd Street Bridge
  2. Middle: includes the area from the 3rd Street Bridge to Hamilton Ave Bridge (this section is the most highly contaminated part of the site)
  3. Lower: includes the Hamilton Ave Bridge to the mouth of the canal (this section is the least contaminated portion of the site)

 

The canal was once home to gas plants, tanneries, chemical plants, and dye manufacturing plants. The industrial pollution coupled with the rainwater runoff from the storm drains as well as the previously mentioned sewage overflows created horrible conditions in the canal.

 

The finalized remediation plan for the Gowanus site requires that the EPA will dredge from the upper and middle portions of the canal a total of 307,000 cubic yards of very highly contaminated sediment (www.epa.gov).

 

Then, the EPA will take the liquid coal tar that is still bubbling out of the sediment and mix it with cement. Then they will use multiple layers to clean and remediate the site. The “active” layer uses absorbent material designed to remove PAH contaminants.

 

The “isolation” layer is made up of gravel and sand which insulates the remaining pollutants from exposure. The “armor” layer consists of heavy gravel and stone to prevent erosion of the other layers caused by boats and the changing water currents.

 

Finally, a layer of clean sand will cover the “armor” layer and serve to restore the canal bed to a natural habitat.

 

The same process of layering will be repeated in the lower section where the EPA anticipates dredging 280,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. In the lower section, the 1st Street turning basin will be remediated by the removal of contaminates and the restoration of 475 feet of the basin (www.epa.gov).

 

The 5th Street turning basin will be completely excavated and restored.

 

Any liquid coal tar found in the sediment will be removed and transported to a treatment facility out of the area. The EPA also wanted to insure that sewage control mechanisms were put in place as part of the final plan for the cleanup of the site.

 

Consequently, the EPA will be installing retention tanks at two outfalls in the upper segment of the canal in order to reduce the overflow of contaminated sewage. If these tanks were not installed then the sewage overflow would contaminate the canal again soon after the EPA finished their remediation work.

 

I mentioned earlier the search procedures that EPA and the Superfund conducts to identify the parties responsible for the pollution at a given site. That component was a point of contention in the Gowanus Canal site because the State of New York wanted to handle the remediation themselves and raise the money through city and state taxes. The state government argued that they could do the Gowanus cleanup faster than the EPA because they were not going to pursue any of the corporate or industrial entities potentially responsible for the pollution.

 

The EPA ended up gaining the responsibility for the site and they have identified some responsible parties including the State of New York, and the large energy supplier known as National Grid. National Grid purchased the land from other companies in three highly polluted lots along the canal several years ago and took no action to clean up the area (www.epa.gov). All three lots were the former location of three separate natural gas production facilities.

 

Several other responsible parties have been identified by the EPA and are being pursued for the funds needed to begin the dredging and cleanup, which some news sources are reporting will not begin until 2016.

 

In the end analysis, the Gowanus Canal site is a catastrophic area of pollution that had to be addressed and remediated in the correct way. In this era of recessionary economic activity, shrinking wages, chronically high unemployment levels, and a high cost of living in New York; the solution of using more taxes to fund the cleanup of the canal would not have been feasible.

 

The EPA through the Superfund designation offered the terribly polluted site the best chance to be cleaned and thoroughly remediated to restore the canal appropriately. It may take a longer amount of time for the EPA to complete the project, but it will be done in a highly effective manner by people who have the expertise needed to fix a site as badly contaminated as the Gowanus Canal is in its current state.

The next and final component of this article series will take a look at the feedback I have received before and during the process of writing this article series. It will conclude with a look at the future prospects of this important environmental protection program.

by Frank Maduri

Superfund: Cleaning America – Part 3

The Superfund has tackled the most difficult pollution and provided solutions to very complex remediation projects throughout the United States. The first two installments of this series traced the history of this program, the types of contamination, the enforcement protocols, and the spill response mandate from Congress.

 

 

This portion of the series will be dedicated entirely to my home state, New Jersey, which has the highest number of Superfund sites in the United States. The complexities of some of the politics involved in the placement of sites on the Superfund list will also be examined.

 

New Jersey

 

The State of New Jersey has the most sites listed on the Superfund system for cleanup. This number can be attributed to the abundance of manufacturing, chemical engineering, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies located in New Jersey based on its central location between New York City and Philadelphia.

 

 

The other troubling statistic for New Jersey is that it is the most densely populated state in the country. Therefore, a spill or a hazardous pollution site has the potential to impact many more lives than in other, more remote areas of the United States.

 

In the N.P.L. section of the EPA website you can search the sites and filter them by state. Using that website feature, I was able to determine that New Jersey has 144 sites listed on the N.P.L. which is a staggering statistic (www.epa.gov).

 

In a recent report made available through the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.) the State of New Jersey could have 27 more sites which are toxic that could have qualified for the Superfund program and are not on the list.

 

 

The most notorious site which remains missing from the list in New Jersey for Superfund cleanup is the former DuPont site in Pompton Lakes. The EPA has confirmed that the company’s practices have contaminated the ground water, soil, sediment, and surface water at the site (www.nj.com).

 

 

The pollution present at the former DuPont site threatens an area containing approximately 400 homes, where reports of illness from families breathing in toxic vapors from the contaminated groundwater seeping into their basement have become increasingly problematic.

 

Governor Christie has maintained that the state Department of Environmental Protection (D.E.P.) will continue to work on the cleanup efforts at the site. The Governor has stated that many sites on the Superfund list sit for years without being adequately addressed (www.nj.com).

 

However, the head of the Sierra Club in New Jersey, Jeff Tittel, counters the Governor’s assessment by stating that the state program has been in charge of the site for years and nothing has been done to address the major issues there, that it is a prime candidate for Superfund remediation.

 

The EPA statement to the media when the inquiry was made about the Pompton Lakes site being overlooked for Superfund status intimated that the site was too small for inclusion in the program. The site is estimated to be anywhere from 540 to 570 acres in size; which has the environmental groups and residential groups in that area in an uproar (www.nj.com).

 

In the meantime, New Jersey has been awarded $160 million in federal funding via the stimulus package directed toward 8 Superfund sites in the state (www.njspotlight.com). This proves that the federal government is aware and concerned about the pace of the cleanup efforts of the numerous polluted sites in New Jersey.

 

In addition, New Jersey has two other sites being proposed for inclusion on the N.P.L. at this point: Route 561 Dump Site in Gibbsboro and the Mansfield Trail Dump in Byram.

 

These overlooked toxic sites have been a source of great concern for residents in New Jersey. The debate continues on whether or not the sites should require EPA assistance in order to remediate properly versus the ramifications of having the environmental program run by the state government be responsible for those areas.

 

 

According to the website, NJ Spotlight.com, there are concerns from the environmental groups that the state program is concerned more about the redevelopment of the land than the complete remediation of the pollution at these sites. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups cite the more strict standards of cleanup required by the Superfund as the rationale for why the DuPont site should be under the EPA jurisdiction.

 

In fact, New Jersey has privatized its hazardous waste cleanup program which allows for more cost conscious remediation work and less public scrutiny of the program (www.njspotlight.com). The New Jersey D.E.P. has also introduced a program called the Licensed Site Remediation Program which would use private contractors hired by the polluters or P.R.Ps to clean up the waste sites. This program has also met with strong opposition from the environmental groups in the state.

 

The prevailing question from the environmental groups in regard to this program is: how can the public be assured that the cleanup process is done correctly and thoroughly with limited government oversight?

 

The other issue I see in this approach by New Jersey is it does not address how the cleanup of a site would be achieved in the event that the corporation or entity involved in the pollution on the site is now bankrupt or no longer exists. In that case, who would be responsible for hiring the private contractors to clean up the site?

 

The new order of the day from the Christie Administration is to limit state government expenditures and maintain balanced budgets, so in that scenario, the state government would not cover the costs of the expenses to remediate the site. I would have to assume that the site would end up on the Superfund list anyway for the federal government to clean up the hazardous material.

 

The other point worth mentioning here is that other states have gone to a similar model to the one used in New Jersey to deal with the cleanup of contaminated sites. The net result of this shift could be a changing role in the future for the EPA with regard to environmental contamination cleanup, but that remains to be seen.

 

One of the most polluted sites in New Jersey at one point was the Imperial Oil site in Morganville. It first became listed on the Superfund in 1983, which is a strong indication of the level of contamination at that location at one point in time.

 

The EPA, through Superfund, has removed 25,000 gallons of contaminated oil from the 15 acre site (www.epa.gov). The project also provided for the cleanup of four other properties which are residential and located adjacent to the Imperial Oil site.

 

According to the U.S. government, there are 406,326 people living within 10 miles of the site (www.census.gov). That potential for potential public health risk to a huge number of people is a driving force behind the importance of cleaning this site properly and thoroughly.

 

The Imperial Oil cleanup project received $33.4 million in Recovery Act funds to treat the contaminated soil on the site which is threat to the groundwater supply located beneath the site (www.epa.gov). The soil will then be tested over a very long period of time to measure the effectiveness of the remediation work done there.

 

The safe cleanup of the Imperial Oil site is a case study in the success that the Superfund protocols can achieve when the process is allowed to move from start to finish. That location featured some complex environmental remediation problems, and the EPA was able to find solutions to those issues and move the project forward to the final stages of soil sediment cleaning.

The next installment of this series will explore the criticisms of Superfund which have manifested over the years. It will also take an in-depth view of one of the worst pollution areas the program has ever faced, the Gowanus Canal site in Brooklyn.

 

by Frank Maduri

Superfund: Cleaning America – Part 2

This next installment of the series on the Superfund program will describe the methods of enforcement utilized by the EPA to ensure that the proper parties pay for the damage. The types of contamination will be detailed and explained, the role of community involvement in the Superfund process will be explored, and the important steps regarding spill response will also be covered.

 

Enforcement

 

The EPA has a number of viable avenues for enforcing the proper cleanup of a particular Superfund site. The EPA begins the process by finding the companies or the people that are responsible for the contamination or spill in order to determine whether the cleanup will be conducted by the EPA, a state government agency, or another party.

 

In some cases, the party responsible may not agree on the decision of the EPA regarding their role in the cleanup process. The EPA response would be to issue an order to get the work done. The EPA can, at the same time, coordinate with the Department of Justice to pursue the responsible party through the federal court system.

 

In the event that the responsible party handles the cleanup themselves, or contracts out for a company to handle the site cleanup, and the EPA finds that company to be out of compliance they can take action. In that circumstance the EPA can refer to the Department of Justice for enforcement, to assess penalties, and/or take over the work of remediating the site.

 

The term used by the Superfund to define those involved with a hazardous site is Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP). The EPA utilizes a variety of methods to gather evidence regarding PRPs and their connection to a particular site. They use evidence to match the waste at a site to potential contributors (www.epa.gov).

 

The EPA also uses the following steps, according to their web site when dealing with PRP:

  • Review documents
  • Interviews
  • Site investigation and sampling
  • Title searches

(www.epa.gov)

When the appropriate PRP is identified, then the EPA takes the following steps:

  • Nature of involvement
  • Party’s potential defense
  • Applicable exemption
  • Amount of waste contributed
  • How much the party can pay (www.epa.gov)

 

In the case that a PRP has gone through bankruptcy proceedings or is in the process of declaring bankruptcy, the EPA would file paperwork through legal channels to be listed as a creditor. The EPA would receive money based on the bankruptcy settlement, or would receive money from the company should it emerge from bankruptcy protection until the remediation costs have been reconciled.

 

In recent years, corporations, especially larger corporations, have been increasingly resistant to paying for the environmental cleanup costs based on their industrial or business activity on specific sites throughout the United States. These corporate PRPs have been more diligent in their legal defenses trying to find a third party avenue, or some other pathway legally to circumvent payment for the damages their corporate activity potentially caused to the environment.

 

The EPA, has continued to pursue these PRP corporations and challenged their various legal actions to force them to meet the burden of proof regarding the potential for environmental damage caused by their business activity. The EPA has stated in various materials available to the public that they are compelled by a legal obligation to the American taxpayer to ensure that these corporations pay or reimburse the EPA for the damages caused by the pollution to the environment.

 

Types of contamination

 

The Superfund website has an entire section to reference on what the EPA would term as “Environmental Media Contamination” and that can include the following:

  • Sediments
  • Ground water
  • Soil
  • Air
  • Adverse effect on humans, animals, and plants
  • Vapor Intrusions – volatile chemicals from buried waste/ contaminated ground water emit vapors into the air space of office buildings or homes

 

 

Superfund treats each of these circumstances under specific protocols for contaminated sediments, ground water, and soil. In NPL sites where the land will usually have a residential use in the future, an intensive amount of soil screening takes place during the remediation and cleanup process.

 

 

Community Involvement

 

The EPA has numerous ways in which it provides the community with the opportunity to provide feedback and input to the cleanup efforts on a respective project site.

 

 

In fact, community involvement is valued at the EPA and encouraged by their representatives throughout the process (www.epa.gov). During the remediation phase of a cleanup project, the agency appoints a Community Involvement Coordinator. This individual becomes the key person for the gathering and utilization of the input from the surrounding community.

 

 

The most influential use of community involvement is handling the input involving the future uses of a site. The residents of the respective community generally have very strong feelings about this issue, and the EPA is very sensitive to those feelings.

 

 

If the community wishes to have the land used for recreational functions for example, then the EPA will look to incorporate that feedback into the future plans for the site.

 

 

The Community Involvement Coordinator will also provide the details for informational meetings which are open to the members of the residential area surrounding the site. These meetings are an additional way for the community and the EPA to share ideas and gather feedback to move forward on the rehabilitation of a hazardous site.

 

 

Spill response

 

Another function of the Superfund is to potentially respond to an oil or fuel spill or hazardous substance spill or accidental release.

 

In all of these scenarios the Superfund will use the National Contingency Plan (NCP) protocols for containing and remediating the spill or accidental release of the potentially dangerous substance.

 

 

This role of the EPA via the Superfund legislation is a critical component of the agency and Congress has broadened the scope of the EPA beyond the Clean Water Act to include the response to oil, fuel, chemicals, and other materials designated as hazardous substances.

 

 

The NCP also has a Product Schedule which maintains rigorous standards. The products listed on this document are the only products which the EPA can use in response to an incident of this type.

 

 

It is important to note that the EPA, through the Superfund spill response mandate has responded to several major spills involving hazardous contaminants since Congress expanded their role in this area. The involvement of the Superfund response protocols have been integral in the protection of our natural resources in these scenarios.

 

 

The next part in this series will focus on my home state, New Jersey, which has the dubious distinction of having the most Superfund sites of any state. The current status involving some of the sites located there, the involvement of a new state-funded site cleanup program, and the controversy surrounding some areas which have not been listed on the Superfund program will be examined.

 

by Frank Maduri

Superfund: Cleaning America – Part 1

The Superfund cleanup process provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the authority to oversee the elimination of pollution and potentially hazardous waste from sites throughout the United States. The program tackles the worst and most polluted or contaminated sites in our country.

 

The impetus for the Superfund was provided by the public reaction to the Love Canal environmental crisis in upstate New York. The Love Canal was an uncompleted waterway which turned into a chemical wasteland (www.nytimes.com). The site was sold in 1953 to a school district for one dollar accompanied by paperwork regarding the chemicals that were dumped there for so many years.

 

Despite the knowledge of the chemicals in the ground, the school was built on that site, and over time, neighborhoods filled in around the school. Then, 35 years ago, around 1978, people in that area got very sick, the contaminants began seeping into homes, and even miscarriages were being reported (www.nytimes.com). The New York State government and the Federal government declared the area an environmental emergency and dealt with the relocation of 239 families.

 

Then, in 1980, the government purchased the homes of 500 families who sought relocation out of that area. The public pressure was mounting on the federal government to take action. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 which became known as the Superfund (www.epa.gov).

 

Setup and mandate

 

The EPA set up Superfund by dividing the United States into 10 regions in order to more efficiently review all of the potentially hazardous sites. The mandate of the Superfund has evolved over time but according to the EPA website it is:

 

  • Conduct removal activities
  • Enforce against responsible parties
  • Ensure community involvement
  • Involve the state governments
  • Ensure long-term protectiveness

 

The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has oversight responsibility for the Superfund program (www.epa.gov). The process of designating a potentially hazardous site into a Superfund site for cleanup and remediation has numerous and very particular steps, so the proper oversight protocols are critically important.

 

Cleanup Process

 

The first step of the process is the site discovery, which can be made by a variety of potential parties from individuals, groups, local government employees, state agencies, or regional EPA officials.

 

The data from the site is entered into a computerized inventory of the released substances. Then, based on the types of hazardous materials or pollutants present, and the levels of those harmful components currently at the site, the determination is made on how to most effectively treat the polluted area.

 

A state agency or another permissible authority can treat a polluted site. However, if a site has very high levels of various dangerous chemicals or materials, then the EPA will get involved in the cleanup process.

 

Once an area is designated a Superfund site, it can be approached in a variety of ways depending on the severity of the contamination level of the respective site.  The polluted area could be worked on over a long period of time, or it could be remediated in a very rapid time frame.

 

The cleanup process steps are as follows (courtesy of www.epa.gov):

  • Preliminary Assessment
  • Site Inspection ( this determines the level of severity and response time)
  • Emergency Response
  • National Priority List (N.P.L.) the most serious sites are designated here
  • Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
  • Records of Decision- explains cleanup alternatives (if it exceeds $25 million it goes to National Remedy Review Board)
  • Remedial Design/Remedial Action (Preparation and Implementation of Plans and Specifications for site remedies) Bulk of remediation/cleanup is done in this phase
  • Construction Completion
  • Post Construction Completion
  • N.P.L. Delete
  • Site Reuse/Redevelopment

 

The Emergency Response situation has to do most often with the following:

  • Abandoned Chemicals
  • Community Access
  • Chemical Spill Response
  • Oil Spill Response

 

The sites and the corresponding data are entered into the C.E.R.C.L.I.S. database where it can be searched and accessed by the general public, the media, and various other entities (www.epa.gov).  The information is listed in terms which are easy to understand and the system does not use technical terminology.

 

Hazard Ranking System and the N.P.L.

 

The EPA uses an entirely separate criteria to deal with the most serious and potentially dangerous sites within Superfund. Those sites are put on the National Priority List (N.P.L.) through a particular protocol.

 

The Hazard Ranking System (H.R.S.) is the criteria used to place sites on the N.P.L. and it includes:

  • Numerically based investigations
  • Preliminary assessment
  • Site inspection

 

It is important to note that any person or group can request the EPA to carry out a preliminary assessment of a site by completing a Preliminary Assessment Petition (www.epa.gov). If the scoring total deems a site is needed for listing on the N.P.L. then a more detailed inspection is conducted via the remedial listing – feasibility study which takes place after the site is listed.

 

In addition, the H.R.S. method of scoring sites is achieved by designating numerical values to certain risk factors at the site. Those risk factors are split into 3 groups as per the EPA website:

 

  1. The likelihood the site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment.
  2. The characteristics of the waste involved (toxicity levels, amounts of waste in the ground)
  3. The people or the sensitive environmental components affected by the release or potential release of hazardous substances

(www.epa.gov)

 

The H.R.S. has four pathways which are scored:

 

  1. Ground water migration (drinking water)
  2. Surface water migration (drinking water, human food chain, sensitive environmental factors)
  3. Soil exposure ( resident population, nearby population, sensitive environments)
  4.  Air migration ( population, sensitive environments)

(www.epa.gov)

 

The inclusion on the N.P.L. can also be a decision that is made by a single pathway. The rationale being if that one pathway is deemed a critical threat to the water supply, the food chain, or the resident population; then the score will be high enough to place it on the N.P.L. in order to adequately address the pollutant source.

 

The next part of this series will focus on the enforcement measures used by the EPA, the types of contamination at a given site, and the involvement of the community in the site cleanup process.

by Frank Maduri

Follow Up: EPA Regulations on Power Plants

I recently covered the EPA ruling on the regulations for new power plants in order to curb the further emissions of greenhouse gases. This story was prevalent in the news again today with coverage by both The Associated Press and USA Today.

Those news agencies reported that the EPA ruling will be reviewed by The Supreme Court to determine whether or not the EPA has the authority to regulate the emissions of the power plants (www.ap.com).

 

The main issue is whether the 2007 Supreme Court ruling which allowed the EPA to regulate the emissions from automobiles under The Clean Air Act could be used to extend their authority to regulating the emissions from power plants (www.ap.com).

 

Both Sides

 

The environmental groups are downplaying the decision today by The Supreme Court to hear the case. They feel that the unanimous decision the EPA received supporting the regulation in the federal appeals court will help their position.

 

The EPA believes they have a strong case as well, reporting to the AP that they have the right to protect the general public from pollution within the scope of The Clean Air Act.

 

 

The environmental groups also point to the fact that the Supreme Court rejected calls to overturn the 2007 decision as a good indication that the Supreme Court is setting the boundaries of the argument by the energy industry into a very tight frame (www.ap.com).

 

Conversely, the energy industry feels that the decision by The Supreme Court to allow the case to be heard is a positive development in their cause. In my first article on this matter, I detailed the C.C.S. technology and the high cost it would require for implementation in a new power plant. In addition, the energy industry contends that the technology is unproven and they should not be required to implement it until it has been proven to be an effective technology.

 

The energy industry also feels that the Supreme Court could use this case to rule that the EPA has no right to regulate emissions from standing sources, such as power plants, at all (www.ap.com).

 

The Stakes

 

According to reports, the EPA was going to use the cap on emissions for new power plants as a measuring stick for extending regulations of emissions on other standing sources of pollution. The Supreme Court ruling could either greatly enhance the EPA in this process, or greatly inhibit the EPA moving forward in that regard.

 

The AP reported that President Obama was giving the EPA a year to come up with standards for emissions on existing power plants. Subsequently, the Court decision could have drastic ramifications on that process as well. If it rules against the EPA, then they will have a tough legal battle trying to regulate existing power plants.

 

The energy industry has a great deal at stake here as well. If they lose their case, they obviously cannot appeal it any further, and it would have to follow the EPA regulations in any new plants by installing the C.C.S. system.

 

Moreover, they would be faced with certain new regulations on the existing power plants and the emissions from those facilities. Other standing sources of pollution would face similar regulations by the EPA, except this time it would be backed by Supreme Court precedent and The Clean Air Act.

 

These regulations, as I detailed in my earlier article, would have an impact on the American consumer, as it would drive up the cost of energy.

 

Environmental Implications

 

The environmental implications are very steep here as well. The evidence is there to suggest a link between greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide, and climate change.

 

All of these other implications aside, we have a responsibility to our environment and we need to be much more effective at lowering carbon emissions and other pollutants. We need to protect our planet for future generations. It goes beyond the courts, the costs, and the designation of the role of government.

 

This issue is an issue of humanity, a question of:  what kind of conditions in our environment do we want for our children and our grandchildren? That is a big question, one which will transcend this case and needs to be a part of a much deeper conversation.

by Frank Maduri

EPA Limits on New Power Plants

Analyzing the Issue from Both Sides

 

The recent EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ruling regarding the future requirements for the energy industry to build new power plants in the U.S. has reinvigorated the issue of “clean” energy. Both the environmental groups and the interest groups and executives representing the energy industry have very strong feelings on this issue. This article will explain the ruling, compare the new requirements to the current standards used in the energy industry and detail the potential ramifications of the changes as they would impact the consumer.

 

 

The Ruling

 

The EPA announced a ruling where the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants would be capped (www.usatoday.com). The coal-fired plants will not meet this new standard without costly technology enhancements to capture and store carbon emissions.

 

This new technology is called the Carbon Capture and Sequestration (C.C.S.) system. This technology has never been used in a coal plant, though two plants with this technology are currently under construction in Canada (www.usatoday.com).

 

Two sides to the issue

 

The EPA stated in the announcement that the cap on the emissions from these power plants is a “necessary step to address a public health challenge”.

 

The coal industry responded, and it was widely reported in the media, that it is not legal for the EPA to require the use of technology that is commercially unproven.

 

The coal industry leaders continued by explaining that the EPA usually requires that new technology be cost effective and that the C.C.S. system is not cost effective (www.usatoday.com).

 

I have a vested interest in the environment, and these statements and reports in the media clearly signal to me a growing potential conflict between the EPA and the coal industry.

 

In my past dealings with the EPA, I have found their representatives to be very fair and professional. I found that I generally agree with their assessments regarding the changes we need to make to our business practices to increase sustainability. The agency has made great strides to improve the compliance of the federal government with regard to their product procurement protocols by introducing more green alternative products into the purchasing system.

 

The C.C.S. System

 

The C.C.S. system is a technology which utilizes equipment to capture the greenhouse gas emissions. It then compresses the captured carbon. Then, the compressed material is sequestered by being transported via pipeline and stored underground (www.usatoday.com).

 

The energy industry is balking at the price tag associated with the installation of the C.C.S. system, and the EPA maintains that the government will not allow the construction of new power plants without this system in place.

 

The Cap

 

The EPA cap on the emissions from power plants is now being set at 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour (www.usatoday.com). The measurement for emissions for a new power plant without the C.C.S. technology is 1,800 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour.

 

Therefore, every new plant is going to be required to install the C.C.S. technology in order to be compliant with the new emissions cap. The coal industry intends to take legal action to fight this new emissions ruling.

 

The coal industry has stated to the USA Today that the C.C.S. rules will lead to coal plant closures and a halt in new coal plant construction. This combination will lead to higher electric bills for the consumer.

 

It is widely known that the coal plants are responsible for the majority of electric energy produced in the U.S. and that this ruling from the EPA could have a drastic effect on the supply of that energy, which will lead to an increase in electric energy prices.

 

The Future

 

This is a potentially contentious issue because you have the EPA, which is clearly trying to follow their mandate and enforce some type of standards to limit the amount of carbon emissions from these plants. Those same carbon emissions can have a dramatic impact on the environment and our ecosystems.

 

The energy industry has some reservations about the cost and also the implementation and the effectiveness of the C.C.S. technology. They contend that they could install this system and it may not work to adequately address the issue, and they could be then forced to pass along some of the install costs to the consumer.

 

The consumers are caught in the middle and many are dealing with rising costs for everything, flat wages, a sluggish economy, and many are also concerned with our environment. Now, those consumers are going to be told that the cost of electricity could increase, and that will have a dramatic impact on their everyday lives.

 

I am very concerned about the environment, and I think the carbon emissions cap is a good idea. I think the federal and state governments need to get involved and mediate this situation to protect the environment, make sure that the new technology works by incentivizing a few plants to install the equipment, and to protect the consumer from an increase in energy costs.

 

This is an issue that concerns our environmental sustainability and could have big implications on how we continue to consume energy for our everyday living activities. I hope a resolution can be reached that will be satisfactory to all parties involved. If not, we are all in for some long, difficult days ahead.