right to know
loe.org
Living on Earth: Beyond the Headlines
This week, Peter Dykstra and Living on Earth's Bobby Bascomb take a trip beyond the headlines to investigate Northern Indiana Public Service Company's ambitious plan to go coal-free for electric generation within ten years.
www.loe.org
Living on Earth: Beyond the Headlines
Trump tries to prop up coal and nuclear; an eye-opening deal to build an Alaska wilderness road.
Peter Dykstra and Host Steve Curwood discuss a rebuke to the Trump administration's efforts to prop up coal and nuclear power, and a controversial deal to allow a road through an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
EPA's failure to regulate factory farm pollution draws new scrutiny.
The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general is examining the agency's failure to adequately measure potentially toxic air emissions from the nation's factory farms.
The EPA Inspector General is set to release a report on the agency's lack of oversight of large livestock operations and environmental groups also plan to sue.
By Georgina Gustin, InsideClimate News
Nov 28, 2016
Pollution from livestock operations is largely unregulated
Pollution from livestock operations is largely unregulated, as the EPA has lagged behind even collecting data on farm emissions. Credit: Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general is examining the agency's failure to adequately measure potentially toxic air emissions from the nation's factory farms, a lapse that environmental groups say has allowed livestock operations to spew air pollution without government oversight for more than a decade.
Air emissions from livestock facilities—including larger farms known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs—can fall under three separate federal laws if the pollution they emit hits certain thresholds. But the government and livestock industry have struggled to agree on accurate ways of measuring those emissions, so livestock facilities have largely escaped government scrutiny.
Nearly a dozen years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would develop a way to measure emissions from feeding operations. But it still hasn't completed the process, prompting the EPA's Office of Inspector General—the agency's internal watchdog—to launch an investigation this year to determine why.
"The agency is reluctant to regulate agriculture and it's a big problem in the eyes of the inspector general," said Brent Newell, an attorney with the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, which has sued the agency to regulate livestock facilities. "They're not exempt from these laws."
The Inspector General (IG) is stepping in because progress has stalled on a 2005 deal known as the Air Compliance Agreement between the EPA and factory farms. Under it, those farms were exempt from air emissions violations, but in exchange, the farms allowed the EPA to measure air emissions so the agency could gather data that would allow it to eventually set standards for air pollution.
"The government had no data," said Michael Formica, an attorney with the National Pork Producers Council. "That's when we said: 'Let's do a study.'"
A report on the investigation is expected next spring, regardless of the change in administration, but President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to roll back environmental regulations, not expand them, and he has a Republican Congress as his ally. Typically, after the Inspector General issues its report, the agency replies with an action plan to address the problem. It seems unlikely that a Trump EPA would respond.
"I don't think the agency's response necessarily creates any mandatory obligations," explained Tarah Heinzen, an attorney with Food and Water Watch, an advocacy group that has petitioned the agency to regulate air emissions. "I also suspect the next Congress won't be too upset if EPA continues not to act to address CAFO emissions."
Over the past three decades, the number of CAFOs in the U.S. has skyrocketed from about 3,600 in the early 1980s to more than 19,000 today. As livestock production has become increasingly industrialized, environmental groups have called for the government to regulate CAFOs as it has other industries.
Environmental groups' main concern has been water pollution, which falls under the Clean Water Act. But communities near CAFOs have complained for years about their stench, as well as the health and ecological impacts of emissions of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, particulates and other contaminants. More recently, CAFOS have come under scrutiny for emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, linked to global climate change.
"The EPA has put in regulation on oil and gas, and proposed regulations on landfills, but they've done nothing on CAFOs," said Jonathan Lovvorn, an attorney with the Humane Society of the United States, which has petitioned the agency to regulate CAFOs under the Clean Air Act. "So when we're looking at the goals for the Paris agreement, this is a huge leak in the safety net. They've done nothing on this."
Measuring emissions from livestock facilities, though, is more difficult than measuring them from other sources. Compounding the problem, the agency has little idea where many of these facilities are located.
"They're trying to suggest you can regulate them like you can from any other [industry]," said Formica of the National Pork Producers Council. "You can't. Each farm is different. It depends on the health of the animal, the temperature, what type of animal, the region."
Environmental groups agree—to an extent. "There's a kernel of truth to that," said Eve Gartner, an attorney with the advocacy group Earthjustice, which has sued the agency for exempting CAFOs from federal law. "It's a little harder to monitor what's coming out of a CAFO. There's not a stack."
Air emissions from CAFOs can fall under the federal Clean Air Act. They can also fall under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, often referred to as CERCLA or the Superfund law, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA. The latter two are "right-to-know" laws, rather than regulatory laws, but in all three, the laws only kick in when emissions meet certain thresholds.
Momentum to tackle the issue gathered in the 1990s, leading to the Air Compliance Agreement in 2005.
Under it, the, EPA approved nearly 2,600 agreements, representing 14,000 farms, which critics call a free pass to pollute for most of the CAFOs in the country.
"So many industries have emissions [measurements], and they don't have to be perfect," Heinzen said. "For the EPA to make perfect the enemy of the good here—to me it's just another example of agricultural exceptionalism."
In 2008, the EPA responded to a request by the poultry industry by issuing a rule not only exempting poultry facilities from reporting leaks of ammonia, hydrogen sulfides and other hazardous substances, but also all large livestock facilities, under the Superfund law. The agency exempted all but the largest feeding operations from reporting releases under EPCRA.
The Government Accountability Office questioned this exemption in a 2008 report and environmental groups challenged the rule in court. The government responded by sending the rule back to the EPA, which has not modified the rule, so the exemption still stands.
The EPA did release its study of emissions in 2011, but it modeled information from only 25 farms and the results were immediately discounted by the agency's own Science Advisory Board as useless beyond those 25 farms.
Environmental groups have vowed to keep up the pressure.
A coalition of groups, led by the Humane Society of the United States, filed a petition with the EPA in 2009, asking it to regulate CAFOs under the Clean Air Act as "stationary sources" of emissions. In 2011, another coalition asked EPA to set health-based standards for ammonia.
In early 2015, the coalitions sued the the agency for failing to act on the petitions, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuits on a technicality.
The groups have said they will refile those suits within the next six months, and the Inspector General's report should have been issued by then as well. But with a new administration well underway at that point, the groups say they are skeptical the agency will make any progress toward regulating air pollution from the country's livestock farms.
Published Under:
Regulation
CAFOs
Email this page
Printer-friendly version
Keep reading...Show less
Confusing messages on GHGs.
Canadian government, provinces are saying one thing and doing another.
Canadian government, provinces are saying one thing and doing another
TRI CITY NEWS
November 24, 2016 03:57 PM
Conflicting messages from governments on a low-carbon future.
The International Energy Agency, of which Canada is a member, is forecasting a future with fewer gas-powered vehicles.
As the cost of electric vehicles comes down and more subsidies make them available to more people and businesses, the argument goes, the switch to a cleaner alternative will be easier and greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced.
Similarly, the Canadian government, in its mid-century, long-term, low-greenhouse gas development strategy, is recommending that the nation switch to clean (non-coal fired) electricity from fossil fuels in everything from heating homes to transportation to fully meet goals for reduced GHG emissions by 2050.
Putting aside the obvious health and environmental benefits, we question the feasibility of this fossil fuel-to-electricity strategy given that Canada is reliant on oil and gas production for much of its economy and B.C. is still trying to boost LNG production for export.
And here in B.C., electricity is much more expensive for heating homes than natural gas.
How is this low-GHG strategy to take place if this elephant in the room isn't addressed? Everyone needs to pull together if we are truly going to address climate change.
Keep reading...Show less
EPA aims to finish climate rules; Decisions fall to Trump.
The Obama administration aims to cement its greenhouse gas regulations in the time remaining, but some of the largest greenhouse gas decisions will slide to President-elect Donald Trump, according to the updated federal regulatory agenda.
From Daily Environment Report™
Turn to the nation's most objective and informative daily environmental news resource to learn how the United States and key players around the world are responding to the environmental...
By Andrew Childers
Nov. 17 — The Obama administration aims to cement its greenhouse gas regulations in the time remaining, but some of the largest greenhouse gas decisions will slide to President-elect Donald Trump, according to the updated federal regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to complete a rule for approving states’ plans (RIN:2060-AT23) to implement the Clean Power Plan, which sets carbon dioxide limits on power plants—a rule Trump has pledged to pullback.
Also on the EPA’s agenda for the next two months will be updating its mandatory greenhouse gas reporting program (RIN:2060-AS60), setting leak detection requirements for oil and gas wells (RIN:2060-AS73) and establishing limits on the use of hydrofluorocarbons (RIN :2060-AS80), which are potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing and fire suppression. All of those rules would be open to repeal under the Congressional Review Act.
Trump has vowed to undo President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which calls for limiting carbon dioxide from power plants and taking steps to curb emissions of short-lived but potent greenhouse gases such as methane and HFCs.
Outstanding Decisions Left to Trump
Now outstanding decisions on the future of some of the Obama EPA’s signature climate rules will be made by Trump appointees, including an ongoing review of the combined fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions limits for passenger vehicles through 2025.
According to the agenda, there is no timeline for that review, which would see the standards for model years 2022 through 2025 revised from the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon currently projected. The Trump administration also will complete revisions to the EPA’s greenhouse gas permitting program for stationary emissions sources after the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions only apply to sources required to obtain permits for emissions of conventional air pollutants.
The Obama EPA has proposed exempting facilities that emit less than 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually from the permitting requirements, but the regulatory agenda has no deadline for that rulemaking to be completed.
The EPA also has no schedule for completing a rule to aid states in implementation of the new, more stringent ozone standards set in 2015, according to the regulatory agenda.
EPA Implements Revised Toxics Law
The EPA also will continue its work to implement updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act, according to the agenda.
The regulatory agenda includes six new chemical rulemakings triggered by this past summer’s Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul. The rules would implement diverse provisions of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22.
The rules would:
• establish procedures to update the TSCA inventory of chemicals;
• describe how the EPA would determine which chemicals are high or low priorities for risk evaluation;
• establish the procedures the agency would use to evaluate chemical risks;
• set fees industry would pay to help defray the cost of EPA’s chemicals oversight;
• lay out the process chemical manufacturers or processors would use to substantiate confidential business information claims for specific chemical identities; and
• describe reporting requirements that will apply to any company that manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.
The mercury reporting regulation would apply to pharmaceutical and other manufacturers even if they aren’t typically covered by TSCA.
Water Rules Coming in Final Months
The EPA also expects to complete some of its pending water regulations in the time remaining for the Obama administration.
The EPA also is expected to propose a rule (RIN:2040-AF67) in December setting out public notification requirements in the Great Lakes for contaminated discharges from combined sewer overflows.
A final general permit (RIN:2040-AF57) to regulate discharges from small municipal storm sewer systems is scheduled for release this month. Also expected any day is the fourth update (RIN:2040-AF49) to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In addition to specifying monitoring requirements, it will identify new contaminants to be tracked. Proposed in December 2015 and sent for White House review in August, the rule identifies some 30 new contaminants with a focus on blue-green algae, such as the type that polluted the water supply in Toledo, Ohio, in 2014.
Updates Planned to Lead, Copper Rule
The agency also is expected to propose in mid-2017 updates (RIN:2040-AF15) to its lead and copper rule setting technology-based standards to limit concentrations of the metals in drinking water. The drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., caused by high levels of lead that leached into residents’ tap water, has added urgency to the updates, and some members of Congress have recommended that the agency propose a rule sooner.
The final rule is due in early 2018, according to the agenda. During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump called the Flint crisis a “horror show” that wouldn’t have happened on his watch. He has made infrastructure improvements a key priority.
In an interview with The Detroit News, Trump said: “I think it’s a horror show that it was allowed to happen and to be honest with you it should have never, ever been allowed to happen. That was really the problem. This is a situation that would have never happened if I were president.”
Pesticides Rule Expected
The EPA is on track to finalize, potentially within days, a set of regulations that would boost standards on pesticide applicator licensing. The fall regulatory agenda stated that these regulations (RIN:2070-AJ20) would be made final before the end of this month.
The agency also included details of its economic analysis for these regulations. They would impose costs on pesticide applicators and on states of almost $50 million a year but would also induce cost savings of more than $80 million, mostly from the prevention of pesticide-related injuries.
This fall’s regulatory agenda also contained two significant items related to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, a database of industrial pollution from across the country.
The EPA is still on track to formally propose regulations (RIN:2070-AK16) by January that would add a sector of the oil and gas industry to its list of industries that must report pollution data to the TRI. These regulations would only apply to natural gas processing facilities, not to the broader drilling industry.
In addition, the EPA said it would make a decision by April on a petition it received from an environmental group asking it to require TRI reporting for 25 new chemicals (RIN:2070-AK26).
Radioactive Waste Disposal Rule Slides
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it won’t issue a final rule for its low-level radioactive waste disposal until March 2017. In the spring regulatory agenda, the NRC had said it would publish the final rule by November 2016.
The final rule will amend the agency’s regulations on the disposal facilities to require new site-specific technical analyses and criteria for low-level radioactive waste acceptance.
A new addition to the NRC list is a pre-rule stage of rulemaking on emergency preparedness of small modular reactors, with NuScale Power LLC’s first small modular reactor application expected to be submitted for NRC review by December. The NRC plans to issue its regulatory basis for such SMR rulemaking in March 2017.
Also, the Energy Department has had to re-evaluate its proposed rule to make more stringent energy efficiency standards for gas residential furnaces after strong opposition from industry. The agency issued a supplemental notice to its proposed rule in September and has comments now due on Nov. 22.
Superfund Vapor Intrusion
The agency plans to finalize a rule in January that considers contaminated vapor that enters buildings from the ground as criteria for Superfund site listings and cleanups. The rule (RIN:2050-AG67) will allow EPA to directly consider human exposure to contaminants that enter building structures through the subsurface environment.
— With assistance from Susan Bruninga, Rebecca Kern, Pat Rizzuto and David Schultz
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Childers in Washington, D.C., at AChilders@bna.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at lpearl@bna.com
Keep reading...Show less
Indiana has more ‘super polluters’ than any other state.
Five coal plants in Indiana ranked in the top 100 for both toxic and greenhouse gas pollution, according to a new analysis from the Center for Public Integrity. That’s more “super polluters” than any other state in the country.
Five coal plants in Indiana ranked in the top 100 for both toxic and greenhouse gas pollution, according to a new analysis from the Center for Public Integrity. That’s more “super polluters” than any other state in the country.
The Center for Public Integrity investigation combined rankings from two Environmental Protection Agency data sets: the Toxic Release Inventory and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
The TRI measures toxic pollution from power plants — chemicals that can cause cancer or respiratory disease.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are released when fossil fuels are burned for energy. They’re the planet warming emissions behind human-induced climate change.
Five coal plants in Indiana ranked in the top 100 for both metrics — more than any other state. Those plants released a combined total of 59 million metric tons of greenhouse gases and 14 million metric tons of toxic pollution.
Indiana-Michigan Power Communications Director Brian Bergsma says their Rockport power plant, which is on the list, does emit a lot of gases because it’s one of the largest plants in the state.
“But proportionally we are far more efficient than other plants throughout the state and the nation,” Bergsma says.
Rockport has reduced its mercury emissions by 80 percent, according to Bergsma.
There’s been little effort at the state level to address pollution concerns. Political analyst Andy Downs says the reason for that is simple.
“The reality is an awful lot of people are employed by the coal industry,” Downs says. “So, when you start talking about limiting the use of coal, you basically start talking about people losing their jobs.”
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky are the other states with multiple plants on the list.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
