SCENVIRONMENTALLAWYER.COM

CSI Now Free (the TV show, too)

Roy Shelley — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:23:00 GMT

The EPA has now made online access to the Chemical Substances Inventory (CSI) free to the public. This should be the starting point for anyone wishing to obtain information on a specific chemical.

Excerpt from the EPA's news release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 15, 2010
EPA Makes Chemical Information More Accessible to Public
For the first time, TSCA chemical inventory free of charge online

WASHINGTON– As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s strong commitment to increase information on chemicals, for the first time, EPA is providing web access, free of charge, to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. This inventory contains a consolidated list of thousands of industrial chemicals maintained by the agency. EPA is also making this information available on Data.Gov, a website developed by the Obama Administration to provide public access to important government information. This action represents another step to increase the transparency of chemical information while continuing to push for legislative reform of the 30 year old TSCA law.
...
Until now, the consolidated public portion of the TSCA Inventory has only been available by purchase from the National Technical Reports Library or other databases. By adding the consolidated TSCA Inventory to the Agency’s website and to Data.Gov, EPA is making this information readily available to the public at no cost.

Currently, there are more than 84,000 chemicals manufactured, used, or imported in the listed on the TSCA Inventory. However, EPA is unable to publicly identify nearly 17,000 of these chemicals because the chemicals have been claimed as confidential business information under TSCA by the manufacturers. Under Administrator Jackson’s leadership, EPA has already begun a series of aggressive steps to provide greater transparency on chemical risk information, including an announcement in January that signaled EPA’s intent to reduce a certain type of confidentiality claim, or Confidential Business Information (CBI) claim, on the identity of chemicals

In the coming months, EPA will take further steps to increase transparency and make more information available to the public, including adding TSCA facility information, and the list of chemicals manufactured to the Facility Registry System (FRS). FRS is an integrated database that provides the public with easier access to EPA’s environmental information and better tools for cross-media environmental analysis. The addition of TSCA facility and chemical databases to FRS will provide the public with information on the facilities in their communities using industrial chemicals.

For information about EPA’s increasing transparency on chemical risk information see http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/631cf22eb540c4db852576b2004eca47!OpenDocument
For access to the entire TSCA Inventory, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm

EPA's Consent Decree in Graniteville Railroad Accident proposes $4 Million Penalty

Roy Shelley — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:46:00 GMT

The 2005 Norfolk Southern train derailment in Graniteville released a cloud of chlorine gas that killed nine people and injured hundreds of others. The deaths and injuries were obviously the initial primary focus (and most of those claims have been resolved) but the accident also caused massive contamination to the local waters. The chlorine cloud was absorbed into the waters and a large amount of diesel fuel from the wrecked locomotives also entered the nearby creeks, causing a large fish kill and destroying vegetation.

The EPA announced a Consent Decree (see news release here) which proposes a penalty of $3.967 Million for Clean Water Act violations (to go to the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) and $32,500 for failure to immediately report the release under CERCLA (to go to the Hazardous Substance Superfund). (A release of a “hazardous substance" must be reported immediately to the National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802, online at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrchp.html ). The Decree was filed March 8^th in the District Court for the District of South Carolina, and there is a 30-day public comment period. The full decree is available at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

EPA Announces new CERCLA ("Superfund") Sites

Roy Shelley — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:07:00 GMT

There are now almost 1,300 Superfund sites, and another 1,300 under investigation. Most of these sites are former industrial processing or disposal facilities with a long history - sometimes stretching back over 100 years - of releases of hazardous materials. The EPA, usually in cooperation with state environmental agencies, investigates potentially contaminated sites and adds them to the National Priorities List (NPL) if they meet certain criteria to fall under CERCLA jurisdiction.

Despite the rather depressing sheer number of contaminated sites, there are still some success stories, as well as new, optimistic proposals for reuse of these sites. One such proposal is to use them, after remediation/removal, for renewable energy projects such as solar or wind farms. (See http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/10/green-shoots-from-brownfields

On March 2nd, the EPA announced the addition of the following 10 sites to the National Priorities List:

Salt Chuck Mine (Outer Ketchikan County, Alaska)

JJ Seifert Machine (Ruskin, Fla.)

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Jacksonville (Jacksonville, Fla.)

Chemetco (Madison County, Ill.)

Lake Calumet Cluster (Chicago, Ill.)

Gratiot County Golf Course (St. Louis, Mich.)

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp – Navassa (Navassa, N.C.)

Gowanus Canal (Brooklyn, N.Y.)

Black Butte Mine (Cottage Grove, Ore.)

Van Der Horst USA Corporation (Terrell, Texas)

The following eight sites have been proposed as additions to the National Priorities List:

Sanford Dry Cleaners (Sanford, Fla.)

St. Clair Shores Drain (St. Clair Shores, Mich.)

Vienna Wells (Vienna, Mo.)

ACM Smelter and Refinery (Cascade County, Mont.)

Wright Chemical Corporation (Riegelwood, N.C.)

Black River PCBs (Jefferson County, N.Y.)

Dewey Loeffel Landfill (Nassau, N.Y.)

Smokey Mountain Smelters (Knox County, Tenn.)

Here is the text of the EPA newsrelease:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 2, 2010

EPA Adds Ten Hazardous Waste Sites to Superfund’s National Priorities List

Action builds on efforts to clean up our communities

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is adding 10 new hazardous waste sites that pose risks to human health and the environment to the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The NPL is a listing of priority sites that EPA investigates to determine if actions are needed to clean up the waste. Superfund is the federal program that cleans up the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country – protecting the health of nearby communities and ecosystems from harmful contaminants. In addition to the final sites added to the list, EPA is also proposing to add eight sites to the NPL.

Contaminants found at these sites may pose a wide range of health effects. The contaminants found include arsenic, benzene, chromium, copper, creosote, cyanide, dichloroethene (DCE), lead, mercury, perchloroethene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and selenium, among others.

To date, there are 1,279 sites on the NPL (including the 10 new sites added today). With the proposal of the eight new sites, there are 61 proposed sites awaiting final agency action. There are a total of 1,340 final and proposed sites.

With all Superfund sites, EPA tries to identify and locate the parties potentially responsible for the contamination to pay for the clean up. For the newly listed sites without viable potentially responsible parties, EPA will investigate the full extent of the contamination before starting significant cleanup at the site. Therefore, it may be several years before significant cleanup funding is required for these sites.

Contaminated sites may be placed on the NPL through various mechanisms:

· Numeric ranking established by EPA’s Hazard Ranking System

· Designation by states or territories of one top-priority site

· Meeting all three of the following requirements:

- The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a health advisory that recommends removing people from the site;

- EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

- EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.

For Federal Register notices and supporting documents for these final and proposed sites: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/current.htm

EPA event March 2nd in Charleston re: ARRA funds being used to reduce transport emissions at Port of Charleston

Roy Shelley — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:50:00 GMT

From the EPA news release:

EPA to Recognize Recovery Act Air Quality Improvement Projects in Charleston, SC

Contact: Dawn Harris-Young, (404) 562-8421, harris-young.dawn@epa.gov

(ATLANTA – February 26, 2010) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy will join officials from the S.C. State Ports Authority (SCSPA), S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), S.C. State Department of Education (SCSDE) and the private sector at an event to illustrate how funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is being used to improve air quality and create jobs in Charleston, SC.

EPA will recognize the Port of Charleston for using ARRA funds to repower and retrofit cargo handling and other diesel equipment at the Port of Charleston. SCSDE will be recognized for using ARRA funding to replace old school buses with new low emission hybrid buses and retrofit existing buses with cleaner technology. The event also will include a tour and demonstration of how filters will be installed on buses, trucks and other diesel engines to reduce the amount of harmful soot particles in the air.

Who: Gina McCarthy, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation

Stanley A. Meiburg, EPA Acting Regional Administrator

Jim Newsome, President & CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority

Myra Reese, Bureau Chief of Air Quality for SC Department of Health and Environmental Control

Betsy Carpentier, Deputy Superintendent for SC State Department of Education

What: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project Recognition Event

When: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 from 11:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.

Where: Wando Welch Terminal

400 Long Point Road

Mount Pleasant, SC

PLEASE NOTE: Advanced security clearance is required for access to port facilities. All media attending the event will need to provide (1) name, (2) date of birth and (3) drivers license number/state issued to Allison Skipper (askipper@scspa.com) no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, March 1. Thank you for your cooperation!

You can sign up for EPA news releases at:

http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/email_signups.htm

"Minimally adequate" Federal Rules

Roy Shelley — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:33:00 GMT

Much like the SC Supreme Court's ruling that the State has to provide only "minimally adequate" education (and the obvious ensuing question: Is that really our highest aspiration?). Many federal standards are only "the floor", i.e., the minimally adequate, requirements. States have, in most circumstances, the power to require greater protections.

In many areas, such as the Clean Water Act provisions, this retained power of the States is explicit. See 33 U.S.C § 1370; 40 C.F.R. § 131.4(a); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 174 (D.C.Cir.1988) (noting that “[i]n fashioning its guidelines … EPA endeavored to reconcile the competing objectives of regulatory uniformity and state autonomy by establishing a floor for … state enforcement authority, while ensuring that states have the maximum possible independence”)

The Vermont Supreme Court recently recognized this long-standing State right, while also holding that the State has the equivalent right of waiving its higher standards. (See article here.)

There are arguably very cogent reasons for allowing flexibility in State requirements above a certain minimum level. The huge disparity between different areas of our country (and even within a state itself) virtually negates the possibility of a one-size-fits-all rule. The ability of South Carolina to impose stricter requirements where necessary to protect environment and health is absolutely essential; however, any variance (above or below) such local requirements will be subject to scrutiny for those factors, both practical and immoral (if not illegal), which can influence local decisions.

Reading EPA's Tea Leaves: Civil and Criminal Enforcement priorities

Roy Shelley — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:57:00 GMT

Two recent news items regarding the EPA should be of interest to anyone practicing environmental litigation. First, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued her "state of the EPA" report on her first year in office and her priorities:
(http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/).

Second, the Obama Administration's budget gives an indication of the directions they would like EPA to take:
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/0efb5bc261f61eb7852576bd00638467!OpenDocument)

Taken together, they signal a clear intent to increase the EPA's involvement in proactive protection (e.g., chemical testing, additional materials handling rules) and in clean-up enforcement (e.g., CERCLA. or "Superfund" sites).

Upcoming Columbia-Area Environmental Events - February 2010

Roy Shelley — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:56:00 GMT

Feb 11th: Putting a Face on Global Sustainability: The Impacts of Copenhagen

On Thursday February 11 at 6:30PM in the Green Quad Learning Center, the Green Quad will host a discussion by USC Law Professor Cinnamon Carlarne on the U.N. Climate Change Conference held last year in Copenhagen. The discussion with be a evaluation of the progress and speed of climate change, as well as what is left to be done with emphasis on experiences from other countries, their ways of living and visions for the future. For additional information, contact Jason Craig, GreenQuadLearningCenter for Sustainable Futures 803-777-1994 craigjd@mailbox.sc.edu

For more information, go to http://www.sustainablemidlands.org/

Feb 15th & Feb 22nd Mayoral Candidate Forums on Environmental Issues:

1) The John Bachman Group of the Sierra Club will host a mayoral forum on environmental issues on February 15 at 7:00PM in the USC Green Quad Learning Center. http://www.greenquadcommunity.org/

2) The "Mayoral Forum on sustainability issues and the environmental challenges facing Columbia" will be held on Monday February 22 at 6:00PM in the Olympia Room of Historic 701 Whaley. Come early to meet and mingle with the candidates at 5:30PM.

USC Belser Arboretum Open House – Sunday Feb 21st

The site is one of Columbia’s most beautiful and unusual properties. Its highly diverse topography is related to its geological history and structure. The large sand dune at the Bloomwood entry gate marks the most westward incursion of the Atlantic Ocean. The dune is primarily sand and rounded, fist-sized stones. Examples of these wave-polished stones can be seen in the retaining wall adjacent to the Bloomwood gate. The higher ridges are quite dry and support upland forest in contrast to the valley, which is characterized by bottomland forest. The cove area is a former streambed, which emptied into the Atlantic Ocean. In earlier days, an earthen dam held rain water in a pond where bald cypress thrived, and today a small cypress swamp is still present. A former stream, now a storm water outlet, tumbles down over 5 cascades into a handsome pool surrounded by ferns and wildflowers. Several underground springs are present in the lowland area by the streambed.

When Sun Feb 21 1pm Where 4080 Bloomwood Rd. Columbia SC 29205 (map)

http://www.greenquadcommunity.org/

2010 Green Associate & LEED® AP EXAM Prep and Study Course

Roy Shelley — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:54:00 GMT

Offered by the SC Chapter of the US Green Building Council:

What will be covered?
• Introduction to USGBC
• Overview of Green Associate and LEED AP BD+C Exams
• LEED for New Construction (LEED-BD+C) point system
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Use Reduction; Water Efficient Landscape Design
• Optimized Energy and Atmosphere
• Green Materials and Resources
• Enhanced Indoor Environments
• Innovation and Design
• Additional Exam Topics

Who should attend?
Students and building industry leaders interested in becoming Green Associates or LEED Accredited Professionals, e.g.,
• Architects• Engineers• Developers• Planners• Contractors

Classes: Held at USC's Green Quad Learning Center, 1216 Wheat St., Building “D”
5:30 – 6:45 P.M.
Class 1: Thursday, February 18
Class 2: Thursday, February 25
Class 3: Thursday, March 4
Class 4: Thursday, March 18 (LEED AP only)
Class 5: Thursday, March 25 (LEED AP only)
Class 6: Thursday, April 1 (LEED AP only)
Class 7: Thursday, April 8 (LEED AP only)
Class 8: Thursday April 15 (LEED AP only)
Class 9: Thursday April 22 (LEED AP only)
Class 10: Thursday April 29 (LEED AP only)

Fees:
Green Associate: Full-time USC Students $ 50; USGBC-SC Members $100; Non-USGBC-SC Members $150
LEED AP BD+C: USGBC-SC Members $250; Non-USGBC Members $300

All fees are due in full on February 18 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please RSVP by Wednesday, Feb. 17th to
state@watsontatesavory.com
Visit www.usgbcsc.org for more information.

What do the fees include?
• 3 GA Associate Classes, 10 LEED AP Classes
• Dinner
• Access to study guides and instructor presentations.

AIA Continuing Education and Engineering PDHs Available

Tax Credits for Brownfields (contaminated property) Redevelopment

Roy Shelley — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:19:00 GMT

South Carolina has numerous former industrial sites which would require remediation prior to development for future use ("Brownfields"). The type and amount of cleanup will vary, of course, based upon the contaiments of concern and the proposed use (residential usually requiring greater cleanup). Obviously, incentives for such redevelopment benefit everyone, and both federal and state authorities have programs designed to encourage remediation and redevelopment. (click here for SC's program thru DHEC.)

These incentives also include tax credits which allow all or a significant portion of environmental cleanup costs to be deducted in the year incurred. (Usually, costs which create permanent improvement must be capitalized and deducted over a # of years). Although the federal tax benefit expired December 31, 2009, legislation is pending to extend the Brownfields Tax Incentive again. Note also that legislation in 2006 amended the tax incentive to include petroleum cleanup. (Generally, petroleum is excluded from CERCLA regulation.) (See EPA factsheet here. See additional info here.)

In addition, SC offers a significant tax credit for cleanup costs. (See form with citations here.)

Meeting set to discuss the 2010 Legislative Priorities of the SC Conservation Common Agenda

Roy Shelley — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:37:00 GMT

E-mail from the SC Chapter of the Green Building Council:

Learn about the 2010 legislative priorities of the South Carolina Conservation Common Agenda, from the green advocates and lobbyists who work with the General Assembly. Topics include developing a comprehensive state energy policy that focuses on efficiency and alternative energy sources, water withdrawal permitting, and funding the South Carolina Conservation Bank.

DETAILS WHEN: Friday, February 12th, 11:30am to 1:15pm
WHERE: Midlands Technical College Northeast Campus (MAP)
PROGRAM COST: $10/Person; Lunch will be provided

RSVP by Monday, February 8th to Michael Criss (mcriss@sc.rr.com)
www.usgbcsc.org

S.C. Supreme Court Validates DHEC's authority over freshwater wetlands

Roy Shelley — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:26:00 GMT

In a decision affecting the possible fate of hundreds of thousands of SC's interior wetlands, the SC Supreme Court recently ruled that DHEC has regulatory authority over wetlands in certain coastal counties regardless of whether they are connected to coastal body of water. (Spectre v. SCDHEC, 2/1/10) A developer in Horry County had challenged DHEC's denial of a permit to fill in 30+ acres of freshwater wetlands. The Court held that DHEC acted within its authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in denying the permit. The CMZA defines the “coastal zone” as Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, and Georgetown counties. ( See S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-10 et seq..)

"Carolina Bays" are an example of these types of isolated wetlands, and are considered by environmentalists and others as essential to ecology and stormwater management. However, after recent US Supreme Court decisions which severely limited Federal authority over wetlands (see Rapanos, 2006, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2001) state law provided the only regulatory limitation over the development or drainage of wetlands not connected to navigable or coastal waters. Landowners and developers have been challenging DHEC's authority over these areas for almost a decade.

S.C. Environmental Awareness Award

Roy Shelley — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:15:00 GMT

S.C. DHEC is accepting nominations through December 18, 2009 for the S.C. Environmental Awareness Award, which is designed "to recognize South Carolinians for outstanding contributions made toward the protection, conservation and improvement of South Carolina’s natural resources." See http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/admin/envawareness/envawards.htm for more information. (Please refrain from nominating a cigarette company.)

Green Money Flowing into S.C. (from the Feds, at least)

Roy Shelley — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:08:00 GMT

Recent announcements of governmental grants related to environmental projects include the largest grant in Clemson University history - a $45 Million grant from the US Department of Energy to test "next-generation" wind turbines and drive trains at the former Charleston Naval Complex. Clemson has secured an additional $53 Million in matching funds to construct a large-scale testing facility. Construction is scheduled to begin in early 2010 and expected to be operational by 2012. See http://www.midlandsbiz.com/news/headlines/589/ for more information and links to relevant websites.

On a much smaller scale, but more likely to be relevant to local organizations, the EPA announced a grant of up to $160,000 to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) for "a pilot project program utilizing collaborative problem-solving … to address the environmental and social justice concerns within the selected communities. DHEC will offer technical assistance to communities as they conduct environmental assessments and address environmental issues identified in the community. Each pilot project will meet specific criteria. There will be opportunities to participate in leadership development training designed to create organizational capacity, assist in developing strategies, and build partnerships."

Information about the EPA programs for these grants can be found at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/ej-sejca-grants.html (State grants program) and http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/ej-smgrants.html (Small Grants program)

One obvious goal of these governmental grants is to stimulate private investment (both money and commitment) and the development of commercially-viable industries to meet our needs in an environmentally-friendly manner. (At least as far as we understand it at this point. You may recall that cigarettes were once promoted for their "health" benefits. See, e.g., http://www.frankwbaker.com/brief_history_of_tobacco_ads.htm )

Santee Cooper axes proposed Pee Dee Coal-fired Power Plant

Roy Shelley — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:52:00 GMT

The Santee Cooper Board of Directors, citing economic uncertainty, voted unanimously on Monday to suspend pursuing permits for a new coal-fired power plant proposed to be built in Florence County along the Great Pee Dee. (Santee Cooper homepage.) This action makes it unlikely the plant will ever be constructed.

The proposal had been under fire from numerous environmental groups (see ConservationVoters of SC) opposed to coal-fired plants, which create massive amounts of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) and mercury. Perhaps it is just coincidental that the announcement comes on the heels of the release of a multi-year study of mercury contamination (see my last post) which found the highest concentrations of mercury in southern blackwater rivers. The proposed location of the coal-fired plant in the Pee Dee area would likely impact the vast blackwater waterways of the Great Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, Lynches, Lumbar, and Waccamaw rivers – all of which are already subject to a DHEC fish consumption advisory due to mercury contamination. (DHEC’s fish advisory map.)

In addition, the continued use of coal exacerbates controversial practices such as mountain-top removal mining in the Appalachians (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coal/mtr/default.asp), as well as producing coal ash waste streams (which create secondary dangers – it was a coal ash slurry pond that collapsed in Kingston, Tennessee, sending millions of tons of toxin-containing slurry into waterways, destroying dozens of homes, and creating a clean-up currently estimated at $1.2B. (See one report here.).)

Energy production has long been a source of friction between industry (power producers and power users) and environmentalists. The fact that Santee Cooper acknowledged an environmental issue only in terms of costs & federal regulation is a reflection of the different points of view on this issue. Future progress, in terms of balancing efficiency and environmental protection, will require that both sides acknowledge the costs – monetary and environmental – that necessarily accompany energy production.

Wednesday: Study Reveals Mercury Contamination in Fish Nationwide; Thursday: S.C. to receive $60Million in Recovery Act funds for Water Projects

Roy Shelley — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:25:00 GMT

The EPA announced on Thursday that South Carolina will receive over $60Million in Recovery Act funds for water projects, including over $40Million for the S.C.’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans for water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, non-point source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management. In addition, the state will receive $405,500 for its Water Quality Management Planning (WQMP) program whose goal is to improve water quality in lakes, rivers and streams. Some of these funds can awarded to local planning organizations for activities such as monitoring water quality, developing plans to restore polluted waters, and identifying ways to protect healthy waters from becoming polluted. The EPA release says “[s]tates are also encouraged to use these funds for more innovative planning activities, such as developing plans to adapt to climate change, analyzing trends in water availability and use, and creating low-impact development programs.” (EPA news release)

Timely announcement considering another study was just released showing that virtually every watershed in the country has some level of mercury contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey (part of the US Dept of the Interior) released the results of a multi-year study on Wednesday. (See news release on study here.) Prior studies have addressed mercury contamination in ocean and lake fish, and the latest study found that 27% of fish in rivers and streams exceeded the EPA standards for consumption of two or more servings per week. (See USA Today story here.)

Mercury contamination in watersheds comes mainly from atmospheric mercury, almost all of which is a result of coal-burning in power plants. However, other more easily-identifiable sources include mining operations, landfills, trash incinerators, and chemical and concrete plants. (See EPA factsheet on mercury here.) The highest concentrations of mercury were found in the “blackwater” rivers and streams of South Carolina and other southern states. Forty-eight states currently have fish consumption advisories, and South Carolina’s map of affected waterways covers virtually the entire state (SC’s Fish Advisory Map).

Mercury exposure can harm multiple organs as well as the body’s immune system, making people more susceptible to secondary illnessness and disease. In addition, mercury exposure to unborn and young children can cause significant physical and mental development problems. (See EPA’s factsheet on health effects here.)

Although most mercury poisoning litigation relates to specifically-identifiable potential sources (mercury filings, vaccines, processed tuna), mercury contamination of waterways is more widespread and potentially a greater threat to the population at large. Clusters of mercury-related symptoms within a confined geographic area may be traceable to specific sources and could lead to litigation against industries and power plant operators.

Overview: The EPA’s role in the Enforcement of Environmental Law

Roy Shelley — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:32:00 GMT

The EPA’s role in enforcing environmental law falls into three broad (and overlapping) categories: Civil, Criminal, and Cleanup. Although some on the receiving end of an enforcement action may believe the government has unlimited resources (and the ever-increasing national debt does nothing to dissuade this belief), even the EPA has to prioritize its resources and periodically issues a statement of “National Priorities for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.” The current statement was issued in May 2007 and was intended to cover the Fiscal Years 2008-2010. These priorities include reducing toxic air emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act and compliance with Clean Water Act requirements, especially for commercial farms (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or “CAFOs”) and sewer system operations.

With the new administration, many anticipate some shift in focus; however, it is unlikely there will be a change in the stated priorities. Instead, with a Democratic administration, we are more likely to see stepped-up efforts in investigations and enforcement of the established priorities.

Spills & Kills – Response Info

Roy Shelley — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:07:00 GMT

Anyone who witnesses the dumping or discharge of chemicals, oil, or other potentially hazardous substances should contact DHEC through their 24-hour emergency response Hotline line at 1-888-481-0125 (in Columbia, call 253-6488).

These guidelines can be found on DHEC’s website at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/html/er.htm and specifically apply to:

dumping, spills and releases of hazardous substances, including but not limited to oil and petroleum products, chemicals, hazardous waste, waste oil, pesticides, and other pollutants
fish kills or pfiesteria-related calls
illegal open burning of items such as tires, plastic, copper wire, and asbestos covered materials (open burning of land clearing and/or yard debris DOES NOT constitute an emergency and should be reported to the local DHEC EQC office on the next business day).

DHEC is charged with responding to the reported incident, and, if appropriate, to institute the Emergency Response Program, which provides the regulatory authority over the incident. As described by DHEC, “[t]he program makes sure the spiller is identified and responds appropriately to the spill/release and follows through with an appropriate cleanup. The program works with the spiller (Responsible Party) and offers guidance and oversight to make sure enough and proper equipment/manpower and cleanup capability is being provided at the scene.”

If you are unsure whether an incident calls for an emergency response, contact the local EQC office if the incident is observed during business; otherwise, please call the Hotline.

If you or your company is involved in the incident, your second call should be to your attorney. (If your company has an environmental compliance or risk manager, you should attempt to contact that person, who should then contact the company’s environmental attorney.) This does not imply that you or your company have committed a crime or other legal violation or that you will not respond properly to the incident. However, an attorney can act objectively to assist in gathering the information necessary to ensure an appropriate response and to coordinate with DHEC and others who may be involved in the incident or the response.

How many agencies does it take to screw up an ocean?

Roy Shelley — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:28:00 GMT

“ The oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes provide jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities, and play critical roles in our Nation's transportation, economy, and trade, as well as the global mobility of our Armed Forces and the maintenance of international peace and security. We have a stewardship responsibility to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of this and future generations.”

So begins the June 12^th Memorandum from President Obama to the executives of over 20 different agencies who have some degree of responsibilty for our oceans and Great Lakes. With such a broad array of agencies, and over 140 different US laws affecting these areas, conflict and impasse have often been the norm.

Water covers 75% of our planet. These vast open waters provide the base necessary for the production of fresh water and oxygen - fundamental necessities of life - and yet we continue to abuse our water more than 35 years after the first Earth Day.

Oceans and other large bodies of water face challenges related to pollution, water quality, habitat loss, fishing impacts, invasive species, disease, rising sea levels, climate change, and acidification. (See NRDC’s oceans documents for more details.)

The President’s Memorandum creates an “Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force” to recommend a comprehensive policy for maintaining and protecting our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, to include recommending “a framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning” to prevent "ocean sprawl" as developments for offshore energy and other uses increase.

This is not the first national attempt to address these issues. In 2003 and 2004, national commissions were established to examine the challenges and issue recommendations. (See the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.) The commissions did an admirable job documenting the concerns and made numerous recommendations. Although some measures were implemented in various corners within the overlapping governmental entities responsible for the oceans and Great Lakes, interest at the top levels quickly wained. Hopefully President Obama’s Memorandum will redirect attention to this critical area of environmental concern.

Towards a sustainable seafood diet (Do more than “See food, eat food.”)

Roy Shelley — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:00 GMT

Growing up in South Carolina, I recall fondly the many trips to our beaches, not only for sun, sand, & surf but also for the constant search for “the best” seafood restaurant. Of course “best” then was usually evaluated in terms of variety and price. Today, beach trips are still a treasured respite (‘tho I now more often succumb to the lure of the mountains) but the factors which define the “best” seafood have shifted. Perhaps we had less pollution and over-fishing when I was young (more likely I was just blissfully unaware), but today the temptations of my palate are often overruled by the knowledge in my forebrain.

Luckily, we do have some information sources to help us in our choices. The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) has published a Sustainable Seafood Guide with these tips for making your seafood selections (See http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/seafoodguide/):

Seven Quick Tips for Selecting Seafood

When in doubt about choosing seafood in a store or restaurant, here are seven basic guidelines that you can follow to help pick seafood that is healthy and sustainable:

Eat lower on the food chain

Smaller fish tend to be more plentiful and better for your health because they contain less mercury. Great small seafood to choose includes squid, oysters, mackerel, sardines and mussels.

Buy American

American seafood isn't perfect, but the U.S. variety of a particular type of fish is generally better than its imported counterpart because this country has stricter fishing and farming standards than other parts of the world.

Buy wild

Given current issues with the environmental impact of fish farming, a wild-caught fish is almost always better than a farmed fish of the same variety for your health and the environment.

Eat local

Unless you're eating fish from a nearby body of water, it has to be frozen or transported, which uses more energy. And it's very likely that it was caught or farmed en masse in order to keep the price down. You're usually better off eating the local variety of a particular type of fish instead of its counterpart from across the country, unless that species has been depleted in local waters. (See the NRDC's Eat or Avoid? section for more guidance.)

Buy from trusted retailers

Certain businesses have set higher standards for the seafood they sell in their stores, and many have pledged to create long-term sustainable seafood plans. Find guides to good retailers at the Conservation Alliance for Sustainable Seafood Solutions and Greenpeace.

Ask where your fish came from

The health of different species varies by region. Alaskan seafood such as salmon and halibut, when caught in sustainable ways, is generally good for you and the environment.

Look for the blue sticker

The Marine Stewardship Council certifies seafood that is caught or raised in a sustainable, environmentally friendly manner. Items that meet its criteria are marked with a MSC-certified sticker like the one shown here.

Hopefully I’ve not ruined anyone’s dining pleasures (apologies to those Chilean Sea Bass enthusiasts), but with a little information we can enjoy our natural resources enjoyably and responsibly. Bon Appétit!

A fight over $700 Million? How about protecting a $30 Billion/Year Asset?

Roy Shelley — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:46:00 GMT

According to a study by USC, South Carolina’s natural resources are a $30 billion per year asset to our state’s economy. The study by the University of South Carolina's Moore School of Business, titled "Underappreciated Assets: The Economic Impact of South Carolina's Natural Resources," is available online at the Moore School's Division of Research Web site.

The researchers measured the annual economic activity associated with certain resources such as land and water, and concluded that more than 230,000 jobs are tied to S.C.’s natural resources.

While many jobs and economic activities can be tied directly to our natural resources, probably one of the least-recognized advantages is the attraction of such resources to talented, high-level individuals in industries that may have little direct connection with natural resources; i.e., intelligent, talented people who want to live and work in an area with abundant, clean, and useable natural resources. While difficult to measure in quantitative terms, the studies authors conclude that “quality natural resource-related amenities and recreation opportunities … provide a magnet for human capital."

The study also related this information for the year 2008:

Visitors and local residents who took advantage of South Carolina's most famous recreational assets – its sandy beaches and ocean surf – added about $3.5 billion to the state's economy and supported nearly 81,000 jobs.
Fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing added about $2.2 billion to the economy and supported nearly 59,000 jobs.
The state's forestry industry exported more than $1 billion in forest products and supported nearly 84,000 jobs.
Mining activities added nearly $219 million to the state's economy and supported more than 2,500 jobs.
Commercial marine fisheries in South Carolina added about $14 million to the state's economy and supported 661 jobs.

The recent legal battles over stimulus funds and other budget issues pale in comparison to the impact of our natural resources on our state’s present and future economy. One hopes that business and government leaders will recognize the wisdom of the report’s conclusion - "Natural resources should always be considered integral to economic development" - and spend the time, energy, and effort needed to protect this $30 billion/yr jewel.