New EPA Rules Part 2

To piggyback on Sean's post, the EPA finalized standards for mercury emissions and other pollutants from coal and oil-fired power plants yesterday.  Plant operators will have three years to comply with the new numerical emission limits.  The EPA claims these standards are one of the greatest accomplishments in EPA history, while some industry groups claim it will kill jobs.  Please read this CNN article discussing both sides of the issue.

Power and Toxins: Indiana Utilities May be Heavily Impacted by New EPA Rules

A report released by the Environmental Integrity Project on toxic emissions by power plants (h/t Jeff Lorenzo at the Indiana Environmental Law Report) ranks Indiana third in overall toxic emissions.  The rank is achieved by looking at Indiana's emission of eight different toxins (arsenic, chromium, cobalt, hydrochloric acid, lead, mercury, nickel, and selenium) and averaging out Indiana's rank for each toxin.  

New EPA rules are on the way dealing with mercury and other toxins.  Assuming this report is accurate, Indiana utilities may be significantly impacted by those rules.

The report also lists the 20 highest-emitting power plants for arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury.  None are in Indiana.  Interestingly, the report is based on data that the power plants submit to EPA.  The plant listed as the highest single emitter of arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury, Plum Point Energy Station in Arkansas, apparently misreported its data.  An errata at the beginning of the report states that, while Plum Point initially reported emissions 12,179 pounds of chromium and 759 pounds of lead, it now states that it emitted only 13 pounds of chromium and one pound of lead.  Oops!

Who Really Pays to Clean Up Leaks from Petroleum Tanks?

Excellent article by Thomas B. Langhorne in the Evansville Courier-Press about leaking underground storage tanks (or "LUSTs" as we call them in the trade) (hat tip to the Indiana Law Blog).  Recommended reading for anyone who suddenly finds themself responsible for a leaking tank, and anyone else with an interest in the topic. 

I do have one small bone to pick, though.  The article discusses how LUST cleanups are funded, and notes that a great deal of the money comes from the excess liability trust fund, or ELTF (what we usually refer to as "the elf" around here.)  The ELTF is funded mostly by the penny-per-gallon tax paid by distributors for petroleum products.  Bruce Palin of IDEM is quoted as saying that that tax is almost certainly passed on to customers at the pump.  So based on that, the article makes the following statement: "Who pays for the cleanups?  To a large extent the burden is on taxpayers."  I don't think this is quite accurate.  It's not "taxpayers" in the abstract who fund the ELTF.  The tax is paid directly by distributors.  So it's not like the sales tax you pay on your normal purchases, or even the sales tax you pay on the gas you buy, goes to the ELTF. 

Instead, the ELTF tax is passed on to you in higher gasoline prices.  Which, if you think about it, is exactly as it should be.  Your and my appetite for gasoline and other fuels is what has caused the USTs to be there in the first place, and if they weren't there, they wouldn't be there to leak.  The tax on distributors is a very efficient way of internalizing an externality.  You want gasoline, fine, but part of the price you're going to pay for it is the cost of cleaning up the problems it causes.  To the extent that depresses demand for gasoline (which I doubt is very much) that means fewer LUST problems. 

And to the extent that the owners of the tanks have benefited more from the sale of gasoline than has the rest of society, I can assure you that in my experience, those owners pay a lot more, in both dollars and in time and anxiety, than the penny a gallon they (probably) pass on to us.

But that quibble aside, it's a very good article and a welcome introduction to the way environmental problems play out in the real world.  Read the whole thing.

Environmental Issues for the 2012 Indiana General Assembly Session

Yesterday I attended, with fellow blogger Brianna Schroeder, the Indiana State Bar Association's 2012 Environmental Legislative Perspective. The panel of Vince Griffin (Vice President of Environmental & Energy Policy for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce); Jesse Kharbanda (Executive Director of the Hoosier Environmental Council); David Pippen (Chief Counsel to Governor Daniels); and Indiana State Senator Beverly Gard (Chair of the Senate's Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee) discussed what we can expect from the upcoming legislative session.

Perhaps most interesting was Senator Gard's list of environmental issues she anticipates the General Assembly addressing during her last year in the Senate:

- A mostly technical cleanup bill that will not dramatically change environmental policy

- A revised UST cleanup bill that will give IDEM authority to enforce the delivery/deposit rule

- Abolishing the four existing rulemaking boards in favor of a single enviromental rulemaking board of 12 members

- Tighter regulations for Solid Waste Management Districts

- Water withdrawal reporting

- Regional sewer districts

- Hydrofracing

Amendment to CERCLA Proposed by Federal Legislators

Several federal legislators recently proposed an amendment to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to exclude manure from the definition of "hazardous substance" and "pollutant or contaminant" for purposes of CERCLA. H. R. 2997 defines "manure" to mean: (1) digestive emissions, feces, urine, urea and other excrement from livestock; (2) any associated bedding, compost, raw materials or other materials commingled with such excrement from livestock; (3) any process water associated with such items; and (4) any byproducts, constituents, or substances contained in, or originating from, such items or any emissions relating to such items. On September 26, 2011, the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. The full text of the bill is available here. A related bill, S. 1729 was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on October 18, 2011. Additional information on the Senate bill can be viewed here.