• Scientists Criticize Bush Mercury Emssions Trading Plan
  
• Refinery Pollution Poorly Monitored
  
• Utah Wilderness Deal Draws Another Legal Challenge
  
• EPA Investigates Teflon Chemical
  
• U.S. Park Police Chief Fights for Reinstatement
  
• Bush Slashes Critical Habitat for Endangered Species
  
• New Jersey Landfill Graduates From Superfund List
  
• Environmentalists Lose Ship Pollution Challenge
  
• Yeast Plus Agricultural Wastes Equals Ethanol
  

Scientists Criticize Bush Mercury Emssions Trading Plan

Four of the scientists presented their message last week to EPA Assistant Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead - including the scientist who co-authored the research they say has been misinterpreted.

The scientists urged the agency to reconsider the use of a trading scheme to reduce mercury emissions, citing limited knowledge about the risks posed by such a program and evidence that it would create mercury "hot spots."

"The bottom line is, given what we currently know about mercury, unconstrained trading of mercury emissions is likely to cause areas of high local deposition - which have been referred to as hotspots" said Dr. Charles Driscoll, professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University and Trustee of the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation.

The scientists say the current national monitoring network for airborne mercury in the United States is "insufficient to measure the full impact of the proposed new regulations."

"In particular, the network is not designed to detect environmental response to changes in mercury emissions or the emergence of hotspots that might accompany a pollution trading program," they wrote in comments to the agency.

Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are currently unregulated - these facilities emit some 48 tons of mercury each year, accounting for about 40 percent of the nation's mercury pollution.

The Bush administration has offered two proposals, but clearly favors one that would set a cap in 2010 on mercury emissions and employ trading of emissions credits to bring emissions down to 15 tons a year by 2018 - a 70 percent reduction.

Administration officials, as well as industry representatives, contend a cap and trade plan is more efficient and will be less costly to the industry than regulation. They downplay concerns about hotspots, noting that industry data shows on average some 70 percent of mercury deposits come from global sources.

But the proposal that has drawn opposition from virtually all interested parties except for the power industry.

Critics say a cap and trade system is an inappropriate form of regulation for mercury and less stringent than regulations that could be developed under the Clean Air Act.

In a presentation to an industry trade group in 2001, EPA officials said the Clean Air Act allows for regulations that could reduce mercury emissions 90 percent - to 5.5 million tons - four years after a rule is finalized.

Ten state attorneys general, 48 U.S. Senators, along with a wide range of scientists, environmental and public health organizations have announced their strong opposition to the cap and trade proposal.

Widespread criticism of the mercury rule prompted EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt to extend the rule's comment period by 60 days and delay the final rule until March 15, 2004.

The comment period for the draft rule ends today.

Refinery Pollution Poorly Monitored

The agency lacks a strategic plan for fixing this major shortcoming, the report states, and this failing threatens to undermine the EPA's national refinery compliance program.

The program began in 1996 amid growing concern about the industry's high rates of noncompliance and pollutant releases.

Oil refineries are major polluters, accounting for some 350,000 tons of toxic air pollutants annually.

Pollutants emitted by oil refineries adversely impact human health and the environment, and include pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer and other severe human health effects.

The program has resulted in 11 court orders for emissions reductions at 42 refineries, which have been widely touted by EPA officials as a sign of progress.

But the report finds the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has not adequately followed up to determine whether or not the refineries are complying with emissions reductions mandated by the court decrees.

The refineries under these court orders cover 39 percent of U.S. refinery capacity. As part of the consent decrees, the EPA agreed not to sue the refineries for past regulatory violations associated with the emissions at issue.

The report detailed that EPA delays in processing paperwork and responding to information requests from refineries under consent decrees "may have delayed emissions reductions and to optimally protect human health and the environment, especially for people living in the vicinity of refineries," according to the report.

Some 45 percent of American refineries are within three miles of population centers inhabited by 25,000 or more people; 26 percent are within three miles of population centers containing 50,000 or more people.

"The ultimate success of the refinery program depends on effective management of consent decree implementation," the EPA's Inspector General wrote.

The report comes as some administration officials and lawmakers are pushing for relaxed environmental oversight of oil refineries in an attempt to lower gasoline prices.

Refinery capacity in the United States has dropped by some 50 percent in the past two decades; refineries are currently operating at near 100 percent.

Utah Wilderness Deal Draws Another Legal Challenge

EPA Investigates Teflon Chemical

The chemical - known as C-8 or PFOA - is a chemical processing aid widely used in the manufacture of a wide variety of consumer and industrial products.

The chemical is used to make dozens of popular consumer products found in nearly every home, from Teflon or other non-stick coated cookware, Stainmaster and other carpet protectors, clothing, fast food packaging, and various cleaning, textile and paper products.

Studies of PFOA have raised a number of potential toxicity concerns it has been found to accumulate in human blood and it does not appear to break down in the environment.

It is not currently regulated by the EPA.

Dupont, the only American manufacturer of PFOA, says it supports the agency's research.

Environmentalists praised the move and say it puts the agency's review of the chemical back on track.

"The EPA is so concerned about the prevalence and health risks of the Teflon chemical that agency officials are going to do their own studies to determine how it gets into human blood, rather than wait for industry to come forth with data," said Dr. Timothy Kropp, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

"Well over one year after this investigation began, the industry continues to drag its feet on key studies that will tell EPA what products expose people to the greatest amounts of PFOA," said Kropp.

The effects of PFOA have sparked considerable debate.

Analysis by EWG, an environmental research and advocacy group, found evidence that women and children are in particular at risk from PFOA, which has caused cancer in laboratory animals.

Dupont insists there are no health risks from the chemical.

PFOA has been used for 50 years, the company says, with no known adverse effects to human health.

And cookware sold under the Teflon brand, according to Dupont, does not contain PFOA. The company says the chemical is a process aid, but is removed in the manufacturing process.

EWG alleges that Dupont has hidden studies that outline health risks from the chemical.

These studies became public, according to the EWG, as the result of a class action lawsuit brought by 3,000 people living near the Dupont Teflon production facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

The plaintiffs allege that PFOA pollution from the facility has contaminated local tap water and presents serious public health risks.

The EPA is investigating the claims that Dupont failed to report health related information regarding the chemical.

U.S. Park Police Chief Fights for Reinstatement

Chambers' filing before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) triggers an evidentiary hearing before an administrative judge.

Prior to that hearing Chambers' lawyers will have full discovery rights to secure internal documents and question top Interior officials under oath.

The MSPB can order Chief Chambers returned to work and, if it finds illegal personnel practices, can order an investigation leading to discipline of responsible officials.

The board can also order that Chief Chambers be immediately taken off administrative leave pending the outcome of the hearing and appeals.

Chambers has been on paid administrative leave and forbidden to work since December 5, 2003 - a few days after she gave an interview to a "Washington Post," reporter in which she spoke of low staffing levels at the National Park Service.

Park Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy placed Chambers on administrative leave, stripped her of law enforcement credentials, and imposed a "gag order" barring her from granting any further interviews.

Murphy proposed to dismiss Chambers from her post, but that has been stayed until the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) completes its investigation into the matter.

The OSC serves as a referee of federal civil service rules.

In February the OSC opened an investigation into the case and in April requested that Interior stay further adverse actions against Chief Chambers for 45 days while it concluded its investigation

But those 45 days have passed and the OSC appears to be dragging its feet on the issue.

"This farce has gone on long enough; it is time for Chief Chambers to go back to work," said attorney Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which will be part of the legal team representing Chambers. "The reason the Department of Interior has not acted is that the only charges they could find to lodge against Chief Chambers do not pass the laugh test."

"For seven months, Chief Chambers has been kept in limbo without the ability to fight back," Ruch added, noting that Chief Chambers was required to wait at least 120 days after OSC's first involvement before filing directly with MSPB. "Now the fight has begun."

Bush Slashes Critical Habitat for Endangered Species

The report documents how the administration is the first to justify reducing the amount of proposed critical habitat on the grounds that it costs too much, and the first that has not provided conservation alternatives when denying critical habitat designations.

It finds that between 2001 and 2003, the share of total critical habitat reductions justified using cost-benefit analysis had risen from less than one percent to 69 percent.

"When it comes to habitat protection, this administration is exaggerating the costs and keeping the public in the dark about the benefits, helping developers and hurting wildlife," said John Kostyack, NWF senior counsel and co-author of the study.

NWF says between 2001 and 2003 the federal government opted to designate only 42 million acres of critical habitat, despite proposals by federal biologists to designate some 83 million acres.

Among a slew of examples cited by NWF is the case of the threatened bull trout.

In March 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an economic analysis of proposed critical habitat for the species; before issuing the analysis, it deleted the entire 57-page section on the benefits of this habitat protection.

The report also illustrates how the administration has inflated the costs of critical habitat. For example, in one case involving 15 threatened crustaceans and plant species in California the administration overestimated the cost of critical habitat tenfold.

"The report shows a clear pattern on the part of the administration of suppressing information to arrive at predetermined results that would undermine the Endangered Species Act," said Peter Uimonen, NWF researcher and co-author of the study.

The administration insists the law - and in particular the critical habitat provision - does little to help species.

"Habitat is essential but critical habitat as the Act outlines it presently is not the best way to do that," Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Craig Manson told the House Resources Committee in April.

Manson, who has been a vocal critic of the provision, contends the process of designating critical habitat is too time consuming and expensive and said puts undue burdens on landowners.

Recovery of listed species, Manson says, will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat.

Critical habitat designation primarily impacts federal lands - any action taken on federal lands designated critical habitat must consider the impact on the listed species.

Private lands designated as critical habitat are only affected if the landowner plans to engage in an action that requires a federal permit - such as a stormwater construction or wetlands dredge and fill permit.

The Bush administration is the only presidency not to have designated a single critical habitat or listed a species except under court order.

New Jersey Landfill Graduates From Superfund List

The Combe Fill North Landfill in Mount Olive occupies 65 acres of a 102 acre property located on Gold Mine Road surrounded by commercial properties. The site operated as a sanitary municipal landfill from 1966 to 1978, accepting municipal and industrial waste and small amounts of dry sewage sludge.

Combe Fill Corporation purchased the landfill in 1978. The following year ground water contamination was found beneath the site that included volatile organic compounds. When Combe went bankrupt in 1981, the landfill was not properly closed, officials said.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) cited the corporation for violations, including improper landfill cover that resulted in windblown debris and inadequate leachate control. The Combe Fill North Landfill was added to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites in 1983.

"The good news is that removing this landfill from the Superfund list closes a final chapter on a hazardous waste legacy that the Mt. Olive community has lived with for many years," said Commissioner Bradley Campbell.

"To continue progress at similar sites across New Jersey, we need leadership at the federal level to reinstate a stable source of funding for the Superfund program that now puts the burden on taxpayers, not polluters, to pay for cleanups."

In 1991, DEP finished remedial work at Combe Fill, including installation of a clay cap, landfill gas venting system and perimeter fencing around the site. In 2000, DEP installed drainage channels on the cap to alleviate storm water ponding caused by landfill settlement.

Since 1991, DEP has conducted groundwater monitoring around the landfill. In 2001, a group of potentially responsible parties entered into an administrative consent order with DEP to fund the groundwater monitoring and other routine maintenance of the landfill.

Cleanup costs for past work at the site include $15.4 million in federal funds from the Superfund Trust and $2.8 million in state funds.

DEP and the state Department of Law and Public Safety settled with the potentially responsible parties for $4.65 million to pay the state for both its past remedial costs and future expenditures for maintenance activities at the site.

Environmentalists Lose Ship Pollution Challenge

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the agency had not violated the Clean Air Act when it delayed until 2007 the setting of a standard for U.S. marine vessels to meet comparable international standards.

The agency had approved the marine rule for large and mid-sized vessels in 2003, after settling a suit by the conservation groups for failing to regulate emissions from these vessels.

The first phase of the EPA rule calls for an 11 percent cut in nitrogen oxide emissions from current levels, the same standard adopted by the United Nations International Marine Organization.

Earthjustice attorneys representing Bluewater Network had argued that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to force stringent emission control technologies as soon as possible for both domestic and foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters.

But the court agreed with the EPA's decision - the agency argued the delay was necessary to give the industry ample time to comply.

"We are very disappointed in this decision and worried about the long-term effects which will result as international shipping increases," said Laura Robb, an attorney for Earthjustice who represented Bluewater. "Cargo ships emit far more deadly pollution than diesel trucks or cars. This decision grants ship emissions to pollute our seaside communities and will thwart attempts to protect local residents."

According to EPA's own figures, both mid-size and large marine vessels are a significant source of ground-level ozone precursors, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter.

For some large ports such as Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans and Corpus Christi, Texas, ships are believed to be major contributors to air pollution problems.

A single cargo ship produces as much pollution in one hour as 350,000 cars.

"This poor decision means ports will remain EPA-free zones for big polluters for years to come," said Teri Shore of Bluewater Network. "It's a travesty for anyone who must breathe the dirty air from these ship smokestacks."

Yeast Plus Agricultural Wastes Equals Ethanol

Purdue's genetically altered yeast allows about 40 percent more ethanol to be made from sugars derived from agricultural residues, such as corn stalks and wheat straw, compared with "wild-type" yeasts that occur in nature.

The agricultural residues are made up of cellulose and hemicellulose, known as cellulosic materials. These are materials such as wheat straw that would otherwise be discarded or used as animal feed.

Unlike traditional ethanol feedstocks, such as corn kernels, the cellulosic materials contain two major sugars, glucose and xylose.

Neither sugar can be fermented into ethanol by the natural yeast used by industry to produce ethanol, explained Nancy Ho, a senior research scientist and leader of the molecular genetics group in Purdue's Laboratory of Renewable Resources Engineering.

"It would cost too much money to separate the two sugars before proceeding with fermentation to ethanol, so being able to ferment both sugars together to ethanol is critical," she said. "To be more cost competitive with gasoline, the two sugars have to be converted together to ethanol."

A team led by Ho developed the more efficient yeast during the 1980s and 1990s. "Until we developed our yeast, no suitable microorganism could convert these two sugars together," she said.

Conventional yeast can ferment glucose to ethanol, but it cannot ferment xylose, which makes up about 30 percent of the sugar from agricultural residues. The inability to ferment xylose would represent a major loss of ethanol yield, Ho explained.

The Purdue researchers altered the genetic structure of the yeast so that it now contains three additional genes that make it possible to simultaneously convert glucose and xylose to ethanol.

The ability to ferment xylose increases the yield of ethanol from straw by about 40 percent.

The first license for the yeast has been issued to the biotechnology company Iogen Corp., which specializes in producing ethanol from cellulosic material.

Iogen is using the Purdue yeast to produce ethanol from the sugars the company derives from wheat straw.

The ethanol made in Iogen's plant is blended into gasoline at the Petro-Canada refinery in Montreal. Cars can use the ethanol-gasoline blend without any engine modifications.