Jun 3: Michigan State University (MSU) has held two recent conferences on “Climate Change in the Great Lakes: Decision Making Under Uncertainty,” with diverse attendees including researchers, decision makers, educators, activists, businesspeople, and citizens. During the conferences, participants identified key messages for decision makers: areas where there is consensus or at least very broad agreement. The key messages relate to (a) effects of climate change in the region; (b) ways of making climate-related decisions given uncertainty; (c) research needs; and (d) prescriptions for action.
Access a MSU report summarizing the conferences (click here). is available at: Access more information including conference presentations (click here).
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Illinois Dems Object To Indiana BP Whiting Permit
May 30: U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Melissa Bean (D-IL), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), urged the Region 5 U.S. EPA Acting Administrator, Bharat Mathur to object to a permit for BP for its Whiting, Indiana refinery expansion that would allow to increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions above previous levels. The permit refinery expansion was issued on May 1, 2008 by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to BP. On November 29, 2007, EPA Region 5 notified BP Products North America Inc. of alleged violations of multiple Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements at its Whiting, Indiana refinery [See WIMS 11/30/07].
The Illinois Democrats wrote to Mathur saying, “Increased carbon dioxide emissions at Whiting remain a major concern for us. Comments submitted by environmental organizations and others have raised this issue and ways in which it should be addressed in the permitting process. In particular, we have concerns regarding the issues of flaring and the increase of carbon dioxide and other emissions above the previous permit levels. We strongly encourage you to revisit those issues and object to the permit until IDEM and BP have rectified these problems.”
The Illinois members are primarily concerned with IDEM’s position that unplanned flaring does not have to be taken into account when issuing permits under the Clean Air Act. The permit allows BP to operate three new flares and increase the use of some existing flares. Refinery flaring is an enormous source of carbon dioxide and other emissions and there is little doubt that flaring events will occur in emergency and other situations at the expanded refinery site in Whiting. Yet, the permit issued by IDEM earlier this month essentially assumes that the new flares will, for the most part, never be used.
In their letter the Members say, "As a related matter, we are concerned with the failure of the draft operating permit to include a schedule of compliance as required by the Clean Air Act addressing the violations set forth in Region 5’s November 2007 Notice of Violation. We are informed that USEPA has recently taken the position that permitting and enforcement are separate matters, and that permit violations therefore need not be addressed in a Title V permit schedule of compliance. However, Section 503(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act expressly requires that Title V permit applicants “submit with the permit application a compliance plan describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements under this chapter.”
Access a release from the Members and the complete letter (click here). Access a detailed EPA Enforcement & Compliance history report on this facility (click here). Access extensive detailed information on the BP Whiting air permit from Indiana DEM (click here). Access the BP Whiting website for additional information (click here).
The Illinois Democrats wrote to Mathur saying, “Increased carbon dioxide emissions at Whiting remain a major concern for us. Comments submitted by environmental organizations and others have raised this issue and ways in which it should be addressed in the permitting process. In particular, we have concerns regarding the issues of flaring and the increase of carbon dioxide and other emissions above the previous permit levels. We strongly encourage you to revisit those issues and object to the permit until IDEM and BP have rectified these problems.”
The Illinois members are primarily concerned with IDEM’s position that unplanned flaring does not have to be taken into account when issuing permits under the Clean Air Act. The permit allows BP to operate three new flares and increase the use of some existing flares. Refinery flaring is an enormous source of carbon dioxide and other emissions and there is little doubt that flaring events will occur in emergency and other situations at the expanded refinery site in Whiting. Yet, the permit issued by IDEM earlier this month essentially assumes that the new flares will, for the most part, never be used.
In their letter the Members say, "As a related matter, we are concerned with the failure of the draft operating permit to include a schedule of compliance as required by the Clean Air Act addressing the violations set forth in Region 5’s November 2007 Notice of Violation. We are informed that USEPA has recently taken the position that permitting and enforcement are separate matters, and that permit violations therefore need not be addressed in a Title V permit schedule of compliance. However, Section 503(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act expressly requires that Title V permit applicants “submit with the permit application a compliance plan describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements under this chapter.”
Access a release from the Members and the complete letter (click here). Access a detailed EPA Enforcement & Compliance history report on this facility (click here). Access extensive detailed information on the BP Whiting air permit from Indiana DEM (click here). Access the BP Whiting website for additional information (click here).
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Report On Great Lakes & The Threat Of Global Warming
May 28: A new report from the Healing Our Waters®- (HOW) Great Lakes Coalition indicates that "the Great Lakes can lessen the impact of global warming or become global warming’s victim -- it all depends on Congress." The authors urged Congress to enact a comprehensive plan to restore the health of the Great Lakes. Donald Scavia, Ph.D., report co-author and professor of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan said, “Climate change is already affecting the Great Lakes, and no matter what we do now, the those impacts will increase in the future. But we can counter those impacts by restoring the Great Lakes to make them more resilient. At the same time, we need strong national efforts to cut greenhouse gas pollution so that the impacts don’t become so severe that they overwhelm the Great Lakes.”
The report, Great Lakes Restoration & The Threat of Global Warming, synthesizes current climate change science and presents the likely impacts warming temperatures will have on the lakes, including lower lake levels, more sewage overflows, and increased pressure to divert Great Lakes water. The report describes impacts including: increased temperatures of 5.4 to 10.8 degrees relative to what was typical from 1961-1990; increased evaporation from warming lakes; lake levels declines during the next century of 1-3 feet depending on the lake; worsening water quality leading to drinking water impacts, beach closings, and higher costs to water suppliers; biological dead zones will increase, jeopardizing fish and other aquatic life; and changes in forests and grasslands.
The report recommends several federal policy solutions, including: Restoring the Great Lakes through full funding and implementation of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, a comprehensive plan put forward by more than 1,500 citizens and backed by the region’s mayors, governors and Congressional delegation; Protecting the Great Lakes from water diversions by passing the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, a regional agreement to ban diversions outside the region and promoting conservation within the region; Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the magnitude of change to our climate and ecosystems; and, Generating ecosystem restoration funding through federal global warming legislation.
Access a release with further details and links to the full 36-page report and a presentation (click here).
The report, Great Lakes Restoration & The Threat of Global Warming, synthesizes current climate change science and presents the likely impacts warming temperatures will have on the lakes, including lower lake levels, more sewage overflows, and increased pressure to divert Great Lakes water. The report describes impacts including: increased temperatures of 5.4 to 10.8 degrees relative to what was typical from 1961-1990; increased evaporation from warming lakes; lake levels declines during the next century of 1-3 feet depending on the lake; worsening water quality leading to drinking water impacts, beach closings, and higher costs to water suppliers; biological dead zones will increase, jeopardizing fish and other aquatic life; and changes in forests and grasslands.
The report recommends several federal policy solutions, including: Restoring the Great Lakes through full funding and implementation of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, a comprehensive plan put forward by more than 1,500 citizens and backed by the region’s mayors, governors and Congressional delegation; Protecting the Great Lakes from water diversions by passing the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, a regional agreement to ban diversions outside the region and promoting conservation within the region; Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the magnitude of change to our climate and ecosystems; and, Generating ecosystem restoration funding through federal global warming legislation.
Access a release with further details and links to the full 36-page report and a presentation (click here).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Wisconsin Governor Signs Compact Legislation
May 27: Following the May 15, passage by the Wisconsin State Senate (32-1) and the Wisconsin State Assembly (96-1) [See WIMS 5/16/08]; Governor Jim Doyle who also serves as Council of Great Lakes Governors (CGLG) Chair, officially signed Wisconsin’s legislation ratifying an interstate compact for the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin. According to a release from CGLG the signing "illustrates the regional and bi-partisan consensus that is growing in support of the compact."
CGLG reports that five of the eight Great Lakes States have now completed enactment of the compact’s protections -- Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, New York and Wisconsin. Both legislative chambers in Michigan have passed the compact although final approval is pending further action on related State implementing legislation. One legislative chamber in Ohio and Pennsylvania has passed the compact, and further action is anticipated in coming days and weeks in both States. To become law, the compact must be approved by each of the State legislatures and Congress must give its consent.
Governor Doyle said, "This is an outstanding day for all of Wisconsin. From Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence River, our region is uniting to protect our waters, and I am pleased to lead our state in signing this compact into law. Our Great Lakes waters in many ways define who we are. And now the Great Lakes Compact will ensure that we protect this tremendous resource while responsibly using the water we need to prosper and grow." According to CGLG the five Great Lakes comprise the world’s largest surface freshwater system. The Great Lakes generate $55 billion in tourism for the region and create nearly $377 million in personal income from wages and salaries.
Access a release from CGLG (click here). Access the CGLG status of compact approval and links to the compact and related documents (click here).
CGLG reports that five of the eight Great Lakes States have now completed enactment of the compact’s protections -- Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, New York and Wisconsin. Both legislative chambers in Michigan have passed the compact although final approval is pending further action on related State implementing legislation. One legislative chamber in Ohio and Pennsylvania has passed the compact, and further action is anticipated in coming days and weeks in both States. To become law, the compact must be approved by each of the State legislatures and Congress must give its consent.
Governor Doyle said, "This is an outstanding day for all of Wisconsin. From Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence River, our region is uniting to protect our waters, and I am pleased to lead our state in signing this compact into law. Our Great Lakes waters in many ways define who we are. And now the Great Lakes Compact will ensure that we protect this tremendous resource while responsibly using the water we need to prosper and grow." According to CGLG the five Great Lakes comprise the world’s largest surface freshwater system. The Great Lakes generate $55 billion in tourism for the region and create nearly $377 million in personal income from wages and salaries.
Access a release from CGLG (click here). Access the CGLG status of compact approval and links to the compact and related documents (click here).
Friday, May 23, 2008
USGS Great Lakes Consumptive Water Use Report
May 23: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has released a major 191-page report entitled, Consumptive Water-Use Coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and Climatically Similar Areas. The report addresses issues of how much of the water is removed from the Great Lakes for use in everyday products such as food, ethanol, household chemicals or paper products; what is not returned; and what type of uses are most likely to cause losses. The new report will be used by water-resource managers and planners in the Great Lakes as they develop policies to encourage efficient and sustainable water use.
Kimberly Shaffer, hydrologist with the USGS and author of the report said, "We found that irrigation and livestock had the largest losses compared with total water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin. Of the total water withdrawn for irrigation, 70-100 percent was lost to the basin." The authors examined seven consumptive water-use categories: domestic and public supply, industrial, electric power, irrigation, livestock, commercial, and mining. Consumptive water use is water that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate environment. It is usually reported as a percentage of the amount of water withdrawn.
USGS said the study is relevant to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, between eight states and two Canadian provinces that would prohibit major diversions of water beyond counties bordering the basin. For this report USGS compiled, mapped, graphed, and statistically analyzed consumptive water use numbers from more than 100 sources as a starting point for facility managers, water managers, and scientists in determining the amount of water consumed in seven water-use categories. For comparison purposes, consumptive use information for basins and states that have climates similar to the Great Lakes basin are included in the report. Methods for computing and estimating consumptive use are also presented, as is an extensive bibliography.
Access a release and links to a fact sheet, the complete report and related information (click here).
Kimberly Shaffer, hydrologist with the USGS and author of the report said, "We found that irrigation and livestock had the largest losses compared with total water withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin. Of the total water withdrawn for irrigation, 70-100 percent was lost to the basin." The authors examined seven consumptive water-use categories: domestic and public supply, industrial, electric power, irrigation, livestock, commercial, and mining. Consumptive water use is water that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate environment. It is usually reported as a percentage of the amount of water withdrawn.
USGS said the study is relevant to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, between eight states and two Canadian provinces that would prohibit major diversions of water beyond counties bordering the basin. For this report USGS compiled, mapped, graphed, and statistically analyzed consumptive water use numbers from more than 100 sources as a starting point for facility managers, water managers, and scientists in determining the amount of water consumed in seven water-use categories. For comparison purposes, consumptive use information for basins and states that have climates similar to the Great Lakes basin are included in the report. Methods for computing and estimating consumptive use are also presented, as is an extensive bibliography.
Access a release and links to a fact sheet, the complete report and related information (click here).
Groups Warn Of Bias In Canadian Nuclear Repository Proposal
May 23: A coalition of U.S. and Canadian environmental organizations are questioning the independence of an environmental assessment panel review the environmental assessment for a proposed Ontario Power Generation underground radioactive waste depository in Bruce County, Ontario, about a half a mile from the shore of Lake Huron [See WIMS 7/5/07]. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission are now inviting public comment until June 18, on two documents -- the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines; and the draft Joint Review Panel (JRP) agreement -- related to the proposed Deep Geologic Repository Project to store low and intermediate-level radioactive waste in the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.
In a release, the groups point out that they fear the assessment panel will be compromised by the presence of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They said that after pressure from citizen groups and elected officials in both Canada and the United States, the Canadian government has committed to a Full Panel Review, but the presence of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission threatens to bias decision-making in favor of a pro-nuclear position, despite the risks.
Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility said, “The Canadian government wants to build a nuclear waste dump on the shores of the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. There are serious risks involved in doing this and we want to ensure a full and independent assessment of what the consequences will be, free of bias from the nuclear establishment. An independent panel is one that has no conflict of interest because its members are not involved in promoting, defending, or licensing nuclear facilities."
The groups said a nuclear regulator has never had a seat on a panel for environmental assessments, and their role in this one could set a dangerous precedent, downplaying the dump’s radiological risks to health and the environment. Great Lakes United’s Green Energy and Nuclear Free Task Force urges that a completely independent review board be established, without Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission presence. The Task Force also calls on Great Lakes residents on both sides of the border to speak out, given the potential hazards of the proposed dumpsite for the entire Great Lakes watershed.
The proposal involves building a deep repository beneath the Bruce Nuclear plant site near Kincardine, Ontario. The largest nuclear power plant in North America, it is looking to build new reactors which could make it the largest nuclear power plant in the world. The dump site would contain all radioactive wastes, except spent radioactive fuel, from Ontario’s twenty nuclear reactors. Waste to be stored includes transuranic radionuclides, such as plutonium, contaminated filters from irradiated fuel pools; thousands of highly radioactive metallic pipes and other contaminated items.
Last week the Macomb County Water Quality Board and the Macomb County Board of Commissioners in Michigan both passed resolutions opposing any underground radioactive waste dump in the Great Lakes region. Over the past two years, members of Congress have repeatedly spoken out against the proposed dump, including House Energy Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of northern Michigan, and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Detroit. Kay Cumbow of Citizens Against Chemical Contamination said, “Macomb County is saying very clearly that the actions of its neighbors have a huge impact on the health of its communities and environment. Siting a nuclear waste dump right next to the drinking water supply of over 30 million Canadians and Americans is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Access a release from the environmental organizations (click here). Access the public notice and links to pertinent documents from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (click here).
In a release, the groups point out that they fear the assessment panel will be compromised by the presence of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They said that after pressure from citizen groups and elected officials in both Canada and the United States, the Canadian government has committed to a Full Panel Review, but the presence of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission threatens to bias decision-making in favor of a pro-nuclear position, despite the risks.
Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility said, “The Canadian government wants to build a nuclear waste dump on the shores of the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. There are serious risks involved in doing this and we want to ensure a full and independent assessment of what the consequences will be, free of bias from the nuclear establishment. An independent panel is one that has no conflict of interest because its members are not involved in promoting, defending, or licensing nuclear facilities."
The groups said a nuclear regulator has never had a seat on a panel for environmental assessments, and their role in this one could set a dangerous precedent, downplaying the dump’s radiological risks to health and the environment. Great Lakes United’s Green Energy and Nuclear Free Task Force urges that a completely independent review board be established, without Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission presence. The Task Force also calls on Great Lakes residents on both sides of the border to speak out, given the potential hazards of the proposed dumpsite for the entire Great Lakes watershed.
The proposal involves building a deep repository beneath the Bruce Nuclear plant site near Kincardine, Ontario. The largest nuclear power plant in North America, it is looking to build new reactors which could make it the largest nuclear power plant in the world. The dump site would contain all radioactive wastes, except spent radioactive fuel, from Ontario’s twenty nuclear reactors. Waste to be stored includes transuranic radionuclides, such as plutonium, contaminated filters from irradiated fuel pools; thousands of highly radioactive metallic pipes and other contaminated items.
Last week the Macomb County Water Quality Board and the Macomb County Board of Commissioners in Michigan both passed resolutions opposing any underground radioactive waste dump in the Great Lakes region. Over the past two years, members of Congress have repeatedly spoken out against the proposed dump, including House Energy Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of northern Michigan, and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Detroit. Kay Cumbow of Citizens Against Chemical Contamination said, “Macomb County is saying very clearly that the actions of its neighbors have a huge impact on the health of its communities and environment. Siting a nuclear waste dump right next to the drinking water supply of over 30 million Canadians and Americans is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Access a release from the environmental organizations (click here). Access the public notice and links to pertinent documents from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (click here).
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Panels To Meet
May 22: The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species will be meeting jointly with the Mississippi River Basin Panel in Milwaukee, WI on June 17-19, 2008. An important goal of this meeting is to provide a forum that will facilitate further communication and coordination among members of both Panels given the shared issues of concern existing within these interconnected watersheds. The meeting will focus on common priority issues, such as the transfer of species between basins, viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus, (VHS or VHSv) and ballast water. Detailed meeting information, including a preliminary agenda, registration information and other meeting materials are available.
Access the Great Lakes Panel meeting website for details (click here). Access the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species for more information (click here).
Access the Great Lakes Panel meeting website for details (click here). Access the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species for more information (click here).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
