Tag: natural resource damages

  • America’s Toxic Mining Pools: Ticking Time Bombs?

    Environmental Strategist, between the lines:  There are hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines littered across the United States.

    Do not fool yourself and think you are in the clear once you get environmental professionals involved.  Below is a simple example of how even “environmental professionals” make mistakes.

    As you will read below, abandoned mines can release an array of environmental contaminants which can cause third party bodily injury, third party property damage, business interruption, investigation and cleanup costs, legal fees…

    This leads to the question “Who are your neighbors?”  What if a neighboring property causes contamination to come onto your property and it happens to be from an old abandoned mine and there is not an identifiable responsible party?  Under Federal law the property owner is responsible for the environmental condition of their property regardless of who caused the environmental problem.  Pollution liability insurance can protect you from pollution liabilities caused by third parties.

    There are over 500,000 abandoned mines in the U.S. containing noxious brews

    Bob Woods, special to CNBC.com

    On August 5, 3 million gallons of toxic sludge gushed out of the long-abandoned Gold King mine near Silverton, Colorado, and into the Animas River. The Tang-colored torrent, percolating with arsenic, lead and other pollutants, was inadvertently unleashed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractors attempting to clean up wastewater that’s been accumulating since the mine closed in 1923.

    Water flows through a series of sediment retention ponds built to reduce heavy metal and chemical contaminants from the Gold King Mine wastewater accident outside Silverton, Colorado, August 14, 2015.
    Brennan Linsley | AP Water flows through a series of sediment retention ponds built to reduce heavy metal and chemical contaminants from the Gold King Mine wastewater accident outside Silverton, Colorado, August 14, 2015.

    The poisonous plume ran downstream into waterways in Utah, New Mexico and the Navajo Nation, but subsequent tests reportedly show that the toxins have dissipated and the water is safe. Regardless, the episode has revealed an even more frightening, long-festering problem: There are an estimated 500,000 abandoned mines nationwide, though mostly in Western states, an unknown number of which contain similarly noxious brews that could potentially be released and contaminate innumerable water systems and adjoining lands.

    The Denver Post‘s Bruce Finley reported that “230 other old mines [in Colorado are] leaking heavy metals-laced muck into headwaters of the nation’s rivers. These old mines have leaked so much for so long, thousands of gallons a minute, that state agencies don’t track the combined toxic flow.” The EPA has calculated that 40 percent of river headwaters in the West are contaminated by acid mine drainage, which occurs when sulfides in mines are exposed to air and water, creating what’s basically sulfuric acid.

    “These are disasters we know are waiting to happen,” said Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks, a Washington-based environmental group that’s been advocating for reform of a 143-year-old federal law seen as a major source of the dilemma. The General Mining Law of 1872, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant during the unbridled building of the West, permitted mining of gold, silver and other hard-rock minerals on public lands for next-to-nothing lease prices, zero royalties (unlike those paid by oil, gas and coal lessees), scant environmental oversight

    Despite numerous attempts, the law remains on the books, but that may soon change. “An entire river system turning bright orange ought to be the wake-up call for Americans that it’s time to stand up and take notice,” Krill stated.

    “If we modernize the 1872 law, we’ll start to reverse what’s going on by making sure the mining industry takes responsibility for its messes.”-Jennifer Krill, executive director, Earthworks

    Perhaps, but while the horrible images remain fresh, Rep. Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, has already called for a congressional hearing on his recently proposed legislation to modernize the antiquated law. Essentially, HR 963—the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act of 2015—would levy an 8 percent royalty on new and existing hard-rock mines to create a federal fund to supplement the meager public and private money currently spent on cleanup and remediation activities. Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico announced that he will introduce a similar bill in the Senate next month.

    “The federal estimate for cleaning up contaminated mines is $54 billion, which I think is low-balling,” Grijalva said. “While this [Gold King] incident was a mistake by EPA, the underlying problem is the huge number of abandoned hard-rock mines that are effectively ticking time bombs threatening our rivers and our lands. Congress must provide robust funding to clean up these mines, which is exactly what my [bill] does.”

    “No one is arguing that there isn’t clearly a problem,” said Luke Popovich, vice president of external communications for the Washington, D.C.-based National Mining Association. Yet changing the 1872 law is not the solution, he said, adding that “it is just a predictable way to exploit this accident by raising a completely irrelevant issue.” He cited several post-Earth Day laws—including the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act—that have addressed environmental concerns over mining. “We’re probably the most heavily regulated industry in the U.S.,” he said.

    Instead, the mining industry favors so-called Good Samaritan legislation, which would allow for private groups and mining companies to clean up toxic sites, but at no liability in case of spills like those into the Animas River. “We’ve discussed royalties on new mines,” Popovich said, “if they’re reasonable.” He declined to suggest a figure.

    Earthworks, meanwhile, will continue its push for reform of the mining law. “The government shouldn’t be paying for the cleanup,” Krill said, noting the EPA’s related shoestring budget. “If we modernize the 1872 law, we’ll start to reverse what’s going on by making sure the mining industry takes responsibility for its messes.”

    More Related Articles:

     

  • Matson settles Hawaii’s claims over molasses spill for $15M

    What is a pollutant?  environmental Strategist describes a pollutant as any material, substance or product which is introduced into an environment for other than its intended use or purpose. There are numerous examples of fresh water, milk, cheese, fruit juice, beer, etc… all being classified as pollutants, and insurance coverage for pollution incidents  being denied by the General Liability carriers due to total pollution exclusions.  As the article below points you can add Molasses to the list of pollutants.

    In today’s transparent business environment, successful businesses balance managing and transferring their environmental exposures to drive their growth and profits. Environmental Risk Managers (ERMI) has a cornucopia of educational resources to coach you and your client’s on managing and transferring their environmental exposures.

    Matson1
    This Sept. 12, 2013 file photo shows various kinds of dead marine life on the dock fronting the La Mariana Sailing Club in Keehi Lagoon in Honolulu. A major shipping company will pay the state more than $15 million for a 2013 molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii’s attorney general said Wednesday, July 29, 2015. (AP Photo/Eugene Tanner, File)
    Jul. 29, 2015 10:15 PM EDT

    HONOLULU (AP) — A major shipping company has agreed to pay more than $15 million to compensate for a 2013 molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii’s attorney general said Wednesday.

    Attorney General Doug Chin called the settlement with Hawaii-based Matson Navigation Co. one of the largest for an environmental violation in Hawaii’s history. The settlement includes a combination of cash, restoration efforts and funding for environmental programs, he said.

    Matson is also agreeing to cease its molasses operation in Hawaii and pay for removal of its molasses tanks and any remaining molasses, Chin said.

    The company will pay $5.9 million to the state, and the costs related to ending the molasses operation are estimated between $5.5 million and $9.5 million, which would put the total settlement amount between $11.4 million and $15.4 million, Matson Inc. said in a statement.

    “The range Matson provides in its press statement appears to reflect a desire to report a smaller loss to its investors for its next earnings report,” Chin said in response. “I have received assurances and the evidence strongly indicates that it will in fact cost $9.5 million for Matson to terminate its molasses operations in Hawaii. The state will make sure that Matson spares no costs and cuts no corners.”

    The 1,400 tons of molasses that spilled into the harbor in 2013 killed more than 26,000 fish and other marine life. Enough molasses to fill about seven rail cars oozed out from a section of pipe Matson thought had been sealed, suffocating marine life and discoloring the water as the sticky substance sunk to the bottom of the harbor.

    The spill, in an industrial area about 5 miles west of Waikiki’s hotels and beaches, shut down much of Honolulu Harbor for nearly two weeks.

    Reaching a settlement allowed the state to avoid a lawsuit that would have taken eight to 10 years to resolve in court, Chin said.

    The $5.9 million paid to Hawaii includes money to re-grow a coral nursery to help replace coral that had been damaged or destroyed. It will also reimburse the state for cleanup efforts and other costs, including nearly $2 million in legal fees. There will also be a contribution to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s World Conservation Congress, which is being hosted by Hawaii next year.

    Matson executives said previously that they were not prepared for the possibility of a spill, despite transporting molasses from the pipeline for about 30 years.

    Matson2
    In this Monday, Sept. 16, 2013 photo, a Maston ship sits in Honolulu Harbor near the site of a molasses spill. A major shipping company will pay the state more than $15 million for a 2013 molasses spill in Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii’s attorney general said Wednesday, July 29, 2015. (AP Photo/Oskar Garcia)

    Earlier this year, Matson Terminals Inc. pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges for illegally releasing the molasses into the harbor without a permit on Sept. 9 and 10, 2013. As part of a plea deal, Matson agreed to pay fines and restitution totaling $1 million, including $600,000 that went to the Waikiki Aquarium and Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii.

    Matson is the biggest company that ships goods to Hawaii from the mainland.

    “Matson has been a member of the community for more than a hundred years, and the company’s leadership understands the damage the molasses leak caused,” Gov. David Ige said in a statement. “The resolution allows reparations to occur now and helps see to it that such an environmental disaster does not happen again in Hawaii.”

    Now that there’s a settlement with Hawaii, the company doesn’t face any other pending claims, said Matson spokesman Jeff Hull.

    “Environmental stewardship is a core value in our company, so this event was a blow to all of us at Matson,” President and CEO Matt Cox said in a statement. “We can’t take back what happened, but we’ve done our best to make it right.”

    Matson shares climbed 51 cents, or 1.3 percent, to close Wednesday at $40.07, and they were up 1 cent in after-hours trading.

  • Earth’s Degradation Threatens Major Health Gains: Study

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Sustainability has become an abused, catch all phrase in today’s business environment.  Regardless of how you want to spin “Sustainability” the bottom line is if we do not take care of our natural resources, our natural resources will not be able to continue taking care of us or future generations.

    The strategy for sharing the attached article is simply to give you some baseline information so as you continue on your sustainable path, you are able to better understand why we all need to be on the same page about better protecting our natural resources, human health and the environment.

    Environmental Economics will assist us in moving out of our current slash and trash economic model.  This transition will have a broad impact in better protecting human health and the environment once the masses get environmentally educated.  www.estrategist.com was developed to educate the masses.

     

    Degradation

    AFP July 15, 2015

    The unprecedented degradation of Earth’s natural resources coupled with climate change could reverse major gains in human health over the last 150 years, according to a sweeping scientific review published late Wednesday.

    “We have been mortgaging the health of future generations to realize economic and development gains in the present,” said the report, written by 15 leading academics and published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.

    “By unsustainably exploiting nature’s resources, human civilization has flourished but now risks substantial health effects from the degradation of nature’s life support systems in the future.”

    Climate change, ocean acidification, depleted water sources, polluted land, over-fishing, biodiversity loss — all unintended by-products of humanity’s drive to develop and prosper — “pose serious challenges to the global health gains of the past several decades,” especially in poorer nations, the 60-page report concludes.

    The likely impacts on global health of climate change, ranging from expanded disease vectors to malnourishment, have been examined by the UN’s panel of top climate scientists. But the new report, entitled Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch, takes an even broader view.

    The “Anthropocene” is the name given by many scientists to the period –- starting with mass industrialisation -– in which human activity has arguably reshaped Earth’s bio-chemical make-up.

    “This is the first time that the global health community has come out in a concerted way to report that we are in real danger of undermining the core ecological systems that support human health,” said Samuel Myers, a scientist at Harvard University and one the authors.

    Danger of Bee Decline 

    A companion study on the worldwide decline of bees and other pollinators, led by Myers and also published in The Lancet, illustrates one way this might happen.

    The dramatic decline of bees has already compromised the quantity and quality of many nutrient-rich crops that depend on the transfer of pollen to bear fruit.

    Pollinators play a key role in 35 percent of global food production, and are directly responsible for up to 40 percent of the world’s supply of micro-nutrients such a vitamin A and folate, both essential for children and pregnant women.

    The complete wipe-out of pollinating creatures, the study concludes, would push a quarter of a billion people in the red-zone of vitamin A or folate deficiency, and cause an increase in heart disease, stroke and some cancers, leading to some 1.4 million additional deaths each year. A 50 percent loss of pollination would result in roughly half that impact, the researchers found.

    Scientist are still debating exactly why pollinators are dying off, but there is no disagreement that all the possible causes— pollution, insecticides, land-loss — are related to human activity.

    A second companion study examines for the first time the impact of decreased zinc levels in staple crops such as wheat, rice, barley and soy caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the main driver of global warming.

    Already, nearly a fifth of the world’s population is at risk of zinc deficiency, which can cause pre-mature delivery, reduce growth and weight-gain in children, and compromise immune functions. By 2050, projected CO2 emissions could place an additional 150 million people at risk, according to the study published in Lancet Global Health.

    “Our civilizations may seem strong and resilient, but history tells us that our societies are fragile and vulnerable,” Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet and a co-author of the main report, said in a statement.

    Introducing the concept of planetary health, the report calls for urgent action, starting with a paradigm shift in the way we understand the relationship between our environment, social or economic progress, and human health.

    The report was released by The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health.

  • Cement Manufacturer Agrees to Reduce Harmful Air Emissions at Colorado Plant


    WASHINGTON— April 19th: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that CEMEX, Inc., the owner and operator of a Portland cement manufacturing facility in Lyons, Colo., has agreed to operate advanced pollution controls on its kiln and pay a $1 million civil penalty to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

    “Today’s settlement will reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides, which can have serious impacts on respiratory health for communities along Colorado’s Front Range,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  “Cutting these emissions will also help improve environmental quality and visibility in places like Rocky Mountain National Park.”

    “The settlement is part of the Justice Department’s continuing efforts, along with the EPA, to bring significant sources of air pollution within the cement manufacturing sector into compliance with the Clean Air Act.” CEMEX

    The Department of Justice , on behalf of EPA, filed a complaint against CEMEX alleging that between 1997—2000, the company unlawfully made modifications at its Lyons plant that resulted in significant net increases of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. The complaint further alleges that these increased emissions violated the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Non-Attainment New Source Review requirements, which state that companies must obtain the necessary permits prior to making modifications at a facility and install and operate required pollution control equipment if modifications will result in increases of certain pollutants.

    As part of the settlement, CEMEX will install “Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction” (SNCR) technology at their Lyons facility, which is an advanced pollution control technology designed to reduce NOx emissions. This will reduce their NOx emissions by approximately 870 to 1,200 tons of NOx per year. The initial capital cost for installing SNCR is approximately $600,000 and the cost of injecting ammonia into the stack emissions stream, a necessary part of the process, is anticipated to be about $1.5 million per year.

    The settlement is part of EPA’s national enforcement initiative to control harmful air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including Portland cement manufacturing facilities.

    NOx emissions may cause severe respiratory problems and contribute to childhood asthma. These emissions also contribute to acid rain, smog, and haze which impair visibility in national parks. CEMEX’s facility is located within 20 miles of Rocky Mountain National Park, and its emissions may contribute to visibility impairment and to the nitrogen pollution problem that is affecting the park’s vegetation, water quality, and trout populations. Air pollution from Portland cement manufacturing facilities can also travel significant distances downwind, crossing state lines and creating region-wide health problems.

    More information about the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air/cases/cemex-lyons.html

    More information about EPA’s national enforcement initiative: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011airpollution.html

  • San Mateo Creek: Water leak kills fish

    environmental Strategist™, between the lines:  What is a pollutant?  In this case fresh drinking water. environmental Strategist (eS) define a “Pollutant” as a material, substance or product that gets introduced to an environment for other than its intended use or purpose.  In other words, something that ends up where it does not belong, like fresh drinking water.

    Water leak kills fish –  Tuesday, February 12, 2013

    A broken pipe sent thousands of gallons of drinking water cascading into San Mateo Creek over the weekend, killing scores, possibly thousands, of fish from chlorine poisoning.

    The dead fish began floating to the surface Saturday when a thousand gallons a minute of chlorinated water flowed down a forested hillside into the creek about a half-mile below Crystal Springs Reservoir, according to utility officials and residents.  Utility officials located the break in a 60-inch-diameter pipe next to a concrete bridge.  It took them eight hours to cut off the flow along a 4-mile section of pipeline, but water was still leaking out Monday at a rate of 200 gallons a minute, officials said.

    The exact death toll has not yet been determined.  Rare steelhead trout, which have been listed as threatened along the Central Coast under the Endangered Species Act since 1997, were believed to have been killed.

    The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission oversees the sprawling network that supplies drinking water to 2.5 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties.

    Aging pipes, “We don’t know if it was corrosion or a seal or what,” said Steven Ritchie, the assistant general manager for water at the utilities commission. “There are joints in pipes. Sometimes they shift. We don’t know exactly why it broke, but it was undoubtedly related to its old age.”

    “One of the challenges with drinking water is that the things we need to add to it to make it safe can be toxic out in the environment,” Ritchie said. “The chlorine is what makes it safe for us to drink, but it doesn’t do very well in a stream. It’s basically bleach and it kills fish.

    Besides trout, sculpin, stickleback and suckerfish were killed. Ducks, great blue herons and other wildlife were feeding on the dead fish, which range in size from 6 inches to a foot. “I don’t know if it killed all the species,” Rogers said, “but the creek looks sterile. It could take years for it to recover.”

    “As far as I’m concerned, any fish that we kill is a problem,” Ritchie said. “We pride ourselves on taking care of the environment, so this is

    really of great concern to us. Our job now is to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

    Peter Fimrite and Kevin Fagan are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers.