Private contractor warned EPA about possibility of 'blowout' risk for tainted water at gold mine, EPA ignored warning

After weeks of badgering by the media, the EPA finally releases a very damaging report that they were warned about the likelihood of an environmental disaster in Colorado.  The EPA ignored the warning.  From the Associated Press:

. . . EPA released the documents following weeks of prodding from The Associated Press and other media organizations. EPA and contract workers accidentally unleashed 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater on Aug. 5 as they inspected the idled Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado. 

Among the documents is a June 2014 work order for a planned cleanup that noted that the old mine had not been accessible since 1995, when the entrance partially collapsed. The plan appears to have been produced by Environmental Restoration, a private contractor working for EPA. 

"This condition has likely caused impounding of water behind the collapse," the report says. "ln addition, other collapses within the workings may have occurred creating additional water impounding conditions. Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals." . . .

Massive EPA spill in Georgia, happened before Colorado, EPA hid spill

So much for transparency by the Obama administration.  From Fox News:

Still reeling from a disaster it created at a Colorado gold mine, the EPA has so far avoided criticism for a similar toxic waste spill in Georgia. . . .  that accident took place five months ago, the hazard continues as heavy storms -- one hit the area Tuesday -- wash more soil into the creek.  

The sediment flows carry dangerous mercury, lead, arsenic and chromium downstream to the tourist destination of Lake Oconee, which then feeds into Oconee River -- home to many federally and state protected species. 

Lead in the soil is 20,000 times higher than federal levels established for drinking water, said microbiologist Dave Lewis, who was a top-level scientist during 31 years at the Environmental Protection Agency.  

He became a whistleblower critical of EPA practices . . . . 

"Clearly, the site is a major hazardous chemical waste dump, which contains many of the most dangerous chemical pollutants regulated by the EPA," Lewis wrote in a 2014 affidavit for a court case filed by local residents that failed to prevent the EPA project: creating a low-income housing development. . . .

Department of Homeland Security seizes Land Rover over EPA regulations? Is this really possible? Unfortunately, yes.

The video from Fox News is available here.

Obama EPA head doesn't fire employee who stole $900,000 from government

From Politico:

The former senior EPA adviser who stole $900,000 from taxpayers while posing as a CIA agent pleaded the Fifth on Tuesday morning — shortly before House members expressed outrage upon learning that he’s still due to get his government pension. . . . 

Both Republicans and Democrats on the panel called themselves dumbfounded by the news. 

“Still month after month the American taxpayers are going to pay” Beale, said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). He said he wants to see EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy come before the committee to answer for why she didn’t immediately fire Beale after becoming aware that he was receiving unearned bonuses and had stayed on the payroll even after holding a retirement party. 

“What does it take to actually get fired in this federal government?” Chaffetz railed. . . .

Obama's EPA Regulatory Overreach in One Diagram

Under Obama, the EPA has disapproved state proposals at an astounding rate.   The number of regulatory disapprovals under Obama's first four years is greater than the number during the preceding 12 years combined.  Even more amazing is the number of times that the EPA has taken over state regulatory programs is eight times greater than that during the entire preceding 12 years (including four of those under Clinton).  The information was put together by the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The ALEC report documents the huge costs of the EPA's intervention and shows the trivial benefits produced by it.  Because the EPA has more mandates than it can handle, the EPA has replaced state participation with that of environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club.

Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's fictional alter ego "Richard Windsor" received multiple awards

From the Washington Times:

Richard Windsor never existed at the EPA, but the agency awarded the fictional staffer’s email account certificates proving he had mastered all of the agency’s technology training — including declaring him a “scholar of ethical behavior,” according to documents disclosed late last week. . . .
The new records show the Windsor account was awarded certificates showing he has “satisfactorily competed the online email records management training”; took the 2010 “No FEAR Act Training Module”; and a completed a “Cybersecurity awareness training” course in 2011, where he scored 83 percent.
Windsor was also awarded the “scholar of ethical behavior” each year from 2010 through 2012. The only training Ms. Jackson appears to have done under her own name was for cybersecurity awareness in 2010. . . .

Apparently Cass Sunstein, who is now at Harvard Law School and was the ORIA director who dealt with EPA regulations, knew that Jackson was using this fake email address.  The Lisa H. below is obviously Jackson, so Cass is clearly playing along with her in pretending that Richard was a real person. 

Vitter also released emails showing that Jackson used the account to correspond with White House officials. “I have your special email from my friend Lisa H. — hope that’s okay!)” Cass Sunstein, then-White House Information and Regulatory Affairs administrator, wrote Jackson in 2009. . . .

Did Obama EPA department hide information by using private email accounts?

Could it be used to legally challenge the regulations that are issued if it implies that the proper process wasn't used to implement regulations?  So will the Obama administration speak out on whether they disapprove of this activity?  From The Hill:

Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee have launched a probe into whether Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson has been conducting official business using secret email accounts.The lawmakers said the practice may violate transparency and record-keeping laws. . . .
"The use of these accounts could seriously impair records collection, preservation, and access, therefore compromising transparency and oversight," the Republicans wrote in a letter to Jackson.
The lawmakers demanded that Jackson turn over all records related to "Richard Windsor" and all other aliases used by senior EPA officials. . . .

Supreme Court unanimously rules against the EPA in Sackett v. EPA

It is pretty amazing that the Supreme Court got an unanimous decision in any property rights case, though what the court's decision does is quite limited. The decision also has some pretty strong language (see bold below).

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.
The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune.
Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act. . . .

New EPA rules could add 25 cents to the price of gas

Obama can take credit for raising the price of gas. From Fox News:

Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.
The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.
Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."
They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.
This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote. . . .

EPA says that its new regulations will create 9,000 permanent jobs?

How is it possible that these regulations will on net create jobs? According to the clip, the EPA claims 9,000 permanent jobs, but assumes that no jobs will be lost. That should not be surprising since this is the same way that the Obama administration calculated jobs from the Stimulus. But other articles that I read say that the EPA is saying that this is a net increase in jobs. Hereis something written by a GWU professor:

Contrary to the EPA’s claim that the rule will provide particular benefits to children, the premature deaths the EPA says will be averted are modeled to accrue to people with an average age of 80 years, who would live weeks or months longer, if at all, as a result of the regulations. This modeling is also suspect, because the EPA assumes causality where none can be explained, and makes other assumptions that overstate effects.

Also disingenuous is the EPA’s claim that the “rule will provide employment for thousands, by supporting 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs.” First, this estimate quantifies only the jobs necessary to comply with the new rules, and ignores jobs lost, despite its recognition that “the industries that use electricity will face higher electricity prices as the result of the toxics rule, reduce output, and demand less labor.”

Second, a careful reading of the fine print reveals that even the employment effects the EPA claims are not different statistically from zero.

These new regulations will be among the most expensive regulations ever issued. The estimated $11 billion per year in costs will be borne by all Americans who will pay more for electricity and anything that uses it. Further, due to the EPA’s rosy assumptions and failure to consider how the requirements will make the electricity grid more susceptible to power outages, this cost may well be understated. . . .

EPA rules closing plants, reducing productivity, raising prices

The WSJ has a detailed discussion available here.

From Roll Call:

The EPA’s Clean Air Act rules on mercury emissions from cement plants are set to roll out next month. The agency says the industry has had years to prepare for the new rules, and environmentalists say warnings of rampant job loss are wildly exaggerated.
But leading trade groups say the rules could be crippling.
“The timing of these EPA regulations couldn’t be worse,” O’Hare said, estimating 20 percent of cement plants would have to shut down, eliminating thousands of jobs at a time when business is already down from the recession.
Though the cement industry only employs about 15,000 Americans, such concerns have caught the attention of Republican leaders looking to highlight ways that regulations are stifling the economy. . . .

From CNN:

Spencer Weitman is the President of National Cement, which recently suspended construction of a new $350 million cement kiln in Ragland, AL due to regulatory obstacles. . . . .

Consumer Reports says that the GM Volt is a dud

Consumer Reports doesn't always get things right (e.g., on the iPhone), but I think that they are dead on regarding the GM Volt.

Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric vehicle is on the cover of the April issue — the influential magazine's annual survey of vehicles — but the GM vehicle comes in for criticism.
"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a tough sell to the average consumer."
The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh winter — and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on electric range. But he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40 miles on electric range or higher.
Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense for some trips.
"If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per gallon than the Volt does," Champion said. . . .

I had these discussions earlier here and here.

Would you pay about $22,000 more for an electric version of the same car?

The Chevy Cruze and Volt are the same size and have just a few major differences. The Volt is an electric car with a small internal combustion engine. The Cruze has an internal combustion engine and delivers 28 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway. Even for those concerned about gas mileage, 42 mpg on the highway seems pretty good. The second major difference is that the Volt cost $22,000 more. I don't see how it can pay to buy the Volt (see an earlier discussion here). The third difference is that the Volt has a maximum range of something over 300 miles. It takes about just 4 to 10 hours to recharge the battery. In extended range after the first 50 miles you get about 35 mpg. There is obviously no similar range limit for the Cruze.

Fox News has this title right: "Forget the Volt, Chevy Cruze to Get 42 MPG"

GM has managed to deliver on its promise of segment-leading fuel economy for its new 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco model, with the EPA announcing this week that the fuel efficient sedan will return 28 mpg in the city and up to 42 mpg on the highway when equipped with a manual transmission.

The numbers are so good that the Cruze Eco’s highway fuel economy beats non-hybrid segment competitors--including 23 percent greater highway fuel economy than the Honda Civic--as well as the Ford Fiesta subcompact and many hybrid models. In fact, it’s better than Ford Fusion Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid. . . .

An extensive review of the Volt is available here.

Will the EPA treat milk as a hazardous substance?

The story from the Omaha World-Herald is here.

Imagine treating milk the same as the toxic sludge now washing up on Gulf Coast beaches.
It may sound absurd, but some dairy producers are worried that it could happen under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations intended to prevent oil spills from polluting waterways.
“It's another example of an environmental law where it's really meant to target heavy industry but actually has some farm implications,” said Chris Galen, spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation.
The EPA program in question falls under the Clean Water Act and requires owners of large oil storage tanks to develop plans to prevent and handle any spills.
Milk contains a certain percentage of animal fat, which is considered a non-petroleum oil, and therefore bulk milk storage tanks near waterways could be subject to the regulations.
Farm groups say there's no reason to put milk under the same heading as oil — who's ever seen a milk-covered pelican struggle to fly? After all, milk is more than 80 percent water, said Stacey Fletcher, spokeswoman for the Nebraska State Dairy Association.
“That's very concerning, that we would ever find milk and oil in the same category,” she said. . . .

Redoing those MPG rules for Electric Cars

I thought that the 230 mpg estimate for the Chevy Volt and the 367 for the Nissan Leaf made little sense, but at least I was hoping that it was a way to mitigate the even dumber increase in company average mpg requirements. Selling a few Volts getting 230 mpg could have gone a long ways over coming the big increase in mpg rules imposed by the Obama administration.

When the figures came out, many observers argued that they presented an inflated and meaningless comparison for consumers looking to measure the efficiency of battery-powered cars against their gas-powered counterparts. The extent of backlash took the agency by surprise, the people familiar said.

The mileage expectation reflected a new methodology for electric and plug-in hybrid cars that factored in electricity used to try to reach a miles-per-gallon equivalent. The intent is to allow consumers to measure the vehicles against traditional gasoline-powered ones. The final figures will do the same, but the EPA is trying to come up with better ways to compare electric power with gasoline.

To calculate a miles-per-gallon figure for a vehicle that runs either partially or fully on battery power, GM had cited an EPA formula that attempts to convert electric-energy consumption into a gasoline equivalent. The Department of Energy process cited by Nissan considers 82 kilowatt hours of electricity to be equivalent to one gallon of gasoline. . . .

New Washington Times piece

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Close enough for government work: The EPA and Energy Department are caught fudging efficiency

Obama eyes interns: Democrats move to deny useful job training to young workers