Author: Cathy Salmento

The Streams in Baltimore are being Polluted

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 37

Pharmaceutical and illicit drugs have been discovered in streams in Baltimore, Maryland.  The high concentrations of amphetamines, in some areas, are altering the makeup of the aquatic food web.  This was reported in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology in a new study released on August 25, 2016, which is one of the first to explore the ecological consequences of stimulant pollution in urban streams.

Lead author Sylvia S. Lee conducted the work as a postdoctoral researcher at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Lee, now with the Environmental Protection Agency, comments, “Around the world, treated and untreated wastewater entering surface waters contains pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs that originate from human consumption and excretion, manufacturing processes, or improper disposal. We were interested in revealing how amphetamine exposure influences the small plants and animals that play a large role in regulating the health of streams.”

To do her research, Lee and her collaborators measured concentrations of pharmaceutical and illicit drugs at six stream sites along an urban-to-rural gradient in Baltimore, Maryland.  The study detected numerous drugs and the highest concentrations of illicit drugs were detected in the most urban streams.  The samples were collected in 2013 and 2014.   Suburban and urban fieldwork focused on the Gwynns Falls watershed, which is part of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Long-Term Ecological Research program. The two rural streams were located in Oregon Ridge watershed, the closest forested region.  After sampling was complete, an artificial stream experiment was performed to determine how amphetamine – a biologically active, highly addictive, and widely used drug – affects stream life.

Co-author Emma J. Rosi-Marshall, a freshwater ecologist at the Cary Institute, comments, “We have every reason to suspect that the release of stimulants to aquatic environments is on the rise across the globe, yet little is known about the ecological consequences of this pollution. We found that when artificial streams were exposed to amphetamine at a concentration similar to what we found in parts of the Gwynns Falls watershed, there were measurable and concerning effects to the base of the aquatic food web.”

The researchers then recreated natural stream attributes in the Cary Institute’s Artificial Stream Facility, four streams received a target amphetamine concentration of 1 μg L-1 and four streams were maintained as controls.  During a three week span, researchers cataloged ecosystem effects.  Their findings included: in streams with the amphetamine addition, the growth of biofilms was significantly suppressed, the composition of bacterial and diatom communities changed, and aquatic insects emerged earlier.

“The field component of this study is one of the first to report amphetamine in wastewater-impacted environments at concentrations approaching 1 μg L-1. The laboratory component confirms that amphetamine is present in the Gwynns Falls watershed at concentrations that have the potential to affect stream ecosystem structure and function” (Cary Institute).

Rosi-Marshall concludes, “As society continues to grapple with aging wastewater infrastructure and escalating pharmaceutical and illicit drug use, we need to consider collateral damages to our freshwater resources. More work is needed on the ecological fate of these pollutants and the threat they pose to aquatic life and water quality. Ultimately, solutions will lie in innovations in the way we manage wastewater.”

In addition to Lee and Rosi-Marshall, the paper’s research team included graduate student Alexis M. Paspalof (University of Nebraska–Lincoln), environmental chemist Daniel D. Snow (University of Nebraska–Lincoln), PhD candidate Erinn Richmond (Monash University), and microbial ecologist John J. Kelly (Loyola University Chicago). Funding was provided in part by the Wallace Genetic Foundation, the Baltimore Ecosystem Study Long-Term Ecological Research program, the Hudson River Foundation, and the Polgar Foundation.

Source: “Ecological Consequences of Amphetamine Pollution in Urban Streams.” Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 25 Aug. 2016. Web. 29 Aug. 2016.

‘Keep it in the Ground’ is Facing an Oil and Gas Industry Lawsuit

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 36

The Obama administration is being taken to court by oil and gas producers.  They allege that the “keep it in the ground” movement has caused a slowdown in their lease sales.  The suit was brought to court by The Western Energy Alliance (WEA) on August 11, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.  They challenge that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has not held up part of the Mineral Leasing Act by not having quarterly oil and gas lease sales.

“Notwithstanding the bluster of special interest groups that disregard the contribution independent producers make to domestic prosperity and national security, the overlooked point is that the ‘keep it in the ground’ approach is inconsistent with controlling law,” said Mark Barron, a BakerHostetler attorney representing WEA. “With this lawsuit, we seek to ensure that Congress’ explicit legal directive — not cute lobbying slogans — drives federal land administration.”

Included in the complaint is a list of BLM state offices that the oil and gas industry believe have held lease sales too infrequently.  Some of the examples included are the New Mexico state office that held two lease sales in fiscal 2015.  In the 2016 fiscal year, the Montana and Dakotas’ office will hold a maximum of two lease sales.  Though the Colorado office was slightly higher in fiscal 2015 holding three lease sales, they are only holding two in fiscal 2016.  The oil and gas industry alleges that there needs to be at least four lease sales in a fiscal year according to the Mineral Leasing Act.

Those against the “keep it in the ground” approach used by the Bureau of Land Management say that holding inconsistent lease sales actually harms the environment.

“The failure to hold regular lease sales consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act’s mandate results in unnecessary delays for — and can completely halt — development of certain federal minerals,” BakerHostetler attorney Alex Obrecht said in a statement. “But more important, limiting leasing restricts operators’ ability to plan projects so that waste is reduced and development is executed in the most environmentally sensitive manner.”

Over 300 oil and gas producers and service companies that work in the West are represented by The Western Energy Alliance.

“Through protests and petitions, the Keep-It-in-the-Ground movement is trying to coerce BLM into violating the law by stopping all leasing on federal lands,” WEA’s Kathleen Sgamma said in a statement. “Yet without doing anything, activists could achieve the same goal just by leaving BLM to its own devices. Western Energy Alliance is simply asking the courts to compel BLM to follow decades-old law and hold quarterly lease sales in every oil and natural gas state.”

Do you agree with the “keep it in the ground” movement?  Do you think there should be more frequent lease sales?  Is the Bureau of Land Management violating the Mineral Leasing Act by holding less frequent lease sales?  Who do you believe should win this case and why?

Source: Gilmer, Ellen. “OIL AND GAS: Industry Lawsuit Targets ‘keep It in the Ground'” E&E Publishing. E&E Publishing, LLC, 11 Aug. 2016. Web. 12 Aug. 2016.

Is Pokémon Go going to Revolutionize the Energy Industry?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 35

Pokémon Go may be more than just the last craze that everyone is obsessing over.  The technology behind the popular app may move environmental research forward as well as impact the energy sector according to everyone from national labs to universities.  The app also can be used to improve the environment and teach people who play the game about the environment.

An example of people trying to use the craze to positively impact the environment is the University of Minnesota, Duluth.  They are trying to get students to reduce water pollution and clear storm drains while walking around trying to catch Pokémon. “While you are out catching Pokémon, why not help us catch illicit discharges?” the college posted on its website.

“Oak Ridge National Laboratory, meanwhile, is outlining in a video this month how researchers are using the same geographic information system (GIS) as in the game to assess things like energy and water demand” (Marshall).  Another way to spread the word about the impact the apps technology is through blogging, like the Energy Power Research Institute (EPRI).  EPRI is writing about how they are testing similar technologies with multiple utilities in the hopes to improve the electricity system by improving efficiency by double digits.

NextGen Climate, the group backed by billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, is attempting to drum up more supporters by setting up solar power charging stations at hotspots in order to discuss their group while people charge their phones.  “We’re showing young people that registering to vote is easier than catching the elusive Pikachu,” said Suzanne Henkels, a spokeswoman for the group.

Generally, experts say that augmented reality, the technology Pokemon Go uses to operate, could permanently change how energy workers and environmental scientists do their jobs.

“We’re seeing a lot of interest in the energy space,” said Eric Abbruzzese, a senior analyst at ABI Research, which forecast this year that the augmented reality market would grow from about $7 billion today to $115 billion by 2021.  Oil and gas companies, for example, are tapping the technology to repair oil rigs. The industrial sector, which includes energy companies, is expected to make up around 44 percent of the total smart glasses revenue market within five years, according to ABI.

“Among those interested is [the Energy Power Research Institute], which is working with at least seven utilities to test how various types of augmented reality applications may improve everything from worker safety to equipment repairs. Duke Energy Corp., the New York Power Authority and Consolidated Edison are among the partners. EPRI plans to release a report on its findings after the project ends next spring” (Marshall).

In order for Pokémon to appear randomly as players are walking around, Niantic Labs uses cellphone camera pictures of areas and overlays the images with random Pokémon.  “In a similar way, other types of augmented reality technology can insert 3-D diagrams, rotating structures, color-coded maps and pictures into the field of vision of workers using AR-equipped devices” (Marshall).

Most utilities have a catalog of where all of their assets are based on GIS so that information can be accessed to form an “overlaid reality” which can be downloaded to a pair of smart goggles, or on a tablet or phone.

John Simmins, a technical executive leading EPRI’s augmented reality work, explained how the technology could be pivotal after a power outage. “By wearing a helmet or glasses that show what a given location is supposed to look like, a worker can quickly see whether a hard-to-find power line or a transformer on a pole is missing. The information can then be sent quickly to headquarters with a voice command or wave of the hand sensed by the device.  After a major storm, people who are dispatched to assess damage may not have as much expertise as typical line workers,” Simmins said.  “It can really shorten the amount of time that the outages exist before they get worked on,” he said.

While the technology is not fully developed yet, the potential improvements it could have on the energy industry is clear to see.

Source: Marshall, Christa. “POKEMON GO: Pikachu Power: Can It Transform the Energy Industry?” E&E Publishing. Greenwire, 22 Aug. 2016. Web. 22 Aug. 2016.

FERC Releases Statement about PennEast Pipeline

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 34

PennEast, a pipeline company, has proposed a plan to build a 118 mile natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania.  The proposed pipeline project has received plenty of backlash from environmentalists.  Before PennEast can build the pipeline, the company needs to complete a regulatory review with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The FERC found that “The proposed PennEast natural gas-pipeline will result in some adverse ecological impacts, but they could be reduced to less-than-significant levels, according to a draft environmental impact statement prepared by the staff of a federal agency” (Johnson).  This response did not quell the angry critics.

Critics are deeply concerned about the environmental impact, which in some case is long lasting; the pipeline will have on wetlands, endangered species, historic resources, and other areas.  Those against the pipeline do not believe that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s changes do enough to protect these threatened areas.  “Tom Gilbert, campaign director for ReThink Energy NJ and New Jersey Conservation, one of many environmental groups lobbying against the project says ‘It is impossible for FERC to assess the environmental costs of this project’” (Johnson).

Those who argue that PennEast should build the pipeline say that the pipeline will provide cheaper gas to homes and businesses.  PennEast views the FERC verdict as a victory on a project that has taken longer to get started than predicted due to a lack of information provided for the regulatory review.  “’This conclusion brings local homes, hospitals, businesses and schools one step closer to receiving a vital source of reliable, affordable energy,’ the company said” (Johnson).

The areas and animals the pipeline will traverse and that “it could affect four groundwater aquifer systems and a few public drinking wells in Hunterdon County, and cross more than 250 bodies of water, including the Delaware River, and 56 acres of wetlands. It would require more than 200 acres of agricultural land for rights-of-way, poses a risk to five endangered species, and traverse 22 parcels of preserved land in New Jersey set aside under the state’s Green Acres program” (Johnson).  “There is no demonstrated need for this pipeline, which threatens some of New Jersey’s most pristine streams and wetlands,’’ said Jim Waltman, executive director of the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, another critic who is against the pipeline being built.

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said that the pipeline will never legally meet qualifications it needs to because the bodies of water it comes in contact with have anti degeneration regulations.  This means the quality of the water cannot be reduced.

Those who back the building of the pipeline say that “the pipeline … reflects recommendations in the state’s Energy Master Plan, which calls for a build-out of natural gas infrastructure in New Jersey as a way of reducing energy costs. Nevertheless, the pipeline is perhaps one of the most contentious of more than a dozen similar projects that are pending, approved, or proposed in New Jersey” (Johnson).

Actions have already been taken against the FERC’s decision.  “The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has filed a challenge in federal court, asserting FERC suffers from a conflict of interest, having never rejected a pipeline project.  The public comment period on the draft EIS ends September 5. PennEast said it expects FERC to make a final decision on the project in 2017, but numerous other federal and state agencies have yet to weigh in, including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which has refused to review permits for the project because officials say the application is incomplete” (Johnson).

Do you agree with the FERC’s decision?  Do you think PennEast will be allowed to build the pipeline?  Do you think the pipeline will be helpful or just harm the environment?

Source: Johnson, Tom. “Federal Agency Says PennEast Environmental Impacts Could Be Reduced.” NJ Spotlight. NJ Spotlight, 25 July 2016. Web. 27 July 2016.

Science Experts Ask the Candidates 20 Questions

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 33

Science leaders are fed up with politicians for not discussing scientific issues on the campaign trail.  Politicians talk about their policies on issues they believe will sway voters.  They do not believe that issues on science, research, and innovation will have much effect on voters.  Science leaders believe that voters have the right to know politicians stances on issues ranging from climate change to cybersecurity.  Since the politicians are not discussing these issues on the campaign trail, some science groups decided to do something about this.

An association of 56 science groups and higher education created 20 questions about scientific issues that will help voters understand where Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, the Green Party’s Jill Stein, and Libertarian Gary Johnson fall regarding these issues.

The association started the questioning candidates in 2008 but expanded the questions in 2016.  ScienceDebate will post each candidate’s reply.  The main purpose of the questions is to attract voter and media attention to these issues so that candidates need to address these issues before Election Day in three months.

“We are encouraging journalists to ask these questions at every opportunity,” says Shawn Otto, the effort’s organizer, who is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. “We’re in a new era where science is impacting people more than ever, and candidates will respond to what is on the minds of the public.”

The group was unsuccessful in forcing candidates to have a science related issues debate in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns so it is unlikely that one will occur during the 2016 campaign.  This does not mean that the group has given up on this goal.  In the meantime, the group has put a lot of thought and energy into creating questions that they hope will garner a written response from each candidate’s organization.

The final 20 questions chosen were taken from a list of 400 questions that were submitted by participating organizations.  “The new version reprises earlier questions on innovation policy, climate change, energy, food security, clean water, ocean health, and space. But some perennial topics have acquired a different focus; for example, the question about the internet has shifted from ensuring access to cybersecurity and privacy, and the question dealing with education now focuses on attracting more women and minorities into the scientific workforce rather than on boosting overall student achievement. There are also some fresh faces: Opioid addiction and mental health have cracked the list, whereas concern about safeguarding critical natural resources has fallen by the wayside” (Mervis).

According to Otto, the association purposefully omitted questions on issues that seemed too narrow.  Two examples of too narrow issues are funding a particular federal agency or reforming the Department of Energy’s network of national laboratories.  That does not stop specific organizations from hounding candidates on issues that they deem of great importance.  Case in point, the Association of American Universities (AAU), a Washington, D.C.–based group of 62 research universities, released their own letter to the candidates on August 9, 2016 that focused on four issues.  Coincidentally, only one issue, innovation, is on the associations list of questions.  AAU’s vice president for public affairs, Barry Toiv, says the association agrees with what ScienceDebate is attempting to accomplish even though it is not part of the association. “But we also feel it’s important to highlight the issues that our members feel strongly about.”

Source: Mervis, Jeffrey. “U.S. Science Groups Have 20 Questions for Candidates.” ScienceInsider. Science Magazine, 10 Aug. 2016. Web. 10 Aug. 2016.

Courts Rule Favorably for Oil and Gas Companies

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 32

The Obama administration put forth rules about fracking on public lands that oil and gas companies did not like.  These companies believe that these regulations would be the first step to federal regulation of all fracking activity.  The Obama administration argues that these rules are solely put in place due to safety concerns within the industry.  These companies took the rules to court and a federal judge ruled in the oil and gas companies favor.  The White House does not agree with the judge’s ruling and plan to appeal the ruling.

The regulations were made by the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and were finalized in March 2015.  U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl made his ruling on June 21, 2016 stating that “the [BLM] lacked Congressional authority to set fracking regulations for federal and Indian lands” (Bailey).

The BLM’s regulations that Skavdahl struck down “would have required companies to provide data on chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to take steps to prevent leakage from oil and gas wells on federally owned land” (Bailey).  This would change the regulation of fracking from states to the federal level.

Fracking extracts oil and natural gas from underground by shooting high pressurized amounts of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground.

Not everyone is happy with the use of fracking to extract oil and natural gas.  “Environmental groups and some neighbors of oil and gas wells have linked fracking to water pollution as well as increased earthquake activity in certain areas” (Bailey).

Less than three quarters of U.S. fracking occurs on federal land so the ruling and the case has had little direct effect on the fracking currently operating.  Most of the 22 percent of federal land fracking is done from offshore Gulf of Mexico operations.

Though the effect these rules would have on current fracking operations would have been minimal, oil and gases companies were still concerned.  They worried that these mandates would lead to the federal government making all of the rules regarding fracking operations.

“Skavdahl, nominated by Obama to the bench in 2011, had put the rules on hold a year ago to weigh requests from energy industry groups and four states to stop them from being implemented. He issued a preliminary injunction against the rules in September and made it permanent in Tuesday’s decision” (Bailey).  Skavdahl said that the case was based on where the Interior Department had the authority to make these rules and not about whether fracking was good or bad.  Skavdahl ruled that the BLM overstepped its authority, given to them by Congress.

Skavdahl backed up his ruling by saying “Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy (EP) Act specifically removed hydraulic fracturing operations that do not involve diesel fuels from Environmental Protection Agency regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act” (Bailey).

As with most regulations, there are those who support the rules and those who are against them.  The pro side argues that regulation is necessary due to the potential high amounts of pollution caused by fracking.  Those against regulation point out the growth in U.S. oil production, the lower energy costs, and the jobs created by the fracking industry.

This ruling, as well as regulation on fracking, continues to be a polarizing issue.  Do you agree with Judge Skavdahl’s ruling?  What are your thoughts on fracking?

Source: Bailey, David. “Court Strikes down Obama Fracking Rules for Public Lands.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22 June 2016. Web. 25 July 2016.

Final EPA Landfill Methane Emissions Rules

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 31

Landfill methane emissions rules have not been updated anytime in the past 20 years, but that is about to change.  On July 15, 2016, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released their final rules for new and modified municipal solid waste landfills and emission guidelines in regards to existing landfills.

The new rules require existing landfills to capture and monitor their gas emissions.  The rules reduce the levels of acceptable emissions by one third.  “The EPA expects the final rules to reduce methane emissions by about 334,000 tons a year beginning in 2025. The agency puts the climate benefits of the combined rules at $512 million in 2025 or more than $8 for every dollar spent to comply” (Hardcastle).

Reducing methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, will affect the environment.  The EPA hopes that these new rules will dramatically reduce the effects of global warming.  The Environmental Protection Agency is also hoping that these rules will drastically increase the quality of life for future generations.

The EPA feels that these guidelines will have a dramatic impact because “as landfill waste decomposes, it produces a number of pollutants, including air toxics, volatile organic compounds, carbon dioxide, and methane. Municipal solid waste landfills are the second-largest industrial source of methane emissions in the US, accounting for 20 percent of methane emissions in 2014, according to the EPA” (Hardcastle).

Luckily for these landfills and the planet, these emissions can be captured.  The capturing of these emissions is cost effective because the captured emissions can be used in place of other fossil fuel.  This helps the planet all around by reducing emissions released into the air, which will cut down on global warming, and it will reduce the use of fossil fuels that cannot be replenished or take a long time to regrow.

These rules were a long time coming.  They have been proposed before but are just now getting put into effect.  Proposals were made in July of 2014 and August of 2015, so it has taken two years for these proposed rules to be finalized and put into practice.  The rules update the 1996 guidelines for existing landfills.  As previously stated, these rules update guidelines written 20 years ago.

“In addition, the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program provides landfill owners and operators a suite of tools and technical resources to facilitate development of landfill gas energy projects. Over the last 20 years, LMOP-assisted projects have reduced and avoided more than 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents” (Hardcastle).

Landfill methane emissions are not the only emissions that are getting revamped and reduced.  Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry have also been cut down.  The EPA announced final regulations to limit oil and gas emissions back in May.  As more and more people became concerned about global warming, the EPA has updated emissions guidelines to reflect this.

Do you agree with the EPA’s new guidelines for methane emissions for existing landfills?

Source: Hardcastle, Jessica. “EPA Issues Final Landfill Methane Emissions Rules.” Environmental Leader. Environmental and Energy Management News, 15 July 2016. Web. 19 July 2016.

‘Pokémon Go’ Connecting People with Wildlife?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 30

pokemon-1521104_640

The newest trend sweeping the nation is the app ‘Pokémon Go.’  The app forces players to leave their homes and explore their surroundings in order to catch ‘em all.  The type of Pokémon found depends on the area players are walking around.  In order to find water Pokémon, players need to be near water and so on.

While exploring and trying to find all of these Pokémon, players have also stumbled upon some real wildlife.  Some biologists have embraced this aspect of ‘Pokémon Go.’  These biologists believe that these situations can be turned into a learning opportunity.  Morgan Jackson, an entomologist and student in Canada tweeted “If you have your #PokemonGo Pokedex memorized but find a live species you don’t recognize, I’m here to help you identify it! #PokeBlitz.”  This was the start of others jumping on this bandwagon.

“For the past few days, players have been tweeting photos of the animals they encounter, hashtagging them #PokeBlitz, a play on “bioblitz,” an event in which people count all the living species in a designated area” (Brulliard).  Jackson, other biologists, and wildlife fans have all been tweeting the answers and if they do not know the answers they retweet the question to get more help.

“Pokémon’s creator would no doubt approve. Satoshi Tajiri grew up collecting insects in his countryside hometown outside of Tokyo. But the concrete of that megalopolis eventually encroached on his town, and bugs became harder to find. The virtual landscape he made, on the other hand, hosted hundreds of make-believe species — ones that enthusiasts could collect, sort and classify, just as Tajiri had once done with insects” (Brulliard).  Tajiri created a generation obsessed with collecting and learning about fictional creatures and ‘Pokémon Go’ maybe instilling in this same generation a thirst to learn more about wildlife on a lesser scale.

Identifying wildlife took an every bigger Pokémon turn when Asia Murphy, who writes about wildlife conservation at her blog Anati’ala, created a Pokédex for wildlife spotted while playing ‘Pokémon Go.’

Biologists are under no illusion that these players will become obsessive bird watchers, but that they believe the number of young people getting interested in the random wildlife they come across has increased.  In order to play ‘Pokémon Go,’ players are constantly looking at their screens to see what Pokémon are around them.  This means that just because players are in areas surrounded by wildlife, they may not be paying any attention to them.  The impact of identifying real life animals found while playing ‘Pokémon Go’ may not be groundbreaking but it is generating more interest in wild animals than there was before.

No matter your feelings on ‘Pokémon Go,’ as long as players continue to play the game and tweet about the animals they come across, there will be biologists ready and willing to identify these creatures for them.  Who knows the next step maybe players taking pictures of interesting plants they come across and asking nature enthusiasts to identify the plants for them?  Do you think ‘Pokémon Go’ is helping players learn about wildlife?

 

Source: Brulliard, Karin. “If You Must Play Pokémon Go, ‘catch’ Some Real Animals While You’re at It.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 13 July 2016. Web. 13 July 2016.

Ensuring Environmental Justice for All

Swamp Stomp

Volume 16, Issue 29

On June 7, 2016 the EPA took a step towards trying to ensure justice for the environment.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its first-ever Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (EJ Technical Guidance).  This guidance represents a significant step towards ensuring the impacts of EPA regulations on vulnerable populations are understood and considered in the decision-making process (Lee and Maguire).

The purpose of the EJ Technical Guidance is to improve integration of environmental justice in the EPA’s core regulatory function.  Essentially, this better ensures that all Americans have access to some of their basic rights.  In particular the right to have access to clean water, clean air, and healthy communities.  The EJ Technical Guidance is enforced by the public and key stakeholders and they ensure that EPA rules are followed and that communities are not polluted beyond EPA regulations.

So how does it work? The EJ Technical Guidance equips EPA rule writers with key analytic principles and definitions, best practices, and technical questions to consider potential impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns. Each component helps us take complex issues and think about them in a consistent, step-by-step approach, while ensuring that sound science is the foundation of EPA’s decision-making process (Lee and Maguire).  This system gives the EPA a specific set of principles to consider when reviewing potential environmental justice concerns.

The finalization of the EJ Technical Guidance realizes the last commitment made under Plan EJ 2014, and sets the stage to deliver on key aspects of the draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda, EPA’s next environmental justice strategic plan for 2016-2020.  Through EJ 2020, the EPA will consider this guidance when addressing EPA rules that have EJ concerns.  This will be accomplished by implementing guidance, training, monitoring, evaluation and community involvement, including periodic assessments of how EPA is conducting EJ analyses (Lee and Maguire).  EJ 2020 is not just going to rely on the EJ Technical Guidance to get everything right, the EPA is going to strive to constantly learn more about EJ concerns and to improve upon the EJ Technical Guidance system.

If the EJ Technical Guidance system works the way it is designed to, it could be the first step towards ensuring environmental justice for all Americans.  It is too early in the EJ Technical Guidance’s life to determine whether the system works or not.  It is unknown how the public will react and if they will take their participation seriously.  Only time will tell just how effective and important the EJ Technical Guidance system is to ensuring justice for the environment.

Source:

Lee, Charles, and Kelly Maguire. “Incorporating Environmental Justice into All Regulatory Efforts.” The EPA Blog.  EPA, 7 June 2016. Web. 8 July 2016.