Tag: EPA

Posted on

The most toxic sites in each New Jersey county

town garage ridgewood

no its not the town garage in Ridgewood 

BY S.P. SULLIVAN | NJ ADVANCE MEDIA

New Jersey has more places under the federal Superfund program, which prioritizes cleanups of dangerous contaminated sites, than any other state.

Many have histories more colorful than an oil slick: A massive chemical fire at a mob-controlled waste storage facility. Agent Orange in the Passaic River. Local wildlife turned green. And the only site ever to be put on the Superfund list twice.

While many of those sites have been cleaned up, they require longterm treatment and monitoring. With the EPA’s budget on the chopping block under President Donald Trump’s administration, advocates worry things will backslide for the Superfund, which has already been near-broke for decades.

“Just think about it: We’ve got over a hundred Superfund sites in this state. We’ve got 21 counties,” former Gov. Jim Florio, who wrote the Superfund law when he was in Congress in the early 1980s, said recently. “Nobody lives very far from these sites.”

BERGEN COUNTY

Garfield Groundwater Contamination

The former E.C. Electroplating company’s activity at this Garfield site spilled and leaked cancer-causing chromium into the ground, creating a plume of groundwater contamination at least a half a mile wide. One of New Jersey’s orphan sites, the EPA hasn’t identified a funding source for a cleanup, and says there’s “insufficient data” to measure the risk it poses to the surrounding community.

The city’s mayor appeared in front of a U.S. Senate hearing to plead for federal dollars for the site in 2014, but the cleanup still lacks funds.

Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.

This active scrap metal yard in Saddle Brook saw a spill of oil containing PCBs in the 1980s and a major cleanup project in the 90s. Because of the nature of the work done there, it was also contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds, according to the EPA. Soil cleanup was completed long ago but groundwater cleanup is ongoing.

Fair Lawn Well Field

This site includes three municipal drinking water wells in the Bergen County borough. Volatile organic compounds were detected in the water in the late 1970s and traced to a nearby industrial park. Monitoring is ongoing, but the EPA says it has “insufficient data” to determine the site’s threat to human health.

(EPA)

Maywood Chemical Co.

The Maywood Chemical Works processed radioactive thorium ore from 1916 to 1955. The work generated chemical and radioactive waste.

The site is being cleaned up by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the company deemed responsible for the contamination. Cleanup of radioactive soil is “underway” and the rest of the plan is “in development,” according to EPA.

Quanta Resources Corporation

This site saw nearly a century of coal tar, paving and roofing material production along what was once an industrial wasteland along the Hudson River. Now surrounded by booming waterfront development, the EPA is overseeing cleanup of PCBs and other contaminants, but says it has “insufficient data” to determine the site’s threat to human health.

Berry’s Creek Study Area

A small chunk of the Meadowlands in Bergen County is home to three distinct Superfund sites along Berry’s Creek, a six-mile tributary of the Hackensack River. The area includes the Scientific Chemical site in Carlstadt, Universal Oil Products site in East Rutherford and the Ventron/Velsicol site, which spans Wood-Ridge and Carlstadt.

All three sites are laden with PCBs and Berry’s Creek is considered among the most mercury-laden locations in the country. Only the Scientific Chemical site is listed as “under control.”

https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/the_most_toxic_sites_in_each_new_jersey_county.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

Posted on

The Village of Ridgewood Site Remediation of the North Walnut Street Parking Lot

town_garage_theridgewoodblog

PUBLIC NOTICE – US EPA BROWNFIELD GRANT APPLICATION HEARING

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD

PUBLIC NOTICE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield Grant Application

In accordance with the US Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Grant Applications, community notification policies, the Village Council of the Village of Ridgewood, at its regularly scheduled public work session to be held on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 starting at 7:30 pm, or shortly thereafter, in the Level Four Courtroom of Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, will hear a presentation on the following:

“US Environmental Protection Agency 2017 Brownfields Grant Proposals

For the Site Remediation of the North Walnut Street Parking Lot ; Lots 3 and 4, Block 3805”

The Village of Ridgewood is seeking to apply for two (2) US EPA 2017 Brownfield Grants. One is an Assessment Grant and the second is a Cleanup Grant for the Village property known as the North Walnut Street Parking Lot, also known as Lots 3 and 4, of Block 3805. The purpose of this discussion will be to hear a presentation on the grant funding proposals for assessment and cleanup of the Village parcel, as well as to solicit public comment on the grant applications and the proposed use of funds.

A copy of the 2017 USEPA Brownfields Grant proposal applications will be available in the Office of the Village Clerk, Level 5, Village Hall, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey.   Comments regarding the grant proposals will be incorporated into the grant applications and may also be submitted in writing to the Village Clerk no later than December 15, 2016 by the close of business.

Heather A. Mailander, Village Clerk

Posted on

Environmental Working Group claims Toxin Made Famous by Erin Brockovich Prevalent in NJ Drinking Water

tapwater-1

September 21,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, In the film “Erin Brockovich,” the environmental crusader confronts the lawyer of a power company that polluted the tap water of Hinkley, Calif., with a carcinogenic chemical called chromium-6. When the lawyer picks up a glass of water, Brockovich says: “We had that water brought in ‘specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.”The lawyer sets down the glass and says, “I think this meeting’s over.”

It’s almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation, the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states.

Federal and state regulators are stalled with no national regulation of a chemical yet ,state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

Alarm bells have been rung by the Environmental Working Group a Environmental Advocacy group who’s mission is to empower people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. With breakthrough research and education, we drive consumer choice and civic action.

EWG says in 2008, a two-year study by the National Toxicology Program found that drinking water with chromium-6, or hexavalent chromium, caused cancer in laboratory rats and mice. Based on this and other animal studies, in 2010, scientists at the respected and influential California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that ingestion of tiny amounts of chromium-6 can cause cancer in people, a conclusion affirmed by state scientists in New Jersey and North Carolina. https://www.ewg.org/research/chromium-six-found-in-us-tap-water

In New Jersey, the press reported the water quality institute’s recommendation before it could be formally submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection for development of a regulation. According to former DEP planner Bill Wolfe, now an environmental advocate, this angered Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin, appointed by Gov. Chris Christie. Wolfe said Martin not only blocked submission of the recommendation, but effectively stopped the institute from meeting for four years,[15] delaying drinking water regulations for more than a dozen chemicals.

In a statement to EWG, a Department of Environmental Protection spokesman said the department “vehemently disagrees with the EWG’s contention that political pressure in any way influenced the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute’s consideration of an MCL for chromium-6.” The spokesman said EWG’s characterization is based on the “opinion of a single, former NJDEP employee who was last employed by the agency 12 years ago,” and that EWG’s criticism is “critically flawed – and blatantly misleading.” https://www.ewg.org/research/chromium-six-found-in-us-tap-water

Human studies by government and independent scientists worldwide have definitively established that breathing airborne chromium-6 particles can cause lung cancer, and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration sets strict limits for airborne chromium-6 in the workplace. Whether inhaled or ingested, it can also cause liver damage, reproductive problems and developmental harm. Studies have found that exposure to chromium-6 may present greater risks to certain groups, including infants and children, people who take antacids, and people with poorly functioning livers. https://www.ewg.org/research/chromium-six-found-in-us-tap-water

In a 2009 letter the NJ DEP stated , “We agree that the results of the recently completed National Toxicology Program (NTP, 2007) chronic drinking water study indicate that hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic by ingestion. We also agree that development of an oral cancer slope factor for hexavalent chromium based on a non-threshold approach is appropriate, and that the data from the NTP (2007) study provide an appropriate basis for developing such an oral cancer slope factor. Prior to the completion of the NTP (2007) study, several laboratory animal and human epidemiology studies suggested that hexavalent chromium could be carcinogenic by the oral route, but no study showing this definitively or providing data suitable for quantitative risk assessment was available.” https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/comment/112509nj.pdf

DEP Map : https://www.nj.gov/dep/airtoxics/chrommap.htm

Ridgewood Water Consumer Confidence Report :https://water.ridgewoodnj.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123&Itemid=67

Posted on

Garrett Demands that EPA Re-Evaluate Cleanup of Ringwood Superfund Site

House Budget Panel Holds Hearing to Receive Views on Fiscal 2012

Apr 25, 2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ,  Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) today called upon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck to re-evaluate their decision to place a barrier over the 166,000 tons of contaminated materials at the Ringwood Superfund Site instead of pursuing complete removal of the toxic substances.

Recent discoveries of significant levels of 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that may result in liver, kidney, and upper respiratory damage, at levels close to 100 times the state maximum standard, raises new concerns about the EPA’s decision to cap the site. Congressman Garrett demands that the EPA identify all potential toxic substances that may be present at the Ringwood Superfund Site and ensure that a new cleanup plan rectifies the presence of all hazardous substances once and for all.

“As you know, the Ringwood Superfund Site is a decades old and continued concern for New Jersey residents,” said Garrett in his request to the EPA. “The discovery of an additional toxic substance has increased public concern about the EPA’s decision to approve the plan to cap the site.  New Jersey residents deserve to know that a plan to mitigate hazardous substances in their communities will be successful and will permanently remove the public health threat posed to them.”

The Congressman is also demanding answers from a February 2016 letter where he requested information about groundwater tests when it came to light that they had knowledge of the presence of 1,4-dioxane. To date, the EPA has not responded to these requests.

Congressman Garrett’s Specific Requests from the EPA:

1. Is the EPA reevaluating the decision to cap the site instead of a full cleanup due to the discovery of a new toxic substance and the possibility that other toxic substances may be present?

2. What were the reasons behind approving the plan to cap the site despite the EPA initially supporting a full cleanup?

3. What are the criteria for pursuing the plan to cap the site and does the presence of a new toxic substance affect these criteria?

To read the entire letter, click here.

Posted on

Reader says Ridgewood water is nothing but a black hole for money?

ridgewoodwaterlogo-061912-rn-tif

April 22,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, the Bergen Record is reporting that the class action lawsuit trial involving Glen Rock, Wyckoff and Midland Park and the Ridgewood Water utility is delayed through at least mid-June.

Originally scheduled to begin April 5,the dispute was assigned a go ahead trial date following the failure of two mediation attempts earlier this year, held in Ridgewood and presided over by retired Superior Court judge Peter E. Doyne.

As previously reported on this blog the class action by municipal water customers Glen Rock, Midland Park and Wyckoff alleges some $3.3 million in past overcharges, and that the Village of Ridgewood improperly comingled water company revenues to other areas of the Ridgewood municipal budget.

Other issues also effect Ridgewood water including onerous EPA regulation, massive up keep in infrastructure , summer water restrictions and water quality issues .

Reader says Ridgewood Water is nothing but a black hole for money;

“Ridgewood water is nothing but a black hole for money. Resident have forgotten all the trouble we resident have had with this utility and that BS the Queen Bee gave us last night about the Ridgewood Water Dept head is just that BS . If you believe her you probably voted for the 3 Amigos and their BS. Ridgewood Water cannot keep up with the new EPA and future regulation. Do you enjoy being on water restriction while your neighboring towns that are not served by Ridgewood Water are not? Do you enjoy getting tickets for violating those restriction? . Prospective Council Candidates talk about shared services with other towns or the county to save money but what to retain control of a failing water system. Ridgewood Water has lost their creditability. Get ride of it or privatize it and that goes for the other black hole our very own Ridgewood Sewerage Plant. Oh wait I guess some residents want to retain control of our sewerage.”

Posted on

Rep. Scott Garrett : EPA failed to Notify the Public about Dioxane dangers at Ringwood Superfund Site

scott-garrett

March 2,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ringwood NJ, Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) today called upon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck to share groundwater test results and future testing plans for the Ringwood Superfund Site after recent groundwater tests raised additional concerns about the presence of toxic substances at the site.

These reports found 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that may result in liver, kidney, and upper respiratory damage, at levels close to 100 times the state maximum standard.  Alarmingly, the EPA first had knowledge of a positive identification of this substance in November 2015, but failed to notify the public.

“As you know, the EPA’s management of the site is a decades old and ongoing concern for New Jersey residents,” wrote Garrett in the letter. “I believe that public health issues need to be dealt with in a transparent manner so that residents are well-informed about the safety of their communities and surrounding areas.”

Congressman Garrett’s Specific Requests:

Information and Reports from the EPA about the Ringwood Superfund Site

  1. All groundwater test reports currently in the EPA’s possession; and
  2. A list of known toxic substances and the levels of such substances found at the site.

The EPA’s Future Plans for Groundwater Testing at the Ringwood Superfund Site

  1. The EPA’s plans for additional groundwater tests of known toxic substances present at the site;
  2. A list of toxic substances that may be present at the site, but that the EPA has not tested for; and
  3. The EPA’s plans for additional groundwater tests of toxic substances that may be present at the site and have not been tested for in past groundwater tests.
Posted on

EPA did not disclose Ringwood contamination

epa-logo-11

BY SCOTT FALLON
STAFF WRITER |
THE RECORD

Environmental regulators knew three months ago that a chemical that likely causes cancer was found for the first time at the Ringwood Superfund site, but on Tuesday defended their decision not to immediately disclose the information to the public, saying they do not consider it an imminent health threat.

Community leaders are angry they were not informed sooner. They said they should have been told shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received information in late November that the chemical 1,4-dioxane was detected at high levels in the groundwater just a few hundred feet from homes.

The EPA “should have called an emergency meeting,” said Vincent Mann, chief of the Rama­pough Turtle Clan, a Native American tribe that has made the mountains its home for at least 200 years. “I keep saying it over and over and over again, they are leaving the human element out of their management of this site.”

The discovery of 1,4-dioxane was made by engineers for Ford Motor Co., which dumped tons of toxic paint sludge nearly 50 years ago in Upper Ringwood.

Water samples taken from three wells west of Sheehan Drive in August found concentrations of 1,4-dioxane at 50 to 95 times New Jersey’s groundwater standard.

It was the first time scientists had looked for the chemical in Ringwood; the EPA only began requiring that 1,4-dioxane be tested for at Superfund sites nationwide last year, said Elias Rodriguez, an agency spokesman.

A report on the findings, dated Nov. 25, was sent to the EPA, which for years has been criticized for failing to ensure that the site is adequately cleaned up.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/epa-did-not-disclose-ringwood-contamination-1.1516597

Posted on

Armed group’s leader in federal building: ‘We will be here as long as it takes’

Bundy Ranch

By Holly Yan, Joe Sutton and Ashley Fantz, CNN

Updated 1404 GMT (2204 HKT) January 3, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

CNN)Armed protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land.

One them is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who is well-known for anti-government action.

He spoke by phone to CNN on Sunday at 8 a.m. ET. Asked several times what he and those with him want, he answered in vague terms, saying that they want the federal government to restore the “people’s constitutional rights.”

“This refuge — it has been destructive to the people of the county and to the people of the area,” he said.

“People need to be aware that we’ve become a system where government is actually claiming and using and defending people’s rights, and they are doing that against the people.”

The group is inside part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns after gathering outside for a demonstration supporting Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son ranchers who were convicted of arson.

Prosecutors said the Hammonds set a fire that burned about 130 acres in 2001, to cover up poaching. The father and son were sentenced to five years in prison.

The Hammonds said they set the fire to reduce the growth of invasive plants and to protect their property from wildfires, CNN affiliate KTVZ reported.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html

Posted on

Environmental Agency Uncorks Its Own Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine

epa-logo-11

By JULIE TURKEWITZAUG. 10, 2015

DURANGO, Colo. — The Animas River is the cultural soul of this patch of southwestern Colorado, a sort of moving Main Street that hosts multiple floating parades a year and is typically bustling with rafters and kayakers. Schoolchildren study the river. Sweethearts marry on its banks. Its former name, given by Spaniards, is el Río de las Ánimas, the River of Souls.

But since Wednesday, the Animas has been grievously polluted with toxic water spilled from one of the many abandoned mines that pockmark the region — a spill for which the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed responsibility, saying it accidentally breached a store of chemical-laced water.

On Sunday, anger over the spill boiled over after the agency announced that the amount of toxic water released was three times what was previously stated — more than three million gallons rather than one million — and that officials were still unsure if there was a health threat to humans or animals.

The day of that announcement, State Senator Ellen Roberts, a Republican who lives near the river, cried softly as she considered the pollution, adding that she had dropped her father’s ashes in the depths of the river, which pollutants had turned into an unnatural-looking yellow-orange ribbon.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/durango-colorado-mine-spill-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0

Posted on

EPA Regulators Gone Wild

epa-logo-11

EPA Regulators Gone Wild

Robert Gordon / July 11, 2014 


Following the revelation that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to garnish wages without a court order to collect non-tax debts (i.e. misused grant funds, unrepaid loans or “fines, penalties or fees assessed by federal agencies”), the EPA has sought to defend its proposed rules.

The agency cites The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) as its authority for these rules and called it proposed rule “noncontroversial.” It is curious that the agency tucked these rules into the Federal Register as everyone was headed out for the July 4thvacation.

In a Politico story, part of defense offered by EPA was that it had to put these rules forward as “the same Treasury guidelines apply to all federal agencies that refer delinquent non-tax debts to Treasury for Collection.” This is not reassuring. If correct, this means we can soon expect similar rules to garnish wages without a court order from other agencies that have the power to fine citizens. Are such rules in the pipeline for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the Bureau of Land Management?

No matter what the EPA says, it is just wrong for an agency to allege violations, impose fines and then garnish wages without a court order. The whole process is stacked against citizens and ripe for abuse. There are, however, a variety of simple fixes:

First, Congress could use its power of the purse and simply prohibit the use of any funds for garnishing wages without a court order as regards fines or penalties imposed by an agency. Given EPA’s warning that other agencies are likely to follow, it could be widely applied.

Second, Congress could overturn the EPA regulation or the underlying 1998 Treasury regulation.

 o It could do so by adding due process requirements to the DCIA, crafting procedures that would not be so stilted in favor of the agency.

o More directly, it could simply require that, in the case of fines or penalties, an agency obtain a court order for wage garnishment.

o It could even amend the DCIA to limit garnishment to non-regulatory debts.

There are other possible fixes, but the point is this: This is a problem that Congress should be easily able to analyze and fix in a bipartisan manner.

An EPA spokesperson tried to assuage fears stating that, before wages could be garnished for fines, alleged violators are given prior notice and the opportunity to “review, contest or enter into a payment agreement.”

When one reads regulations’ fine print that opportunity is not so encouraging. Under EPA’s proposed system, the agency gets to unilaterally decide whether there is an oral hearing or whether it will decide the case based on the paper record. If there is an oral hearing, EPA has unbridled discretion to choose where. So, if you are from Alaska for example, the EPA could decide the oral hearing for your alleged violations will be in Washington DC. Tough luck.

Also, according to EPA’s proposed system, when you arrive your hearing official will be someone picked by the very agency that has sought to impose the fine. EPA gets to designate any individual the agency considers “qualified” for that job. Could EPA’s view of “qualified” include the official who imposed the fines in the first place? Who knows? Finally the standards basically put the burden of proving one’s self innocent on the citizen. While most see this as ridiculously stacked, this is the EPA’s notion of“adopting hearing procedures that … provide due process.”

There is no reason to tolerate this behavior. It is regulators gone wild and should be nipped in the bud.

Posted on

Power Plants, Rate-Payers Brace for Obama Administration’s New EPA Regs

pseG_truck2_theridgewoodblog.net_

Power Plants, Rate-Payers Brace for Obama Administration’s New EPA Regs
Eric Boehm
June 2, 2014 at 9:32 am

In November 2010, President Obama stood before reporters in the White House briefing room and offered a frank description of his administration’s chances of getting heavy-duty environmental regulations through Congress.

That was in the final days before Republicans seized control of the U.S. House in Obama’s first mid-term. Unable to get greenhouse gas emissions rules through a Democratic Congress, Obama acknowledged it would be far less likely in the soon-to-be divided government.

“I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year,” Obama said. “And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.”

It’s now the year after the year after, but the situation is the same.

Today, the administration will see what it can accomplish without congressional approval. The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce new policies designed to cut carbon emissions at American power plants.

Some details have already leaked out. The new regulations will vary by state, but each state will have to hit targets for carbon emissions—rather than previous EPA regulations that have set limits for specific facilities but never for an entire state or the whole nation—in a two-step process intended to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2030, the Washington Post reported.

Those mandatory reductions will be a heavy drag on the economy, according to a report issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other groups representing energy companies.

“They are working on really the most signification EPA regulation, or any regulation, in American history. Certainly, it’s EPA’s costliest regulation,” said Matt LeTourneau, director of communications for the U.S. Chamber.

The report uses a combination of sources in an attempt to determine what the Obama administration might have up its sleeve. The Chamber relied on a comprehensive emissions plan published by the National Resources Defense Council, which is working closely with the EPA to craft the new rules, and took into account international agreements the administration has made, such as the Copenhagen Accords.

If their prognostications are true, the Chamber expects the new EPA regulations to cost 200,000 jobs per year and as much as $51 billion in annual GDP. The changes also would cause electricity prices to skyrocket for individual consumers and businesses, according to the Chamber.

The high costs will be incurred because the new regulations target not only new power plants but also require existing plants be retrofitted or closed in favor of new forms of energy.

LeTourneau said nearly all coal-fired plants would be shut down, and even some natural gas power plants could face the axe.

Even with all those cutbacks, global emissions would be reduced by just 1.8 percent, the Chamber says, because most of the growth in emissions is coming from places such as China and India.

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for the EPA, took to the agency’s blog Wednesday to respond to the Chamber’s report.

Reynolds said the EPA had gathered testimony from hundreds of groups, including many that are members of the U.S. Chamber, and promised more meetings after the new rules are announced. He said the Chamber’s report had significant holes because the group was working off assumptions and other sources, not the actual EPA regulations.

“The Chamber’s report is nothing more than irresponsible speculation based on guesses of what our draft proposal will be. Just to be clear—it’s not out yet. I strongly suggest that folks read the proposal before they cry the sky is falling.”

If the new regulations are as onerous as business groups believe, and if they are adopted into law without congressional approval, expect lengthy court battles over the issue. The Chamber was one of several groups to sue over the Affordable Care Act—which did have congressional approval—showing it is not afraid to take on the administration in court to delay or defeat costly new rules.

It likely will be years before any new carbon emissions standards for power plants are a reality, but the punch and counter-punch from the Chamber and the EPA shows the battle over messaging already has begun.

Eric Boehm is a reporter for Watchdog.org, a national network of investigative reporters covering waste, fraud and abuse in government. Watchdog.org is a project of the nonprofitFranklin Center for Government & Public Integrity

https://blog.heritage.org/2014/06/02/power-plants-rate-payers-brace-obama-administrations-new-epa-regs/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social