Class project spring semester 2018
Work by Keene State students on this bill ended in May 2018
The text of HB1797 can be read on the website of the General Court by clicking here.
The official docket of the bill can be reached by clicking here.
The official docket of the bill can be reached by clicking here.
Class essaysStudent teams are writing papers on the following topics related to HB1797:
|
News3 Jan: HB 1797 was proposed on Jan 3rd by Rep Jim McConnell (R-Cheshire) and five co-sponsors.
4 Jan: The bill was referred to the committee on Resources, Recreation, and Development
See the statement by Rep. Jim McConnell 30 Jan: Committee voted 15-4 against supporting the bill 3 Feb: Amendment to HB1797 proposed. Read it here. The full House voted down HB1797. McConnell promises to revise it and resubmit it again next session. Upcoming meetingsThere are no scheduled meetings
|
Review of similar legislation in other states - I
by
Emma Coffey, Michael Chipman, Kyle Carignan, and Taryn Sunstrom
New Hampshire is the state which House Bill 1797 is being proposed for by Jim McConnell and fellow representatives Dan Hynes, Michael Edgar, Valerie Fraser, Mindi Messmer and Robert Cushing. House Bill 1797-FN-A was created to deter large corporations from establishing their business in New Hampshire and discarding their waste and pollution into the environment due to the lack of policies protecting the public from these acts. The goal from this bill is to add a 50 percent charge to all amounts assessed to persons liable for costs of containment, cleanup, and remediation of water, air and soil pollution.
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York,
Massachusetts was the first state researched to find if the state government in Massachusetts had a similar bill to House Bill 1797-FN-A. Found from the 190th General Court Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts an act labelled Section 11 which covered violations, penalties, and actions to recover costs for environmental wrongdoing. In the bill any person who violates any laws put in place to protect from illegal hazardous waste and illegal pollutions, would be subject to be penalized up to $50,000 for each violation. Also proposed in the Section 11 bill was imprisonment up to 2 years. Also found from the 190th General Court Of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in Section 11 it states that a person who violates any laws from Section 7 would be punished by a fine of no more than $100,000, as well as the possibility of imprisonment for up to 20 years. Though the bills were not identical to House Bill 1797-FN-A, it supports the idea that Massachusetts believes in compensation for wrong doing when it comes to hazardous waste and materials.
The next state researched was Maine. We learned from the Maine Legislature Revised Statutes that the state has criminal penalties as well as civil penalties for violators of Maine's laws. For criminal penalties a person who disposes more than 500 pounds or 100 cubic feet of litter or waste violates Title 17 section 2264-a of Maine’s state law, which then falls under a Class E crime. The violator would then pay a fine of $2,500 to $25,000 for each day of the violation. The civil penalty is a penalty payable to the fine similar to what is proposed in House Bill 1797-FN-A. In Maine’s case if the violation is hazardous the penalty is up to $25,000 each day the violation occurs. Maine believes in penalizing violators with financial forms of punishment.
Pennsylvania is known for its production of coal and steel. Many of the State’s environmental regulations are oriented around protecting the environment from the pollution associated with these industrial activities. Pennsylvania has civil penalties for violators of these environmental statutes. To determine the amount of the penalty, the department considers the damage to air, water, land or other natural resources as well as the cost of restoration. The maximum fine to be held out by the state of Pennsylvania is $25,000. The violator then has 30 days to pay the fine for the violation or face an additional penalty for not paying the fine.
It was difficult to find parallels in Connecticut with the proposed bill. Connecticut does not seem to have bills or laws passed similar to HB1797.
West Virginia, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina and Delaware
In West Virginia, there was no regulation found that was quite like the one Representative Jim McConnell has proposed. However, West Virginia has a program set into place called the Dump Clean Up Program which derives its authority from WV Code Section 22-15-11(h)(3) which reads, ‘no one may create, contribute to, or operate an open dump.’ This program directly helps minimize and eliminate damage to the environment in the state. Civil Penalties can be up to five thousand dollars per incident and criminal charges can be up to fifty thousand dollars and three years in jail. This program is funded by landfill fees and averages the cleanup of 900 dumps on a year.
Washington D.C does not have similar legislation in place comparable with HB1797. The DOEE, or Department of Energy and Environment, issues Enforcement Notices to the respondent. They are given twenty days to respond to this before they are presented with a Notice of Infraction, if this is also not answered within twenty days the fine can be tripled from the original amount, and the DOEE presents a default judgement which the respondent which can then still appeal or pay the fine and the case is closed. Through both notices, the respondent can choose to pay the fine and the case can be closed, they can deny it, or they can admit it with an explanation. The DOEE can choose to not believe the explanation or they can choose to reduce or cancel the fine. If the respondent denies the claim however, they are then sent the Notice of Infraction. At that point a judge will issue the final order on both the explanation route or the denial route.
Virginia has nothing remotely similar to the legislation being proposed in New Hampshire. The state chooses to use the most appropriate method to deal with contamination and to encourage environmental compliance. The least controversial way of doing this, is to approach the facility that is it fault and asking them self-correct. If the facility complies, no further action is pursued. Enforcement methods can include an administrative order or a judicial decree. The state tries to apply the enforcement in both a timely and efficient manner while also being reasonable. In the event of noncompliance, civil charges are used in amounts sufficient enough to remove the economic benefit of noncompliance.
Maryland also has no similar legislation as the bill proposed in New Hampshire. However, just this past December, the state had a regulation in development for remediation after a hazardous spill has taken place. It specified that the state must be notified of the spill by those who are responsible for it. Many activists in the state also say that the Department of Environment is under-funded, especially the water pollution oversight which has declined twenty five percent in the last eighteen years. It has gotten to a point where the Water Keeper Alliance is petitioning the EPA to revoke the state’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act.
In New Jersey, the office of Pollution Protection within The Department of Environmental Protection, is responsible for dealing with the pollution throughout the state. Much like many of the other states, New Jersey does not have an additional fine placed on top of the penalties or civil charges against a facility that has polluted. The office of Pollution Protection first provides resources that encourage good material handling practices. They investigate complaints and perform inspections much like other states and when something is found to be wrong, they issue enforcement documents, which can be both informal and formal. The documents can also carry penalties at an unspecified dollar amount.
In North Carolina, there are fees put into place under 130A-310.76. These fees are paid to the Risk Based Remediation fund in the state and are determined by how large the area of contamination is. There is an application fee put into place for facilities that choose to remediate. The fee not exceeding $5,000 per acre of land contaminated and no persons will pay more than $100,000 to the fund. An oversight fee is also put into plate which does not exceed $500 and no persons will pay more than $25,000 to the fund. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources does take into account whether groundwater contamination will migrate, the size of the site, the complexity of the work and the resources the Department will need to oversee the work. The fees are used to further monitor the area where the remediation occurred or to pay administrative and operating expenses. Though this is not entirely similar to McConnell’s proposal, it is one of the first that maintains a fee for remediating the area that is contaminated.
Delaware does have regulations set into place for the cleanup of a hazardous spill but the fees are unspecified. Delaware also does not charge a fee on top of individuals have to pay to have the site cleaned up. “1.2.1 The requirements of these Regulations shall apply to any facility with a release or imminent threat of release and any person who conducts an investigation or remedial action at a facility with a release or imminent threat of release.” Also in section 3.1.1, it is stated that any individuals who have made a hazardous spill must inform the state in writing before starting any sort of clean up on the land. There is no similarity within this state’s regulations like the one McConnel proposed.
Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Tennessee
In Wisconsin, there was legislation that correlated directly with HB1797. Fees are related to enforcement action in regard to the cleanup of pollution. NR 728.06 states that “The department may assess and collect fees from a person who is subject to an order or other enforcement action to cover the costs incurred by the department to review the planning and implementation of any environmental investigation or environmental cleanup that the person is required to conduct.” This differs from McConnell’s proposal because there are no punitive fees attached.
For Michigan, fines and punishments were found for violators that illegally release a hazardous substance or pollutant into the environment. Section 20139A, of Michigan State Law, states “person shall not release or cause a release of a hazardous substance, contrary to law/permit if that person knew or should have known that such releases could cause personal injury or property damage” (“Section 20139A,” Michigan.gov.) Michigan is currently trying to raise its fee from $0.36 per ton of waste to $4.75 per ton. This is due to the over dumping of waste in Michigan and the need to remedy environmental damages.
Ohio uses a voluntary action program that is similar to other states. The voluntary action program is considered private sector although the Ohio EPA is responsible for most of the regulations in regard to fees and cleanups. Many of the fines range from $500.00 to $15,600.00. These fines pertain to the actual cleanup service as well as incorrect forms and certifications can lead to these fines.
Much of Kentucky’s pollution is air pollution from open burning. The state has several laws that cover the pollution of air. Kentucky is looking to clean up its air pollution. For remediation of other waste and pollutants the state of Kentucky fines $1.75 per ton of waste. “The Environmental Remediation Fee, established by KRS 224.43-500, is assessed at a rate of $1.75 per ton. This form and payment of the fee are due on or before April 30th, July 31st, October 31st, and January 30st, for fees collected during the prior quarter” (“224.43-500,” Dep.ky.gov.)
Tennessee has regulations that assess punitive fines for violation under 40 CFR as well as charging for the hourly cleanup and total cost. One particular document states “Each site will be assessed specific costs associated with the phase of work and each succeeding phase of work will incur an additional cost recovery assessment. These assessments will be invoiced to the participating party or its assigns, and must be paid, prior to receiving written approval to continue with the next phase of work. This revised Cost Recovery Assessment is effective January 1, 2017” (emphasis added, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation). This is done through Tennessee VOAP. Which stands for their Voluntary Oversight and Assistance Program. It is a program that is aiming to eliminate brownfields and other waste sites across the state.
Illinois is similar to Ohio in how they how to go about collecting costs for remediation. Under Illinois Title 17, section 58.7, it states that the company shall “agree to pay any reasonable costs incurred and documented by the Agency in providing such services.” Most reviews and assessments of the remediation site also incur payment and half of the payment needs to be up front unless it exceeds $5000.00.
Indiana currently has a Voluntary Remediation Program which is almost identical to Ohio’s Voluntary Action Program. All federal waste and cleanup regulations are considered and used by the program. They as well receive money from their services and it all depends on the type of remediation and type of services needed.
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Hawaii, and Alaska
As most of the 50 states, Hawaii has a few different agencies that work to protect water, land and air quality. These include Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Health and Department of Agriculture. Delving further into Hawaii’s State Government, one will discover State Bill No. 575 which discusses the pollution of the island with the use of synthetic plastic microbeads often found in face and body scrubs. These tiny beads severely impact Hawaii’s pristine ecosystem and the beaches surround them. Enacted January 1, 2016, this law requires those who violate section 328-B, the “prohibition on sale of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbead”, shall be fined $2,500 per day for each violation (State of Hawaii, 2015).
Alaska, lying northwest of Canada, is known for its breathtaking terrain, abundant wildlife, small town atmosphere and is a destination for outdoor enthusiasts. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 occurring just of the coast of Prince William Sound, some major environmental laws were placed by the state government in hope to achieve environmental justice if an incident as such were ever to occur again. In section 18 AAC 75.235. of the State of Alaska Selected Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Statutes and Regulations, several varying financial responsibilities of individuals/companies recognized with oil pollution are discussed. There are 14 separate subsections discussed regarding the type of oil (crude or non-crude) as well as the storage capacity of the oil tank, ranging from single barrels, entire facilities or as extreme as the length of a pipeline. The highest financial penalty discussed was $91,500,000 per incident for a pipeline.
Florida, also referred to also the Sunshine State, is known widely by tourists for its sandy beaches, palm trees and resort style living. Shockingly enough for how much traffic the state receives, Florida does not have as tight of regulations as imagined. In chapter 403.061. of the 2017 Florida Statutes “the department shall have the power and the duty to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and promulgated” (The 2017 Florida Statutes, 2017). Given this information, we discovered a few noted fines for pollution in the state, but nothing remarkably evident. The state likes to live by the “pay-to-pollute” principle (The 2017 Florida Statutes, 2017).
South Carolina’s Title 48 of the Environmental Protection and Conservation discusses the Pollution Control Act in great detail. This act outlines all three types of pollution discussed in McConnell’s proposed House Bill 1797; air, land, and water pollution. Section 48-1-320, Penalties for violation of Pollution Control Act, states that individual found in violation of the act will be fined “no less than $500 and no more than $25,000” for each day’s violation or be imprisoned for no more than two years (South Carolina Code of Laws, 2017).
Looking into Georgia’s State Government over 20 separate authoring statutes were discovered, leading one to think as a state they were doing plenty in support of the environment. A few state laws worth mentioning included; Georgia Water Quality Act, Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act, Georgia Underground Storage Act, Georgia Waste Control Law (State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2017). Yet, when searching deeper into these separate laws it became difficult to discover any information regarded fines or taxation penalties if these laws are violated by any citizen or company.
Much like Georgia, Alabama seems to be making strides towards an environmental friendly future for our planet. On the state environmental management page there are several great concepts being put into law and programs including the Air Pollution Control Program, Scrap Tire Program, Chemical Weapons Destruction Limitation Act, and the Alabama Lead Ban Act (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2017). Unfortunately, when looking further into these items for potential consequences when in violation with specific laws there seems to be no obvious data provided.
Mississippi, known for the iconic river that runs along the western side of the state, shows ongoing support for the local environment and wellbeing of citizens. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality recognizes areas of wellbeing in policies including Dam Safety Regulations, Surface Water and Groundwater Use and Protection Regulations, Non Hazardous Solid Waste Regulations and more. The website provided adequate information on each regulation but while searching for penalties regarding violations many stated, “violating any order or permit condition issued by the Department shall be punished in accordance with Section 17-17-29 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended” (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 2017). When attempting to search for more information regarding the code, it was not determined what the consequences would entail, possibly ranging from s simple fine to jail time.
Overall, after conducting research on other state government penalties regarding land, soil and air pollution nothing quite compares to House Bill 1797, proposed by New Hampshire Representative Jim McConnell. Several different states have penalties that reach thousands of dollars as well as additional jail time. Nevertheless, nothing has been passed of this proportion.
Works Cited
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. (2017). Alabama Environmental Regulations and Laws. Retrieved from http://adem.alabama.gov/alEnviroRegLaws/default.cnt
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (March 2017). State of Alaska: Selected Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Statutes and Regulations. Retrieved from dec.alaska.gov/spar/docs/201708adec-selectedstatutesandregulations.pdf
Batty, S. (n.d.). Environmental Protection Act Title XVII: Site Remediation Program. Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/cleanup-programs/srp/title-17/index
Center, L. D. (n.d.). 1988 Act 108. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1988&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=108&chpt=11&sctn=4&subsctn=0
Cleanups. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanups/2328.htm
“Cost Recovery Assessments for Sites in the Voluntary Cleanup Oversight and Assistance Program (VOAP)”. (2007, January 1). Retrieved February 5, 2018, from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/environment/remediation/documents/brownfieldsvoap/rem_brownfields_voap-fee-structure.pdf
DEE-1: Civil Penalty Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/25227.html
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FEE REPORTING AND SUBMITTAL FORM. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from http://dep.ky.gov/forms library/ Documents/ DEP5032.pdf
Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://doee.dc.gov/service/frequently-asked-questions-about-fines
Indiana Code Title 13. Environment § 13-25-4-8. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-13-environment/in-code-sect-13-25-4-8.html
Maine Revised Statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/38/title38sec349.html
Michigan Environmental Crimes Handbook for Law Enforcement Personnel. (2013, February 26). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-oci-environmentalcrimeshandbook_248437_7.pdf
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (2017). Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.mdeq.ms.gov/about-mdeq/regulations/.
New Hampshire HB1797 | 2018 | Regular Session. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1797/2018
The 190th General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/ Chapter21E/ Section11.
South Carolina Code of Laws. (2017). Title 48- Environmental Protection and Conservation: Pollution Control Act. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t48c001.php
State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division. (2017). Existing Rules and Corresponding Laws. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t48c001.php
State of Hawaii. (2015). The Senate Twenty-Eighth Legislature State Bill No. 575. Retrieved from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/bills/SB575_.HTM
The 2017 Florida Statutes. (2017). Title XXIX Public Health: Chapter 403 Environmental Control. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode =Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0403/Sections/0403.061.html
Wisconsin Legislature: Chapter NR 728. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/700/728
Laws & Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.deq.virginia.gov/LawsRegulations/Regulations.aspx
§ 130A-310.76. Fees; permissible uses of fees. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_130A/GS_130A-310.76.html
Voluntary Action Program Fees. (2016, November 3). Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/Rules/2016/3745-300-03.pdf
Water and Waste Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/regulations/Pages/default.aspx
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York,
Massachusetts was the first state researched to find if the state government in Massachusetts had a similar bill to House Bill 1797-FN-A. Found from the 190th General Court Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts an act labelled Section 11 which covered violations, penalties, and actions to recover costs for environmental wrongdoing. In the bill any person who violates any laws put in place to protect from illegal hazardous waste and illegal pollutions, would be subject to be penalized up to $50,000 for each violation. Also proposed in the Section 11 bill was imprisonment up to 2 years. Also found from the 190th General Court Of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in Section 11 it states that a person who violates any laws from Section 7 would be punished by a fine of no more than $100,000, as well as the possibility of imprisonment for up to 20 years. Though the bills were not identical to House Bill 1797-FN-A, it supports the idea that Massachusetts believes in compensation for wrong doing when it comes to hazardous waste and materials.
The next state researched was Maine. We learned from the Maine Legislature Revised Statutes that the state has criminal penalties as well as civil penalties for violators of Maine's laws. For criminal penalties a person who disposes more than 500 pounds or 100 cubic feet of litter or waste violates Title 17 section 2264-a of Maine’s state law, which then falls under a Class E crime. The violator would then pay a fine of $2,500 to $25,000 for each day of the violation. The civil penalty is a penalty payable to the fine similar to what is proposed in House Bill 1797-FN-A. In Maine’s case if the violation is hazardous the penalty is up to $25,000 each day the violation occurs. Maine believes in penalizing violators with financial forms of punishment.
Pennsylvania is known for its production of coal and steel. Many of the State’s environmental regulations are oriented around protecting the environment from the pollution associated with these industrial activities. Pennsylvania has civil penalties for violators of these environmental statutes. To determine the amount of the penalty, the department considers the damage to air, water, land or other natural resources as well as the cost of restoration. The maximum fine to be held out by the state of Pennsylvania is $25,000. The violator then has 30 days to pay the fine for the violation or face an additional penalty for not paying the fine.
It was difficult to find parallels in Connecticut with the proposed bill. Connecticut does not seem to have bills or laws passed similar to HB1797.
West Virginia, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina and Delaware
In West Virginia, there was no regulation found that was quite like the one Representative Jim McConnell has proposed. However, West Virginia has a program set into place called the Dump Clean Up Program which derives its authority from WV Code Section 22-15-11(h)(3) which reads, ‘no one may create, contribute to, or operate an open dump.’ This program directly helps minimize and eliminate damage to the environment in the state. Civil Penalties can be up to five thousand dollars per incident and criminal charges can be up to fifty thousand dollars and three years in jail. This program is funded by landfill fees and averages the cleanup of 900 dumps on a year.
Washington D.C does not have similar legislation in place comparable with HB1797. The DOEE, or Department of Energy and Environment, issues Enforcement Notices to the respondent. They are given twenty days to respond to this before they are presented with a Notice of Infraction, if this is also not answered within twenty days the fine can be tripled from the original amount, and the DOEE presents a default judgement which the respondent which can then still appeal or pay the fine and the case is closed. Through both notices, the respondent can choose to pay the fine and the case can be closed, they can deny it, or they can admit it with an explanation. The DOEE can choose to not believe the explanation or they can choose to reduce or cancel the fine. If the respondent denies the claim however, they are then sent the Notice of Infraction. At that point a judge will issue the final order on both the explanation route or the denial route.
Virginia has nothing remotely similar to the legislation being proposed in New Hampshire. The state chooses to use the most appropriate method to deal with contamination and to encourage environmental compliance. The least controversial way of doing this, is to approach the facility that is it fault and asking them self-correct. If the facility complies, no further action is pursued. Enforcement methods can include an administrative order or a judicial decree. The state tries to apply the enforcement in both a timely and efficient manner while also being reasonable. In the event of noncompliance, civil charges are used in amounts sufficient enough to remove the economic benefit of noncompliance.
Maryland also has no similar legislation as the bill proposed in New Hampshire. However, just this past December, the state had a regulation in development for remediation after a hazardous spill has taken place. It specified that the state must be notified of the spill by those who are responsible for it. Many activists in the state also say that the Department of Environment is under-funded, especially the water pollution oversight which has declined twenty five percent in the last eighteen years. It has gotten to a point where the Water Keeper Alliance is petitioning the EPA to revoke the state’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act.
In New Jersey, the office of Pollution Protection within The Department of Environmental Protection, is responsible for dealing with the pollution throughout the state. Much like many of the other states, New Jersey does not have an additional fine placed on top of the penalties or civil charges against a facility that has polluted. The office of Pollution Protection first provides resources that encourage good material handling practices. They investigate complaints and perform inspections much like other states and when something is found to be wrong, they issue enforcement documents, which can be both informal and formal. The documents can also carry penalties at an unspecified dollar amount.
In North Carolina, there are fees put into place under 130A-310.76. These fees are paid to the Risk Based Remediation fund in the state and are determined by how large the area of contamination is. There is an application fee put into place for facilities that choose to remediate. The fee not exceeding $5,000 per acre of land contaminated and no persons will pay more than $100,000 to the fund. An oversight fee is also put into plate which does not exceed $500 and no persons will pay more than $25,000 to the fund. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources does take into account whether groundwater contamination will migrate, the size of the site, the complexity of the work and the resources the Department will need to oversee the work. The fees are used to further monitor the area where the remediation occurred or to pay administrative and operating expenses. Though this is not entirely similar to McConnell’s proposal, it is one of the first that maintains a fee for remediating the area that is contaminated.
Delaware does have regulations set into place for the cleanup of a hazardous spill but the fees are unspecified. Delaware also does not charge a fee on top of individuals have to pay to have the site cleaned up. “1.2.1 The requirements of these Regulations shall apply to any facility with a release or imminent threat of release and any person who conducts an investigation or remedial action at a facility with a release or imminent threat of release.” Also in section 3.1.1, it is stated that any individuals who have made a hazardous spill must inform the state in writing before starting any sort of clean up on the land. There is no similarity within this state’s regulations like the one McConnel proposed.
Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Tennessee
In Wisconsin, there was legislation that correlated directly with HB1797. Fees are related to enforcement action in regard to the cleanup of pollution. NR 728.06 states that “The department may assess and collect fees from a person who is subject to an order or other enforcement action to cover the costs incurred by the department to review the planning and implementation of any environmental investigation or environmental cleanup that the person is required to conduct.” This differs from McConnell’s proposal because there are no punitive fees attached.
For Michigan, fines and punishments were found for violators that illegally release a hazardous substance or pollutant into the environment. Section 20139A, of Michigan State Law, states “person shall not release or cause a release of a hazardous substance, contrary to law/permit if that person knew or should have known that such releases could cause personal injury or property damage” (“Section 20139A,” Michigan.gov.) Michigan is currently trying to raise its fee from $0.36 per ton of waste to $4.75 per ton. This is due to the over dumping of waste in Michigan and the need to remedy environmental damages.
Ohio uses a voluntary action program that is similar to other states. The voluntary action program is considered private sector although the Ohio EPA is responsible for most of the regulations in regard to fees and cleanups. Many of the fines range from $500.00 to $15,600.00. These fines pertain to the actual cleanup service as well as incorrect forms and certifications can lead to these fines.
Much of Kentucky’s pollution is air pollution from open burning. The state has several laws that cover the pollution of air. Kentucky is looking to clean up its air pollution. For remediation of other waste and pollutants the state of Kentucky fines $1.75 per ton of waste. “The Environmental Remediation Fee, established by KRS 224.43-500, is assessed at a rate of $1.75 per ton. This form and payment of the fee are due on or before April 30th, July 31st, October 31st, and January 30st, for fees collected during the prior quarter” (“224.43-500,” Dep.ky.gov.)
Tennessee has regulations that assess punitive fines for violation under 40 CFR as well as charging for the hourly cleanup and total cost. One particular document states “Each site will be assessed specific costs associated with the phase of work and each succeeding phase of work will incur an additional cost recovery assessment. These assessments will be invoiced to the participating party or its assigns, and must be paid, prior to receiving written approval to continue with the next phase of work. This revised Cost Recovery Assessment is effective January 1, 2017” (emphasis added, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation). This is done through Tennessee VOAP. Which stands for their Voluntary Oversight and Assistance Program. It is a program that is aiming to eliminate brownfields and other waste sites across the state.
Illinois is similar to Ohio in how they how to go about collecting costs for remediation. Under Illinois Title 17, section 58.7, it states that the company shall “agree to pay any reasonable costs incurred and documented by the Agency in providing such services.” Most reviews and assessments of the remediation site also incur payment and half of the payment needs to be up front unless it exceeds $5000.00.
Indiana currently has a Voluntary Remediation Program which is almost identical to Ohio’s Voluntary Action Program. All federal waste and cleanup regulations are considered and used by the program. They as well receive money from their services and it all depends on the type of remediation and type of services needed.
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Hawaii, and Alaska
As most of the 50 states, Hawaii has a few different agencies that work to protect water, land and air quality. These include Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Health and Department of Agriculture. Delving further into Hawaii’s State Government, one will discover State Bill No. 575 which discusses the pollution of the island with the use of synthetic plastic microbeads often found in face and body scrubs. These tiny beads severely impact Hawaii’s pristine ecosystem and the beaches surround them. Enacted January 1, 2016, this law requires those who violate section 328-B, the “prohibition on sale of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbead”, shall be fined $2,500 per day for each violation (State of Hawaii, 2015).
Alaska, lying northwest of Canada, is known for its breathtaking terrain, abundant wildlife, small town atmosphere and is a destination for outdoor enthusiasts. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 occurring just of the coast of Prince William Sound, some major environmental laws were placed by the state government in hope to achieve environmental justice if an incident as such were ever to occur again. In section 18 AAC 75.235. of the State of Alaska Selected Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Statutes and Regulations, several varying financial responsibilities of individuals/companies recognized with oil pollution are discussed. There are 14 separate subsections discussed regarding the type of oil (crude or non-crude) as well as the storage capacity of the oil tank, ranging from single barrels, entire facilities or as extreme as the length of a pipeline. The highest financial penalty discussed was $91,500,000 per incident for a pipeline.
Florida, also referred to also the Sunshine State, is known widely by tourists for its sandy beaches, palm trees and resort style living. Shockingly enough for how much traffic the state receives, Florida does not have as tight of regulations as imagined. In chapter 403.061. of the 2017 Florida Statutes “the department shall have the power and the duty to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and promulgated” (The 2017 Florida Statutes, 2017). Given this information, we discovered a few noted fines for pollution in the state, but nothing remarkably evident. The state likes to live by the “pay-to-pollute” principle (The 2017 Florida Statutes, 2017).
South Carolina’s Title 48 of the Environmental Protection and Conservation discusses the Pollution Control Act in great detail. This act outlines all three types of pollution discussed in McConnell’s proposed House Bill 1797; air, land, and water pollution. Section 48-1-320, Penalties for violation of Pollution Control Act, states that individual found in violation of the act will be fined “no less than $500 and no more than $25,000” for each day’s violation or be imprisoned for no more than two years (South Carolina Code of Laws, 2017).
Looking into Georgia’s State Government over 20 separate authoring statutes were discovered, leading one to think as a state they were doing plenty in support of the environment. A few state laws worth mentioning included; Georgia Water Quality Act, Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act, Georgia Underground Storage Act, Georgia Waste Control Law (State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 2017). Yet, when searching deeper into these separate laws it became difficult to discover any information regarded fines or taxation penalties if these laws are violated by any citizen or company.
Much like Georgia, Alabama seems to be making strides towards an environmental friendly future for our planet. On the state environmental management page there are several great concepts being put into law and programs including the Air Pollution Control Program, Scrap Tire Program, Chemical Weapons Destruction Limitation Act, and the Alabama Lead Ban Act (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2017). Unfortunately, when looking further into these items for potential consequences when in violation with specific laws there seems to be no obvious data provided.
Mississippi, known for the iconic river that runs along the western side of the state, shows ongoing support for the local environment and wellbeing of citizens. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality recognizes areas of wellbeing in policies including Dam Safety Regulations, Surface Water and Groundwater Use and Protection Regulations, Non Hazardous Solid Waste Regulations and more. The website provided adequate information on each regulation but while searching for penalties regarding violations many stated, “violating any order or permit condition issued by the Department shall be punished in accordance with Section 17-17-29 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended” (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 2017). When attempting to search for more information regarding the code, it was not determined what the consequences would entail, possibly ranging from s simple fine to jail time.
Overall, after conducting research on other state government penalties regarding land, soil and air pollution nothing quite compares to House Bill 1797, proposed by New Hampshire Representative Jim McConnell. Several different states have penalties that reach thousands of dollars as well as additional jail time. Nevertheless, nothing has been passed of this proportion.
Works Cited
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. (2017). Alabama Environmental Regulations and Laws. Retrieved from http://adem.alabama.gov/alEnviroRegLaws/default.cnt
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (March 2017). State of Alaska: Selected Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Statutes and Regulations. Retrieved from dec.alaska.gov/spar/docs/201708adec-selectedstatutesandregulations.pdf
Batty, S. (n.d.). Environmental Protection Act Title XVII: Site Remediation Program. Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/cleanup-programs/srp/title-17/index
Center, L. D. (n.d.). 1988 Act 108. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&yr=1988&sessInd=0&smthLwInd=0&act=108&chpt=11&sctn=4&subsctn=0
Cleanups. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.in.gov/idem/cleanups/2328.htm
“Cost Recovery Assessments for Sites in the Voluntary Cleanup Oversight and Assistance Program (VOAP)”. (2007, January 1). Retrieved February 5, 2018, from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/environment/remediation/documents/brownfieldsvoap/rem_brownfields_voap-fee-structure.pdf
DEE-1: Civil Penalty Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/25227.html
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FEE REPORTING AND SUBMITTAL FORM. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from http://dep.ky.gov/forms library/ Documents/ DEP5032.pdf
Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://doee.dc.gov/service/frequently-asked-questions-about-fines
Indiana Code Title 13. Environment § 13-25-4-8. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-13-environment/in-code-sect-13-25-4-8.html
Maine Revised Statutes. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/38/title38sec349.html
Michigan Environmental Crimes Handbook for Law Enforcement Personnel. (2013, February 26). Retrieved February 6, 2018, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-oci-environmentalcrimeshandbook_248437_7.pdf
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (2017). Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.mdeq.ms.gov/about-mdeq/regulations/.
New Hampshire HB1797 | 2018 | Regular Session. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1797/2018
The 190th General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/ Chapter21E/ Section11.
South Carolina Code of Laws. (2017). Title 48- Environmental Protection and Conservation: Pollution Control Act. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t48c001.php
State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division. (2017). Existing Rules and Corresponding Laws. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t48c001.php
State of Hawaii. (2015). The Senate Twenty-Eighth Legislature State Bill No. 575. Retrieved from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/bills/SB575_.HTM
The 2017 Florida Statutes. (2017). Title XXIX Public Health: Chapter 403 Environmental Control. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode =Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0403/Sections/0403.061.html
Wisconsin Legislature: Chapter NR 728. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/700/728
Laws & Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.deq.virginia.gov/LawsRegulations/Regulations.aspx
§ 130A-310.76. Fees; permissible uses of fees. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_130A/GS_130A-310.76.html
Voluntary Action Program Fees. (2016, November 3). Retrieved February 7, 2018, from http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/Rules/2016/3745-300-03.pdf
Water and Waste Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/regulations/Pages/default.aspx
Review of similar legislation in other states - II
by
Alex Gosselin, CJ Klem, and Patrick Rooney
House Bill 1797 is an environmental bill that was introduced early 2018 by Jim McConnell and five co-sponsors. The bill would produce money from the companies being fined that have polluted land in New Hampshire. This bill will charge companies an additional 50 percent to the contamination cost that the company has produced. The goal of the bill is to give a financial incentive for companies to not pollute in the state of New Hampshire because if they do, they will have to pay a great price. The money that is taken from the company or corporation will then go back into the state’s general fund to help New Hampshire with future payments. The bill was introduced to the resource, recreation and development committee and had its first work session on January 10th. On January 30th the committee voted 15 to 4 against supporting the bill, and then on February 3rd the bill was proposed to amendment.
While the bill may not have received the support it desired during the committee vote, it is still awaiting it’s vote in the House. This bill has the ability, whether approved or not, to set an example for other states that do not highlight similar environmental efforts. Many states west of the Mississippi River do not have laws that impose fines to hazardous contamination like New Hampshire's proposed bill. Some of the states that lack similar laws include Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska. These states appear to have less punitive laws and policies that do not pose any major incentives or risks to commercial industries who are likely to pollute their surrounding environment. Despite the large number of western states that do not have any laws similar to New Hampshire’s HB1797, there are still a few states making this effort to take down companies willing to risk hazardous pollution and contamination.
Arkansas is one western state with a law similar to that of New Hampshire’s HB1797. Arkansas operates with a financial assurance policy that is required by all owners or operators of hazardous waste facilities. This policy enforces all owners to develop a cost estimate for carrying out any and all necessary activities to clean up and close their hazardous waste operations in the event of a spill or contamination. After the event of a cleanup, they are also required to monitor the contaminated site for the next 30 years to ensure the contamination remains safe and secure in place. In addition to this, the responsible party must provide up to $2 million in liability to any third party damages occurring at the facility, and up to $6 million if an accident occurs at the land disposal or treatment site. This places a heavy financial risk on the company who is responsible for the clean-up and containment. If they try to cut corners and jeopardize the health of others, and the environment, they will receive massive fines on top of the money they already must pay for their inability to contain their hazardous waste.
Louisiana is another state with a law similar to HB1797. This state requires that responsible parties be liable for all costs of action and removal of environmental waste. This includes all the costs of remedial action, all necessary costs of response, damages to any and all people or property, loss of any natural resources, and all the costs associated with assessing injury to people, property or the environment. Unfortunately, this law still lacks the punitive financial threat to companies willing to risk environmental pollution like New Hampshire’s HB1797. Despite this, the Louisiana state law still lays down more rules and regulations for toxic spills than the majority of other western states.
In early 2017, a bill in New Mexico was introduced that has some similarities to New Hampshire's HB1797. This bill was SB 307 which aimed to increase the penalty that was set many years ago against oil and gas companies that pollute water. This original penalty was from the Oil and Gas Act of 1935. So a big difference between this bill and the New Hampshire bill is that this only targets oil and gas companies instead of any company that pollutes. Senator Richard Martinez who proposed this bill, said that if the bill was signed into law it would “ensure we meet the federal government’s standards for New Mexico to be in charge of its oil and gas programs” (Paskus, 2017). The current penalty is 1,000 dollars per day for pollution violations but this bill would have made it 10,000 per day. Therefore, the similarity between the two bills is that they would both help protect water quality and also impose fines. They both would strongly discourage pollution because of the heavy fines. This bill was criticized because of concerns from the companies and peoples jobs potentially at stake. So it did not pass but it shows that other states do try and pass similar environmental penalty laws like our current bill in New Hampshire.
One state that has a law with some similarities to HB1797, but also has a significant difference is California. In late 2017, governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed Assembly Bill 1328 into law. This law has a similar goal to the New Hampshire bill because its main purpose is “to strengthen environmental and health protection from the effects of oil and gas operations” ( “California, S. O.”, n.d.). As you can see, this is basically the same purpose of our bill because New Hampshire is trying to protect water quality and it’s citizens health. The way that the California bill is protecting the environment and people’s health, is that it is gives the California government the authority to obtain information about chemicals that are in wastewater as a result of oil and gas production. This will help the state identify potentially hazardous contaminants that could harm people and the environment. Knowing this information can help the state make sure that any hazardous chemicals do not get in any important water supplies, and possibly help hold oil and gas companies liable for water contamination that they do. However, unlike the New Hampshire bill that gives the fifty percent fine, this law is not necessarily about penalties for pollution and contamination, but about getting access to the information about what chemicals are in the oil and gas companies wastes. This will then environmentally help protect the state, just as our New Hampshire bill would do if passed.
Oregon has an important bill that helps with pollution. The bill offers the state to take money from companies that are over producing pollution in the air, through greenhouse gas emissions. While this bill isn’t exactly like HB1797, the bill still offers help to the environment and tries to limit the production of pollution the industries in the state produce. Senate bill 557 works by being a cap and invest program, the government limits the greenhouse emissions that companies can produce by selling allowances to the industries. The industry has to buy an amount that they can produce, if the industry goes over their cap when the government checks, the industry then has to pay the government the amount they went over. This can help by pushing industries to develop more efficient technologies to limit their emissions and be more sustainable in the greenhouse gas departments. The money that is collected helps and benefits the states with financing. Even though the bill is still in the process of becoming a law this could be a drastic change for the state. The state could start to have better air quality if industries upgrade their technology. The environment will also receive benefits from this bill, whether it's the lower gas emissions in the atmosphere or temperature in their climate lowering, strong environmental benefits could come from this bill being passed. The decrease of greenhouse gas emissions can help everywhere on earth, not just that individual state. It can help from New Hampshire, to Florida, and back to the west coast in California, the decrease of emissions can help the United States as a whole. Even though SB557 could be seen as similar it does have some differences, how the cap and trade system works, it may not stop all pollution but it limits the industry to a smaller amount. Oregon’s bill also allows the government to take money from the industries instead of charging the industry 50 percent of the money it took to clean up the pollution like in New Hampshire. The bills could be seen as similar or different but both are trying to make a change on the environment and this Earth we rely on.
Washington state is working on passing a bill to help limit industry pollution. The bill has similarity to HB1797 because each bill is trying to help improve the environment by taking money away and penalizing large companies that are producing pollution in that state. Senate bill 5385 creates a fossil fuel carbon pollution tax, this will tax big industries that produce a large amount of carbon pollution. If this bill is passed this will help limit and contain the industries that are producing a large amount of carbon emissions. Taking money away from them will lead the industry to switch what they are doing and figure out a new method on how to release emissions without raising the carbon amount in the atmosphere. This won’t only just help Washington but it can also help the surrounding states, countries and even the Earth.
Out of the states to the west of the Mississippi River, many are not trying to punish polluting industries. But there are still some states working against these large corporations to make a change for themselves. Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California each have laws or bills that were proposed bearing some resemblance to New Hampshire’s HB1797. These states are all trying to find a way to push industries to be more responsible in terms of over-pollution and environmental contamination. Washington and Oregon are two other states that are also working against polluters, but in different ways through cap and trade or taxes. Whether it is through cap and trade, tax, accessing information about companies wastes, or financially punitive laws against polluting industries, all of these states are pushing towards more environmentally sound policies that punish pollution within states. At the federal level, it seems as though the current presidential administration is trying to dismantle many environmental laws and regulations, but ultimately, individual states have lots of power in determining how they will handle pollution in the future.
References
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Financial Assurance. Retrieved February 04, 2018, from https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/programs/financial-assurance.aspx
California, S. O. (n.d.). New Law Strengthens Water Quality Protections for Oil and Gas Production. Retrieved February 06, 2018, from https://calepa.ca.gov/2017/10/13/new-law-strengthens-water-quality-protections-for-oil-and-gas/
Financial Assurance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 4, 2018, from https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/programs/financial-assurance.aspx
Oregon Legislative Information SB 557. (2017, July 7). Retrieved February 03, 2018 from https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB557
Paskus, L. (2017, February 23). Bill to bring back oil and gas pollution penalty moves forward. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from http://nmpoliticalreport.com/173868/oil-and-gas-penalty-bill-moves-forward-en/
Washington Bill Status-at-a-Glance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 04, 2018, from http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5127&Year=2017
While the bill may not have received the support it desired during the committee vote, it is still awaiting it’s vote in the House. This bill has the ability, whether approved or not, to set an example for other states that do not highlight similar environmental efforts. Many states west of the Mississippi River do not have laws that impose fines to hazardous contamination like New Hampshire's proposed bill. Some of the states that lack similar laws include Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska. These states appear to have less punitive laws and policies that do not pose any major incentives or risks to commercial industries who are likely to pollute their surrounding environment. Despite the large number of western states that do not have any laws similar to New Hampshire’s HB1797, there are still a few states making this effort to take down companies willing to risk hazardous pollution and contamination.
Arkansas is one western state with a law similar to that of New Hampshire’s HB1797. Arkansas operates with a financial assurance policy that is required by all owners or operators of hazardous waste facilities. This policy enforces all owners to develop a cost estimate for carrying out any and all necessary activities to clean up and close their hazardous waste operations in the event of a spill or contamination. After the event of a cleanup, they are also required to monitor the contaminated site for the next 30 years to ensure the contamination remains safe and secure in place. In addition to this, the responsible party must provide up to $2 million in liability to any third party damages occurring at the facility, and up to $6 million if an accident occurs at the land disposal or treatment site. This places a heavy financial risk on the company who is responsible for the clean-up and containment. If they try to cut corners and jeopardize the health of others, and the environment, they will receive massive fines on top of the money they already must pay for their inability to contain their hazardous waste.
Louisiana is another state with a law similar to HB1797. This state requires that responsible parties be liable for all costs of action and removal of environmental waste. This includes all the costs of remedial action, all necessary costs of response, damages to any and all people or property, loss of any natural resources, and all the costs associated with assessing injury to people, property or the environment. Unfortunately, this law still lacks the punitive financial threat to companies willing to risk environmental pollution like New Hampshire’s HB1797. Despite this, the Louisiana state law still lays down more rules and regulations for toxic spills than the majority of other western states.
In early 2017, a bill in New Mexico was introduced that has some similarities to New Hampshire's HB1797. This bill was SB 307 which aimed to increase the penalty that was set many years ago against oil and gas companies that pollute water. This original penalty was from the Oil and Gas Act of 1935. So a big difference between this bill and the New Hampshire bill is that this only targets oil and gas companies instead of any company that pollutes. Senator Richard Martinez who proposed this bill, said that if the bill was signed into law it would “ensure we meet the federal government’s standards for New Mexico to be in charge of its oil and gas programs” (Paskus, 2017). The current penalty is 1,000 dollars per day for pollution violations but this bill would have made it 10,000 per day. Therefore, the similarity between the two bills is that they would both help protect water quality and also impose fines. They both would strongly discourage pollution because of the heavy fines. This bill was criticized because of concerns from the companies and peoples jobs potentially at stake. So it did not pass but it shows that other states do try and pass similar environmental penalty laws like our current bill in New Hampshire.
One state that has a law with some similarities to HB1797, but also has a significant difference is California. In late 2017, governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed Assembly Bill 1328 into law. This law has a similar goal to the New Hampshire bill because its main purpose is “to strengthen environmental and health protection from the effects of oil and gas operations” ( “California, S. O.”, n.d.). As you can see, this is basically the same purpose of our bill because New Hampshire is trying to protect water quality and it’s citizens health. The way that the California bill is protecting the environment and people’s health, is that it is gives the California government the authority to obtain information about chemicals that are in wastewater as a result of oil and gas production. This will help the state identify potentially hazardous contaminants that could harm people and the environment. Knowing this information can help the state make sure that any hazardous chemicals do not get in any important water supplies, and possibly help hold oil and gas companies liable for water contamination that they do. However, unlike the New Hampshire bill that gives the fifty percent fine, this law is not necessarily about penalties for pollution and contamination, but about getting access to the information about what chemicals are in the oil and gas companies wastes. This will then environmentally help protect the state, just as our New Hampshire bill would do if passed.
Oregon has an important bill that helps with pollution. The bill offers the state to take money from companies that are over producing pollution in the air, through greenhouse gas emissions. While this bill isn’t exactly like HB1797, the bill still offers help to the environment and tries to limit the production of pollution the industries in the state produce. Senate bill 557 works by being a cap and invest program, the government limits the greenhouse emissions that companies can produce by selling allowances to the industries. The industry has to buy an amount that they can produce, if the industry goes over their cap when the government checks, the industry then has to pay the government the amount they went over. This can help by pushing industries to develop more efficient technologies to limit their emissions and be more sustainable in the greenhouse gas departments. The money that is collected helps and benefits the states with financing. Even though the bill is still in the process of becoming a law this could be a drastic change for the state. The state could start to have better air quality if industries upgrade their technology. The environment will also receive benefits from this bill, whether it's the lower gas emissions in the atmosphere or temperature in their climate lowering, strong environmental benefits could come from this bill being passed. The decrease of greenhouse gas emissions can help everywhere on earth, not just that individual state. It can help from New Hampshire, to Florida, and back to the west coast in California, the decrease of emissions can help the United States as a whole. Even though SB557 could be seen as similar it does have some differences, how the cap and trade system works, it may not stop all pollution but it limits the industry to a smaller amount. Oregon’s bill also allows the government to take money from the industries instead of charging the industry 50 percent of the money it took to clean up the pollution like in New Hampshire. The bills could be seen as similar or different but both are trying to make a change on the environment and this Earth we rely on.
Washington state is working on passing a bill to help limit industry pollution. The bill has similarity to HB1797 because each bill is trying to help improve the environment by taking money away and penalizing large companies that are producing pollution in that state. Senate bill 5385 creates a fossil fuel carbon pollution tax, this will tax big industries that produce a large amount of carbon pollution. If this bill is passed this will help limit and contain the industries that are producing a large amount of carbon emissions. Taking money away from them will lead the industry to switch what they are doing and figure out a new method on how to release emissions without raising the carbon amount in the atmosphere. This won’t only just help Washington but it can also help the surrounding states, countries and even the Earth.
Out of the states to the west of the Mississippi River, many are not trying to punish polluting industries. But there are still some states working against these large corporations to make a change for themselves. Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California each have laws or bills that were proposed bearing some resemblance to New Hampshire’s HB1797. These states are all trying to find a way to push industries to be more responsible in terms of over-pollution and environmental contamination. Washington and Oregon are two other states that are also working against polluters, but in different ways through cap and trade or taxes. Whether it is through cap and trade, tax, accessing information about companies wastes, or financially punitive laws against polluting industries, all of these states are pushing towards more environmentally sound policies that punish pollution within states. At the federal level, it seems as though the current presidential administration is trying to dismantle many environmental laws and regulations, but ultimately, individual states have lots of power in determining how they will handle pollution in the future.
References
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Financial Assurance. Retrieved February 04, 2018, from https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/programs/financial-assurance.aspx
California, S. O. (n.d.). New Law Strengthens Water Quality Protections for Oil and Gas Production. Retrieved February 06, 2018, from https://calepa.ca.gov/2017/10/13/new-law-strengthens-water-quality-protections-for-oil-and-gas/
Financial Assurance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 4, 2018, from https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/programs/financial-assurance.aspx
Oregon Legislative Information SB 557. (2017, July 7). Retrieved February 03, 2018 from https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB557
Paskus, L. (2017, February 23). Bill to bring back oil and gas pollution penalty moves forward. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from http://nmpoliticalreport.com/173868/oil-and-gas-penalty-bill-moves-forward-en/
Washington Bill Status-at-a-Glance. (n.d.). Retrieved February 04, 2018, from http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5127&Year=2017
Is there evidence that companies are moving to avoid tough environmental regulations?
by
Maya Holschuh, Lauren Peyser, and Maia Roderick
Environmental regulations vary across states and countries, providing companies the opportunity to have looser laws and regulations dependent on the area they do their business. This allows industries to pollute at different caps and some areas end up with more waste than others. Luckily, in New Hampshire a House Bill (HB 1797-FN-A) is currently being proposed. This bill would add a 50 percent charge to all pollution clean ups including: containment, cleanup, remediation of water, air, and soil pollution. Not only will this make the offender pay for the cleanup, but there’s also the incentive to be very careful due to the additional 50 percent tax of the cleanup price. This will benefit the environment and everybody who lives in New Hampshire as a matter of environmental justice. Unfortunately, there are countless examples all over the United States of environmental injustice. A couple of these being a case in of polluted drinking water in Wisconsin, in addition to cases in our very own hometowns.
When companies move to areas with weak environmental regulations, they run the risk of negatively affecting the state. Moving across state lines does the same amount of damage as would staying in the planned area. Pollution is not stagnant; air moves, water moves, soil moves. As many Americans are aware, most production comes from overseas factories. We have seen countless photos of the impacts the pollution has upon the cities, the people, and the environment. According to The Conversation (2017), many areas try to reduce the pollution where they live by moving their production to impoverished and less regulated countries. A study calculated by PNAS (2014), otherwise known as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, shows that “17 to 36 percent of four major air pollutants emitted in China come from production for export”. In other words, trades are redistributing their environmental footprints. What many fail to realize about this is it exporting production and its pollution does not make the environment better, even if there are temporary improvements in lands distant from the production. To prevent this from happening states and countries need to start taking the initiative and tightening environmental regulations. They should all follow in New Hampshire’s footsteps of creating HB 1797-FN-A.
Before we dive into New Hampshire’s journey to a more environmentally sustainable world, it is best to discuss how people are mistreating our one and only Earth by careless decisions and mistakes. It is important to realize that it doesn’t have to be this way, there CAN and WILL be justice. A great example of pollution that resulted in justice can be seen in a case in Wisconsin where a large feedlot leached into drinking water and streams in the years 2014 and 2015. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the cows within the farm produced large amounts of manure which the operators spread improperly on the fields. The operators failure to do their job correctly resulted in the manure seeping into the soil and bedrock (Verburg, 2017). Runoff can occur when soil is saturated to full capacity. Runoff keeps rivers and lakes, and in this case drinking wells, full of water. The state allowed a large scale dairy farm to operate on one of the region’s most vulnerable aquifers. Regardless of whether the operators did their jobs right, the problem started when the state failed to do their job right. Due to the state’s inability to set and/or follow environmental regulations, more than 30 percent of the drinking water wells in Kewaunee County contained hazardous bacteria (Verburg, 2017). The brothers who owned the farm were caught red handed when a neighbor noticed their water “was still odorous and had a milky yellow color” (Verburg, 2017). The owners will pay $100,000 over five years, $50,000 of which will support environmental projects. The guidelines that should have been there in first place state that the owners now have to “limit manure runoff through training of contract manure spreaders, use of a qualified nutrient management planner, installation of about 10 acres of filter strips in fields, and planting of cover crops on at least 100 acres” (Verburg 2017). This all resulted in justice for all people involved, and greater attention to details on the feedlot as to prevent future runoff pollution. This case in Wisconsin is very much so similar to what HB 1797-FN-A would put into place for alike situations in the state of New Hampshire.
It seems that many forget the severity of an issue if it does not directly affect them. For example, the water crisis in California seemed too far away from us on the east coast. Or issues in a whole other country, on another continent seem virtually non-existent. However, we are one big world and if one country, or state makes a poor environmental decision then we are all affected, maybe not immediately, but this causes long term effects to humans. For example, if one were to live in rural Connecticut, one may be lead to believe that the air they are breathing is fresh. However, Connecticut is also 60 miles outside of New York, which greatly affects the air quality; this can result in more cases of asthma in the area due to toxins in the air. Cheshire County NH, where Keene is located, received a B, although all of the counties in Connecticut received an F, expect for one which was scored a D. This is very concerning due to the fact that something as silent and as invisible as air quality is often looked over because it is not as obvious as a lack of water. This is why we need bills and regulations, everywhere.
As you can see there are many issues concerning the environment, and economic impacts, which is why government regulations must be put into place to protect our cleaner future. However, no matter how hard a state may try to regulate the use of chemicals or pollution, there is only so much that can be done. Companies are moving out of states in order to go places that are less strict, concerning regulations. For example the company, “Saint-Gobain”, a PTFE manufacturer, closed their plant back in 2001 in Bennington, Vermont due to regulations. This lead the company to move to New Hampshire, recently. It is no secret, it is actually spoken about openly why they left the state. When the question is brought up in the media the answer, in short is always “there was declining demand, they needed to streamline; and -- he said this: it's because Vermont's pollution regulations were -- basically -- more demanding than New Hampshire's” (Crowin, 2016). However, it is also said that they moved to Merrimack, NH due to international competition. Nonetheless, contrasting that idea, there are letters between Saint-Gobain and Vermont, it is made explicit in these letters that if Vermont is to keep their regulations then they will move. These regulations being, “that Vermont did require air pollution controls on their production towers, and New Hampshire did not” (Crowin, 2016). This evidence backs up the idea they left due to more lenient laws. The reason these regulations were such an issue, was due to expenses. The company was spending huge amount of cash on propane. In Vermont, they require that if one is to use “production towers”, than they must use a device that reduces, “smoke, odor, and chemicals.” This is something that NH does not require. In order to use this “shield” propane must also be used, a lot of it. The reason Vermont felt that these regulations were so important is because the PTFE that they make “lets off a toxic compound related to PFOA into the air, along with all kinds of other compounds. Regulators believe PFOA may have gotten into the water as the particles fell to the ground from the air” (Crowin, 2016). Which is extremely dangerous to drink or breathe in.
Environmental regulations are enforced to protect and preserve the environment. These regulations relate to air quality, water quality, the wilderness, endangered wildlife, along with other environmental factors. They ensure that matters important to the environment are protected and kept in tip-top shape. A lot of industries have this belief that tighter environmental standards will hurt the economy of the area where changes are being made. It should be known that this in fact false. “Industries and firms that become cleaner will prosper under more stringent policies, while those that fail to adapt will see their export performance erode” (Transport & Environment, 2018). With this being said, the steps New Hampshire is taking to limit pollution will benefit the area and in a very positive way. House Bill 1797-FN-A will add a 50 percent charge to all pollution clean ups including: containment, cleanup, remediation of water, air, and soil pollution. Environmental regulations like so can actually positively affect the economy by creating more jobs by requiring prevention efforts and pollution cleanup. In addition to supporting local economies, this bill will enhance quality of life and tackle threats to public health and our natural environment. It will prevent future releases of hazardous substances while also ensuring there is a future at all. In conclusion, if everyone started enforcing policies like House Bill 1797-FN-A, this will only be the beginning of environmental justice. We are on a road to recovery, preventing companies from taking advantage of loose laws and regulations.
References
Yue Maggie Zhou Assistant Professor of Strategy, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. (2018, February 05). When some US firms move production overseas, they also offshore their pollution. Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http://theconversation.com/when-some-us-firms-move-production-overseas-they-also-offshore-their-pollution-75371
Ali, S. S., & Wilkes, C. (2016, August 17). Experts Say California's Environmental Policies are Bellwether for Economic Growth. Retrieved February 05, 2018, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/experts-say-california-s-environmental-polices-are-bellwether-economic-growth-n631841
How healthy is the air you breathe? (n.d.). Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/new-hampshire/
Steven Verburg | Wisconsin State Journal. (2017, July 25). Large feedlot hit with $50,000 fine for manure pollution. Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/large-feedlot-hit-with-fine-for-manure-pollution/article_a6413723-2fc8-5569-884c-dd32015792f7.html
Corwin, E. (n.d.). Untangling Why Saint-Gobain Chose New Hampshire. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from http://nhpr.org/post/untangling-why-saint-gobain-chose-new-hampshire#stream/0
When companies move to areas with weak environmental regulations, they run the risk of negatively affecting the state. Moving across state lines does the same amount of damage as would staying in the planned area. Pollution is not stagnant; air moves, water moves, soil moves. As many Americans are aware, most production comes from overseas factories. We have seen countless photos of the impacts the pollution has upon the cities, the people, and the environment. According to The Conversation (2017), many areas try to reduce the pollution where they live by moving their production to impoverished and less regulated countries. A study calculated by PNAS (2014), otherwise known as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, shows that “17 to 36 percent of four major air pollutants emitted in China come from production for export”. In other words, trades are redistributing their environmental footprints. What many fail to realize about this is it exporting production and its pollution does not make the environment better, even if there are temporary improvements in lands distant from the production. To prevent this from happening states and countries need to start taking the initiative and tightening environmental regulations. They should all follow in New Hampshire’s footsteps of creating HB 1797-FN-A.
Before we dive into New Hampshire’s journey to a more environmentally sustainable world, it is best to discuss how people are mistreating our one and only Earth by careless decisions and mistakes. It is important to realize that it doesn’t have to be this way, there CAN and WILL be justice. A great example of pollution that resulted in justice can be seen in a case in Wisconsin where a large feedlot leached into drinking water and streams in the years 2014 and 2015. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the cows within the farm produced large amounts of manure which the operators spread improperly on the fields. The operators failure to do their job correctly resulted in the manure seeping into the soil and bedrock (Verburg, 2017). Runoff can occur when soil is saturated to full capacity. Runoff keeps rivers and lakes, and in this case drinking wells, full of water. The state allowed a large scale dairy farm to operate on one of the region’s most vulnerable aquifers. Regardless of whether the operators did their jobs right, the problem started when the state failed to do their job right. Due to the state’s inability to set and/or follow environmental regulations, more than 30 percent of the drinking water wells in Kewaunee County contained hazardous bacteria (Verburg, 2017). The brothers who owned the farm were caught red handed when a neighbor noticed their water “was still odorous and had a milky yellow color” (Verburg, 2017). The owners will pay $100,000 over five years, $50,000 of which will support environmental projects. The guidelines that should have been there in first place state that the owners now have to “limit manure runoff through training of contract manure spreaders, use of a qualified nutrient management planner, installation of about 10 acres of filter strips in fields, and planting of cover crops on at least 100 acres” (Verburg 2017). This all resulted in justice for all people involved, and greater attention to details on the feedlot as to prevent future runoff pollution. This case in Wisconsin is very much so similar to what HB 1797-FN-A would put into place for alike situations in the state of New Hampshire.
It seems that many forget the severity of an issue if it does not directly affect them. For example, the water crisis in California seemed too far away from us on the east coast. Or issues in a whole other country, on another continent seem virtually non-existent. However, we are one big world and if one country, or state makes a poor environmental decision then we are all affected, maybe not immediately, but this causes long term effects to humans. For example, if one were to live in rural Connecticut, one may be lead to believe that the air they are breathing is fresh. However, Connecticut is also 60 miles outside of New York, which greatly affects the air quality; this can result in more cases of asthma in the area due to toxins in the air. Cheshire County NH, where Keene is located, received a B, although all of the counties in Connecticut received an F, expect for one which was scored a D. This is very concerning due to the fact that something as silent and as invisible as air quality is often looked over because it is not as obvious as a lack of water. This is why we need bills and regulations, everywhere.
As you can see there are many issues concerning the environment, and economic impacts, which is why government regulations must be put into place to protect our cleaner future. However, no matter how hard a state may try to regulate the use of chemicals or pollution, there is only so much that can be done. Companies are moving out of states in order to go places that are less strict, concerning regulations. For example the company, “Saint-Gobain”, a PTFE manufacturer, closed their plant back in 2001 in Bennington, Vermont due to regulations. This lead the company to move to New Hampshire, recently. It is no secret, it is actually spoken about openly why they left the state. When the question is brought up in the media the answer, in short is always “there was declining demand, they needed to streamline; and -- he said this: it's because Vermont's pollution regulations were -- basically -- more demanding than New Hampshire's” (Crowin, 2016). However, it is also said that they moved to Merrimack, NH due to international competition. Nonetheless, contrasting that idea, there are letters between Saint-Gobain and Vermont, it is made explicit in these letters that if Vermont is to keep their regulations then they will move. These regulations being, “that Vermont did require air pollution controls on their production towers, and New Hampshire did not” (Crowin, 2016). This evidence backs up the idea they left due to more lenient laws. The reason these regulations were such an issue, was due to expenses. The company was spending huge amount of cash on propane. In Vermont, they require that if one is to use “production towers”, than they must use a device that reduces, “smoke, odor, and chemicals.” This is something that NH does not require. In order to use this “shield” propane must also be used, a lot of it. The reason Vermont felt that these regulations were so important is because the PTFE that they make “lets off a toxic compound related to PFOA into the air, along with all kinds of other compounds. Regulators believe PFOA may have gotten into the water as the particles fell to the ground from the air” (Crowin, 2016). Which is extremely dangerous to drink or breathe in.
Environmental regulations are enforced to protect and preserve the environment. These regulations relate to air quality, water quality, the wilderness, endangered wildlife, along with other environmental factors. They ensure that matters important to the environment are protected and kept in tip-top shape. A lot of industries have this belief that tighter environmental standards will hurt the economy of the area where changes are being made. It should be known that this in fact false. “Industries and firms that become cleaner will prosper under more stringent policies, while those that fail to adapt will see their export performance erode” (Transport & Environment, 2018). With this being said, the steps New Hampshire is taking to limit pollution will benefit the area and in a very positive way. House Bill 1797-FN-A will add a 50 percent charge to all pollution clean ups including: containment, cleanup, remediation of water, air, and soil pollution. Environmental regulations like so can actually positively affect the economy by creating more jobs by requiring prevention efforts and pollution cleanup. In addition to supporting local economies, this bill will enhance quality of life and tackle threats to public health and our natural environment. It will prevent future releases of hazardous substances while also ensuring there is a future at all. In conclusion, if everyone started enforcing policies like House Bill 1797-FN-A, this will only be the beginning of environmental justice. We are on a road to recovery, preventing companies from taking advantage of loose laws and regulations.
References
Yue Maggie Zhou Assistant Professor of Strategy, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. (2018, February 05). When some US firms move production overseas, they also offshore their pollution. Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http://theconversation.com/when-some-us-firms-move-production-overseas-they-also-offshore-their-pollution-75371
Ali, S. S., & Wilkes, C. (2016, August 17). Experts Say California's Environmental Policies are Bellwether for Economic Growth. Retrieved February 05, 2018, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/experts-say-california-s-environmental-polices-are-bellwether-economic-growth-n631841
How healthy is the air you breathe? (n.d.). Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/new-hampshire/
Steven Verburg | Wisconsin State Journal. (2017, July 25). Large feedlot hit with $50,000 fine for manure pollution. Retrieved February 05, 2018, from http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/large-feedlot-hit-with-fine-for-manure-pollution/article_a6413723-2fc8-5569-884c-dd32015792f7.html
Corwin, E. (n.d.). Untangling Why Saint-Gobain Chose New Hampshire. Retrieved February 10, 2018, from http://nhpr.org/post/untangling-why-saint-gobain-chose-new-hampshire#stream/0
A critical review of the proposed bill
by
Heather Chrimes, Nolan Carrier, Andy Sgoifo, and Julia Yates
Abstract
House Bill 1797-FN-A is a proposed bill of Rep. Jim McConnell for New Hampshire. This bill adds a 50 percent charge to all amounts assessed to persons liable for costs of containment, cleanup, and remediation of water, air and soil pollution. We’ve looked at how this bill will affect the people, industries and environment of New Hampshire.
Intention of the bill
This quote comes right from the bill, “Whenever the commissioner finds a person has violated the provisions of this chapter, any rules in force hereunder, or any condition in a permit issued under this chapter, such person shall also be responsible for remitting a penalty in the amount of 50 percent of the cost to remediate the violation to be deposited in the state general fund.” The violations involve the following programs and departments: Air Toxic Control Program; Penalties, Air Pollution Control; Penalties, Hazardous Waste Management; Penalties, Solid Waste Management; Penalties, Solid Waste Management; Toxics Reduction, Water Pollution and Waste Disposal; Enforcement, Sewage Disposal Systems; Penalties, and Soil Pollution; Penalties. Fifty percent of the cost of remediation would be added to the penalty and the additional money would be deposited in the state general fund. In principle, this bill could help deter companies and others from contaminating New Hampshire.
The Commissioner
The current commissioner of New Hampshire is Jeffrey A. Meyers. His office is in charge of the management of DHHS (The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services). The commissioner sets policy for DHHS and oversees implementation of all programs and services. The commissioner is responsible for assessing violators under this bill and charging them a penalty of 50 percent of the cost to remediate the violation.
Pollution
There are many different ways that states define pollution regarding air, water, and soil disturbances, but New Hampshire’s definition of pollution mostly deals with air pollution and how common it is here due to our geographical location. “While some air pollution in New Hampshire comes from obvious sources within the state, much of it comes from sources outside of New Hampshire, sometimes from thousands of miles away. Just as weather forecasters look to where the wind is coming from to forecast the weather, air pollution forecasters look in the same direction to see where air pollution is coming from. The same wind that brings us the weather often brings air pollution along with it. This movement of air pollution – called “transport” – is not a simple process. Pollutants in the air undergo complex chemical reactions, and pollution is added or removed from the air as it moves along.” a quote from the Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire. We obviously as a state need to turn our heads around and look more in depth on this issue along with finding ways to get money for funding the research with the up and coming technologies.
Where Does the Money Go?
After reviewing the bill there was one important question that we feel is necessary to address; where is the money acquired by the tax going and who will see its benefits? In the bill it states that the revenue from the 50 percent tax will be deposited into the “state general fund”. Money from the general fund is allocated to various services such as the administration of justice and public protection, resource protection, education, etc. The money is intended to go back to the state and its citizens to aid New Hampshire as a whole, however there may be other areas that could benefit more significantly from the revenue of the tax.
Environmental Interests
House Bill 1797 appears to be acting in the best interests of the environment, it ultimately aims to lower the amount of pollution and contamination from substances such as and akin to Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). This bill has been introduced in the hopes of deterring large companies that deal with or produce hazardous pollutants from moving to NH in hopes of looser contamination laws and regulations. It is apparent that this bill has a goal of protecting the environment and the people of New Hampshire.
One way of strengthening the potential benefits this bill could have for the environment would be to give the revenue obtained by the extra 50 percent tax to environmental services of the state. This could ensure that this bill acts as a preventative measure against pollution and contamination but also a means of bettering the environment in the future if it is unable to prevent the initial contamination. Any money attained through this tax could help confirm that the contamination is fully remediated and that it does not pose any environmental or health risk in the future.
Public interests
New Hampshire has experienced detrimental contamination in the past and is still facing the repercussions in parts of the state. In 2007 the State of New Hampshire banned the use of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has been linked to cancer in humans and animals. Even after the ban there have been tests that show MTBE is still present in the water in areas of Swanzey, NH. It is known that this chemical is a dangerous health threat after prolonged exposure. Citizens of the state are still being affected by this pollutant, which is still present in many public and private wells. Prolonged exposure has been linked with several forms of cancer and other health risks in animal studies. Recently, another material also said to have carcinogenic effects has been found in the water in areas of southeastern NH. The material, known as PFOA is used in making Teflon, firefighting, and many other purposes, when it is released as waste, can stay in the environment for a long period of time. In 2014 the material was found in a well at the Pease Tradeport, forcing the city of Portsmouth to close the drinking water well. Blood tests were issued to many citizens of the town to test for exposure to the chemical. Additionally, just three years ago, the chemical was found in private wells near the Saint Gobain plastics company. The chemical PFOA has been linked to several cancers including, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and thyroid cancer. A pediatric cancer cluster near the seacoast and other cases of cancer throughout the state may be linked to exposure to these chemical pollutants. One major goal of this bill is to is to help keep the citizens of New Hampshire safe from future contamination such as PFOA and MTBE. The health and protection of the public should be the aim of this bill. One suggestion to secure this goal is to use any revenue of this bill to help those affected by the contamination. Those who are directly affected by chemical contamination should be given the means to ensure their own safety and the safety of their families.
It may be wise to use money acquired through the 50 percent tax that this bill places on remediation to directly benefit the environment and/or the people affected by the contamination.
Who benefits?
Who will this bill affect and in what manner? “Any individual, group, or institution who has a vested interest in the natural resources of the project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project activities and have something to gain or lose if conditions change or stay the same, is defined as a Stakeholder” (WWF). It is important to ensure that all stakeholders meet together, or be equally represented in the review of any bill. The interest of environment has already been discussed. Some of the major stakeholders include the EPA, water division and land division, along with homeowners and farmers. This bill aims to discourage companies that produce hazardous pollutants from moving to NH because of lax regulations. A downside to this bill is that it only addresses pollution after it has occurred. The bill does not fully stop big companies from polluting New Hampshire, rather it gives them a good reason not to. Which brings us to another stakeholder, Industry. Big industry owners who like to come to New Hampshire for the loose contamination laws and regulations would find that this bill hinders their ability to neglect responsibility of toxic waste and contamination. In addition, this could force them to change their waste disposal methods. And if they do not comply they will be charged 50% for whatever “pollution” they cause. The bill will not be favored by large companies, but in reality, it is not meant to appeal to them. By charging companies for their mistakes, the State can collect large sums of money to put into the general fund to give back to the people. In the end, the bill is meant to benefit the people of New Hampshire. While putting this revenue back into the general fund should seem appealing to NH citizens, it is important to be aware of where the money goes. The general fund could be used to benefit the state government and its representatives, as they too are a stakeholder. The General fund helps provides services such as the Resource Protection and Development among other groups. If the money were to go directly towards an environmental group, or perhaps the people affected by contamination, this bill would be morally sound. The downside is, there is no way of tracking the revenue once it’s in the general fund. One would have to look at the future budget to get a sense of how the money was distributed and given back to the people. Ideally this bill will benefit all of New Hampshire’s society. The government is one of the beneficiaries that should analyze all other key stakeholders, and consider who is in the most dire need of assistance from this bill. Solely for the intent of making sure the money gained from these incidents goes back to New Hampshire’s environment and the citizens. House Bill 1797-FN-A has potential to do a lot of good for the state of New Hampshire and its residents, which is why it should be examined carefully and reviewed from every perspective.
Sources:
“Areas of Investigation in New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/pfcs/pfc-nh-response.htm.
Carosa, Kristen. “PFOA Exposure Lawsuit against Saint-Gobain Moves Forward.” WMUR, WMUR, 15 Nov. 2017, www.wmur.com/article/pfoa-exposure-lawsuit-against-saint-gobain-moves-forward/13761312
“HB 1797-FN-A - AS INTRODUCED.” NH General Court, www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_Status/billText.aspx?sy=2018&id=1083&txtFormat=html.
“MtBE in Drinking Water.” NH Department of Environmental Services, 2016, pp. 1–3. https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/dwgb/documents/dwb-3-19.pdf
“Where the Money Goes.” TransparentNH, Nh Gov, www.nh.gov/transparentnh/where-the-money-goes/index.htm.
“Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire” https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/publications/ard/documents/r-ard-04-1.pdf
“Office of the Commissioner.” https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ocom/index.htm
House Bill 1797-FN-A is a proposed bill of Rep. Jim McConnell for New Hampshire. This bill adds a 50 percent charge to all amounts assessed to persons liable for costs of containment, cleanup, and remediation of water, air and soil pollution. We’ve looked at how this bill will affect the people, industries and environment of New Hampshire.
Intention of the bill
This quote comes right from the bill, “Whenever the commissioner finds a person has violated the provisions of this chapter, any rules in force hereunder, or any condition in a permit issued under this chapter, such person shall also be responsible for remitting a penalty in the amount of 50 percent of the cost to remediate the violation to be deposited in the state general fund.” The violations involve the following programs and departments: Air Toxic Control Program; Penalties, Air Pollution Control; Penalties, Hazardous Waste Management; Penalties, Solid Waste Management; Penalties, Solid Waste Management; Toxics Reduction, Water Pollution and Waste Disposal; Enforcement, Sewage Disposal Systems; Penalties, and Soil Pollution; Penalties. Fifty percent of the cost of remediation would be added to the penalty and the additional money would be deposited in the state general fund. In principle, this bill could help deter companies and others from contaminating New Hampshire.
The Commissioner
The current commissioner of New Hampshire is Jeffrey A. Meyers. His office is in charge of the management of DHHS (The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services). The commissioner sets policy for DHHS and oversees implementation of all programs and services. The commissioner is responsible for assessing violators under this bill and charging them a penalty of 50 percent of the cost to remediate the violation.
Pollution
There are many different ways that states define pollution regarding air, water, and soil disturbances, but New Hampshire’s definition of pollution mostly deals with air pollution and how common it is here due to our geographical location. “While some air pollution in New Hampshire comes from obvious sources within the state, much of it comes from sources outside of New Hampshire, sometimes from thousands of miles away. Just as weather forecasters look to where the wind is coming from to forecast the weather, air pollution forecasters look in the same direction to see where air pollution is coming from. The same wind that brings us the weather often brings air pollution along with it. This movement of air pollution – called “transport” – is not a simple process. Pollutants in the air undergo complex chemical reactions, and pollution is added or removed from the air as it moves along.” a quote from the Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire. We obviously as a state need to turn our heads around and look more in depth on this issue along with finding ways to get money for funding the research with the up and coming technologies.
Where Does the Money Go?
After reviewing the bill there was one important question that we feel is necessary to address; where is the money acquired by the tax going and who will see its benefits? In the bill it states that the revenue from the 50 percent tax will be deposited into the “state general fund”. Money from the general fund is allocated to various services such as the administration of justice and public protection, resource protection, education, etc. The money is intended to go back to the state and its citizens to aid New Hampshire as a whole, however there may be other areas that could benefit more significantly from the revenue of the tax.
Environmental Interests
House Bill 1797 appears to be acting in the best interests of the environment, it ultimately aims to lower the amount of pollution and contamination from substances such as and akin to Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). This bill has been introduced in the hopes of deterring large companies that deal with or produce hazardous pollutants from moving to NH in hopes of looser contamination laws and regulations. It is apparent that this bill has a goal of protecting the environment and the people of New Hampshire.
One way of strengthening the potential benefits this bill could have for the environment would be to give the revenue obtained by the extra 50 percent tax to environmental services of the state. This could ensure that this bill acts as a preventative measure against pollution and contamination but also a means of bettering the environment in the future if it is unable to prevent the initial contamination. Any money attained through this tax could help confirm that the contamination is fully remediated and that it does not pose any environmental or health risk in the future.
Public interests
New Hampshire has experienced detrimental contamination in the past and is still facing the repercussions in parts of the state. In 2007 the State of New Hampshire banned the use of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has been linked to cancer in humans and animals. Even after the ban there have been tests that show MTBE is still present in the water in areas of Swanzey, NH. It is known that this chemical is a dangerous health threat after prolonged exposure. Citizens of the state are still being affected by this pollutant, which is still present in many public and private wells. Prolonged exposure has been linked with several forms of cancer and other health risks in animal studies. Recently, another material also said to have carcinogenic effects has been found in the water in areas of southeastern NH. The material, known as PFOA is used in making Teflon, firefighting, and many other purposes, when it is released as waste, can stay in the environment for a long period of time. In 2014 the material was found in a well at the Pease Tradeport, forcing the city of Portsmouth to close the drinking water well. Blood tests were issued to many citizens of the town to test for exposure to the chemical. Additionally, just three years ago, the chemical was found in private wells near the Saint Gobain plastics company. The chemical PFOA has been linked to several cancers including, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and thyroid cancer. A pediatric cancer cluster near the seacoast and other cases of cancer throughout the state may be linked to exposure to these chemical pollutants. One major goal of this bill is to is to help keep the citizens of New Hampshire safe from future contamination such as PFOA and MTBE. The health and protection of the public should be the aim of this bill. One suggestion to secure this goal is to use any revenue of this bill to help those affected by the contamination. Those who are directly affected by chemical contamination should be given the means to ensure their own safety and the safety of their families.
It may be wise to use money acquired through the 50 percent tax that this bill places on remediation to directly benefit the environment and/or the people affected by the contamination.
Who benefits?
Who will this bill affect and in what manner? “Any individual, group, or institution who has a vested interest in the natural resources of the project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project activities and have something to gain or lose if conditions change or stay the same, is defined as a Stakeholder” (WWF). It is important to ensure that all stakeholders meet together, or be equally represented in the review of any bill. The interest of environment has already been discussed. Some of the major stakeholders include the EPA, water division and land division, along with homeowners and farmers. This bill aims to discourage companies that produce hazardous pollutants from moving to NH because of lax regulations. A downside to this bill is that it only addresses pollution after it has occurred. The bill does not fully stop big companies from polluting New Hampshire, rather it gives them a good reason not to. Which brings us to another stakeholder, Industry. Big industry owners who like to come to New Hampshire for the loose contamination laws and regulations would find that this bill hinders their ability to neglect responsibility of toxic waste and contamination. In addition, this could force them to change their waste disposal methods. And if they do not comply they will be charged 50% for whatever “pollution” they cause. The bill will not be favored by large companies, but in reality, it is not meant to appeal to them. By charging companies for their mistakes, the State can collect large sums of money to put into the general fund to give back to the people. In the end, the bill is meant to benefit the people of New Hampshire. While putting this revenue back into the general fund should seem appealing to NH citizens, it is important to be aware of where the money goes. The general fund could be used to benefit the state government and its representatives, as they too are a stakeholder. The General fund helps provides services such as the Resource Protection and Development among other groups. If the money were to go directly towards an environmental group, or perhaps the people affected by contamination, this bill would be morally sound. The downside is, there is no way of tracking the revenue once it’s in the general fund. One would have to look at the future budget to get a sense of how the money was distributed and given back to the people. Ideally this bill will benefit all of New Hampshire’s society. The government is one of the beneficiaries that should analyze all other key stakeholders, and consider who is in the most dire need of assistance from this bill. Solely for the intent of making sure the money gained from these incidents goes back to New Hampshire’s environment and the citizens. House Bill 1797-FN-A has potential to do a lot of good for the state of New Hampshire and its residents, which is why it should be examined carefully and reviewed from every perspective.
Sources:
“Areas of Investigation in New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/pfcs/pfc-nh-response.htm.
Carosa, Kristen. “PFOA Exposure Lawsuit against Saint-Gobain Moves Forward.” WMUR, WMUR, 15 Nov. 2017, www.wmur.com/article/pfoa-exposure-lawsuit-against-saint-gobain-moves-forward/13761312
“HB 1797-FN-A - AS INTRODUCED.” NH General Court, www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_Status/billText.aspx?sy=2018&id=1083&txtFormat=html.
“MtBE in Drinking Water.” NH Department of Environmental Services, 2016, pp. 1–3. https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/dwgb/documents/dwb-3-19.pdf
“Where the Money Goes.” TransparentNH, Nh Gov, www.nh.gov/transparentnh/where-the-money-goes/index.htm.
“Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire” https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/publications/ard/documents/r-ard-04-1.pdf
“Office of the Commissioner.” https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/ocom/index.htm
How do stakeholders feel about the proposed bill?
by
Jake Anderson, Julia Brida, Clarissa Backus, and Madelyn Thomas
There are a variety of stakeholders when discussing house bill 1797-FN-A. New Hampshire residents, industry currently in NH, potential incoming industry, government agencies, as well as insurance companies are all stakeholders of this bill. Stakeholders play a vital role in determining the development, implementation, and success of these bills.
Jake Anderson spoke with current New Hampshire resident Jared Job, a senior at Keene State College completing a bachelors of science degree who knows the negative effects of pollution all too well. Originally from Connecticut, Jared had experience with contamination through much of his childhood. Right down the street from the house he grew up in was a paper mill that had previously polluted the Thames river that ran behind his house and the factory. The pollution destroyed the fisheries in the river which was one of his childhood past times and still to this day shell fishing in that section of the river is prohibited. Having been negatively impacted by pollution in the past, Jared feels very strong about this bill.
He expressed an opinion that likely mirrors that of many fellow NH citizens. His feeling is that paying for containment, cleanup, and remediation after pollution isn’t punishing the perpetrators, but simply doing what they originally should have been doing. He believes that adding the 50% charge to the costs would create a penalty for the perpetrator.
He also said this bill will further help deter companies from polluting and encourage handling any known pollutant as soon as it is discovered instead of attempting to cover it up. We also interviewed a local fuel supplier who gave their opinion on the bill and voiced their concerns. The fuel supplier, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a small company. They have measures in place to ensure that if one of their tanks did leak it would be contained in a secondary containment which would then give them an alert before any fuel was able to reach the soil. Their main concern with the bill is that the costs of clean up and remediation if a spill did occur would be so great for a company of their size that it would put them in jeopardy of having to close the company. They said if then they were penalized another 50% of the cleanup costs they would definitely lose the company. They believe protecting the environment is important and do what they can to prevent polluting, but if an accident did happen they don’t want it to be the end of their business.
Furthermore, insurance companies of these businesses may be considered stakeholders. Eben Thomas, President of Thomas Agency Insurance, states that most standard insurance companies do cover pollution exposure to a certain extent, but are typically limited. Businesses are then forced to either pay for the cleanup themselves, or, if the companies are at a higher risk for pollution, purchasing additional insurance may be necessary.
He went on to explain that insurance companies would also raise their rate and this would affect the companies that have a high potential to pollute. They have a risk management team that will help insurance companies mitigate exposure and help companies reduce their exposure, thereby lowering their costs. Based on this, we suppose that insurance companies would mostly support the bill. It would push the businesses to take preventative measures, lessening the likelihood of spills. The companies may also have to buy additional insurance to support them in case of an accident.
The Business and Industry Association is New Hampshire’s statewide chamber of commerce and leading business advocate, focusing on creating new business relations and economic growth (BIA). While the BIA does express concerns for friendly environmental policy, they are not in support of HB-1797. According to a representative of the BIA, they oppose the bill because the association believes that “There is substantial oversight and there are already enough penalties on environmental regulation. It is too punitive for businesses.”
On the BIA website, there is a page that discusses their viewpoints on different policies. The page that talks about environmental affairs mentions that they work collaboratively with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to create business-friendly environmental policies and regulations that protect the states natural resources (BIA). They are environmentally conscious to an extent as long as it does not affect business development. According to the website, “The BIA favors opposing legislation that puts the business community at a competitive disadvantage, through more stringent environmental regulations relative to neighboring states” (BIA). This further justifies their belief that HB-1797 would be bad for businesses in New Hampshire.
Another key stakeholder to consider with the bill is the New Hampshire Public Health Association. The NHPHA is a non-for-profit organization that focuses on the general well-being of New Hampshire’s citizens. They inform citizens of changes needed in the New Hampshire laws and government, educate members of the government on matters pertaining to public health, and identify problems within the state that need to be addressed (NHPHA).
The NHPHA is in favor of HB-1797 since it is focused on protecting environmental and public health. Companies in New Hampshire that contribute to poor air, water and land quality are not only hurting the environment, but human health as well. Harmful substances that are released can impact individuals, resulting in poor health, chronic illnesses, and could even lead to death.
On the NHPHA website, there is a page expressing their position on different policies. In regards to the environment, they believe that clean air, water and land are essential to the public’s health. Harmful substances or conditions are considered negative impacts on human health. Based on that position, they support the enforcement and establishment of standards for environmental policies and regulations (NHPHA).
Another stakeholder considered with the bill is New Hampshire’s tourism industry. Most of New Hampshire’s tourist attractions are outdoors. Places like the White Mountains brought in $1,264 (in millions of dollars) in the 2014 fiscal year, and Merrimack Valley brought in $1,456 (Lee, 2015). Considering that the stop to pollution would greatly improve New Hampshire’s environment, we believe these outdoor attractions would be in favor of House Bill 1797. A 50% charge to all amounts assessed to persons liable for costs of containment, cleanup, and remediation of water, air and soil pollution will help protect the environment and wildlife and ultimately keep New Hampshire’s beautiful flora frequently visited.
Another main attraction in New Hampshire is ski resorts. Before the winter, most resorts will clear-cut or even bulldoze vegetation to create their trails. This fast method of clearing ski trails condenses topsoil depth and causes soil erosion leading to soil pollution (Mercer, How Do Ski Resorts Affect The Environment?). If the bill is put in place, resort management must be more cautious when creating their trails.
Also, if there hasn’t been a lot of snowfall, ski resorts will use artificial snow that uses an immense amount of water, which they get from reservoirs or other local bodies of water. The chemicals in the artificial snow form a 40 times higher amount of magnesium and 10 times higher amount of calcium (Snajdr, The Production of Artificial Snow). This mineral and ion concentration in artificial snow can cause fertilizing effects in the bodies of water being used resulting in negative effects on vegetation growth and overall species diversity (Snajdr, The Production of Artificial Snow). With the 50% charge, resorts will also have to be cautious when using artificial snow machines to not contaminate local streams or reservoirs.
Other New Hampshire tourist industries that bring in business are purchases on food and drink and retail stores, which had 2,633 (in millions of dollars) in the 2014 fiscal year. As mentioned Above the HB 1797 would put businesses at a “competitive disadvantage” which leads us to believe that they would not be in favor of HB 1797. Overall, the HB 1797 would benefit the outdoor attractions and ultimately keep the states environment thriving however, would not benefit New Hampshire’s businesses.
The final stakeholder we examined was Tufpak, a company from Ossipee, New Hampshire, that specializes in the making of various industrial plastic bags, including chemical tank liners and autoclave bags. Tufpak’s president, Michael Wadlinger, stated that, “HB-1797 could affect New Hampshire-based businesses like Tufpak in a negative and positive manner.” Wadlinger identified multiple events including “material/mechanical failures, accidents, acts of God e.g. earthquakes, lightning strikes, tornadoes, etc.” that could lead to a company to need remediation. Adding a 50% penalty for these mistakes could cost businesses a great deal of money. Wadlinger then goes on to explain how, on the other hand, HB- 1797 could be beneficial to local businesses, by keeping out “lower cost and higher profit” businesses that set out to dishonestly exploit New Hampshire’s environmental laws. Wadlinger ends with: “Assessing an extra penalty would help keep the business playing field level and competitive for businesses competing locally.”
Businesses and organizations in New Hampshire have varying opinions on HB-1797, but having them understand the benefits is an important aspect that would help preserve our environment, keep New Hampshire’s people healthy and keep business local.
Business and Industry Association | New Hampshire's Statewide Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from http://www.biaofnh.com/
(J. Job, Personal communication, February 4, 2018).
Lee, D. S. (2015, July). TOURISM SATELLITE ACCOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE FISCAL YEAR 2014. In New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from
https://www.visitnh.gov/getmedia/9f3f9800-a923-4985-889f-d280ca1516c9/Industry-FY14-Report.pdf
Mercer, L., & Group, L. (n.d.). How Do Ski Resorts Affect the Environment? Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://traveltips.usatoday.com/ski-resorts-affect-environment-106575.html
New Hampshire Public Health Association - New Hampshire Public Health Association. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from https://nhpha.org/
Snajdr, J. The production of artificial snow - ecological, social and economical aspects. , 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.alpconv.org/en/publications/otherinfo/thesis/Documents/SNAJDR-Artifical%20snow.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Thomas, E. (2018, February 10). Personal interview.
TUFPAK. About Us. (2017). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from http://www.tufpak.com/about/
Jake Anderson spoke with current New Hampshire resident Jared Job, a senior at Keene State College completing a bachelors of science degree who knows the negative effects of pollution all too well. Originally from Connecticut, Jared had experience with contamination through much of his childhood. Right down the street from the house he grew up in was a paper mill that had previously polluted the Thames river that ran behind his house and the factory. The pollution destroyed the fisheries in the river which was one of his childhood past times and still to this day shell fishing in that section of the river is prohibited. Having been negatively impacted by pollution in the past, Jared feels very strong about this bill.
He expressed an opinion that likely mirrors that of many fellow NH citizens. His feeling is that paying for containment, cleanup, and remediation after pollution isn’t punishing the perpetrators, but simply doing what they originally should have been doing. He believes that adding the 50% charge to the costs would create a penalty for the perpetrator.
He also said this bill will further help deter companies from polluting and encourage handling any known pollutant as soon as it is discovered instead of attempting to cover it up. We also interviewed a local fuel supplier who gave their opinion on the bill and voiced their concerns. The fuel supplier, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a small company. They have measures in place to ensure that if one of their tanks did leak it would be contained in a secondary containment which would then give them an alert before any fuel was able to reach the soil. Their main concern with the bill is that the costs of clean up and remediation if a spill did occur would be so great for a company of their size that it would put them in jeopardy of having to close the company. They said if then they were penalized another 50% of the cleanup costs they would definitely lose the company. They believe protecting the environment is important and do what they can to prevent polluting, but if an accident did happen they don’t want it to be the end of their business.
Furthermore, insurance companies of these businesses may be considered stakeholders. Eben Thomas, President of Thomas Agency Insurance, states that most standard insurance companies do cover pollution exposure to a certain extent, but are typically limited. Businesses are then forced to either pay for the cleanup themselves, or, if the companies are at a higher risk for pollution, purchasing additional insurance may be necessary.
He went on to explain that insurance companies would also raise their rate and this would affect the companies that have a high potential to pollute. They have a risk management team that will help insurance companies mitigate exposure and help companies reduce their exposure, thereby lowering their costs. Based on this, we suppose that insurance companies would mostly support the bill. It would push the businesses to take preventative measures, lessening the likelihood of spills. The companies may also have to buy additional insurance to support them in case of an accident.
The Business and Industry Association is New Hampshire’s statewide chamber of commerce and leading business advocate, focusing on creating new business relations and economic growth (BIA). While the BIA does express concerns for friendly environmental policy, they are not in support of HB-1797. According to a representative of the BIA, they oppose the bill because the association believes that “There is substantial oversight and there are already enough penalties on environmental regulation. It is too punitive for businesses.”
On the BIA website, there is a page that discusses their viewpoints on different policies. The page that talks about environmental affairs mentions that they work collaboratively with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services to create business-friendly environmental policies and regulations that protect the states natural resources (BIA). They are environmentally conscious to an extent as long as it does not affect business development. According to the website, “The BIA favors opposing legislation that puts the business community at a competitive disadvantage, through more stringent environmental regulations relative to neighboring states” (BIA). This further justifies their belief that HB-1797 would be bad for businesses in New Hampshire.
Another key stakeholder to consider with the bill is the New Hampshire Public Health Association. The NHPHA is a non-for-profit organization that focuses on the general well-being of New Hampshire’s citizens. They inform citizens of changes needed in the New Hampshire laws and government, educate members of the government on matters pertaining to public health, and identify problems within the state that need to be addressed (NHPHA).
The NHPHA is in favor of HB-1797 since it is focused on protecting environmental and public health. Companies in New Hampshire that contribute to poor air, water and land quality are not only hurting the environment, but human health as well. Harmful substances that are released can impact individuals, resulting in poor health, chronic illnesses, and could even lead to death.
On the NHPHA website, there is a page expressing their position on different policies. In regards to the environment, they believe that clean air, water and land are essential to the public’s health. Harmful substances or conditions are considered negative impacts on human health. Based on that position, they support the enforcement and establishment of standards for environmental policies and regulations (NHPHA).
Another stakeholder considered with the bill is New Hampshire’s tourism industry. Most of New Hampshire’s tourist attractions are outdoors. Places like the White Mountains brought in $1,264 (in millions of dollars) in the 2014 fiscal year, and Merrimack Valley brought in $1,456 (Lee, 2015). Considering that the stop to pollution would greatly improve New Hampshire’s environment, we believe these outdoor attractions would be in favor of House Bill 1797. A 50% charge to all amounts assessed to persons liable for costs of containment, cleanup, and remediation of water, air and soil pollution will help protect the environment and wildlife and ultimately keep New Hampshire’s beautiful flora frequently visited.
Another main attraction in New Hampshire is ski resorts. Before the winter, most resorts will clear-cut or even bulldoze vegetation to create their trails. This fast method of clearing ski trails condenses topsoil depth and causes soil erosion leading to soil pollution (Mercer, How Do Ski Resorts Affect The Environment?). If the bill is put in place, resort management must be more cautious when creating their trails.
Also, if there hasn’t been a lot of snowfall, ski resorts will use artificial snow that uses an immense amount of water, which they get from reservoirs or other local bodies of water. The chemicals in the artificial snow form a 40 times higher amount of magnesium and 10 times higher amount of calcium (Snajdr, The Production of Artificial Snow). This mineral and ion concentration in artificial snow can cause fertilizing effects in the bodies of water being used resulting in negative effects on vegetation growth and overall species diversity (Snajdr, The Production of Artificial Snow). With the 50% charge, resorts will also have to be cautious when using artificial snow machines to not contaminate local streams or reservoirs.
Other New Hampshire tourist industries that bring in business are purchases on food and drink and retail stores, which had 2,633 (in millions of dollars) in the 2014 fiscal year. As mentioned Above the HB 1797 would put businesses at a “competitive disadvantage” which leads us to believe that they would not be in favor of HB 1797. Overall, the HB 1797 would benefit the outdoor attractions and ultimately keep the states environment thriving however, would not benefit New Hampshire’s businesses.
The final stakeholder we examined was Tufpak, a company from Ossipee, New Hampshire, that specializes in the making of various industrial plastic bags, including chemical tank liners and autoclave bags. Tufpak’s president, Michael Wadlinger, stated that, “HB-1797 could affect New Hampshire-based businesses like Tufpak in a negative and positive manner.” Wadlinger identified multiple events including “material/mechanical failures, accidents, acts of God e.g. earthquakes, lightning strikes, tornadoes, etc.” that could lead to a company to need remediation. Adding a 50% penalty for these mistakes could cost businesses a great deal of money. Wadlinger then goes on to explain how, on the other hand, HB- 1797 could be beneficial to local businesses, by keeping out “lower cost and higher profit” businesses that set out to dishonestly exploit New Hampshire’s environmental laws. Wadlinger ends with: “Assessing an extra penalty would help keep the business playing field level and competitive for businesses competing locally.”
Businesses and organizations in New Hampshire have varying opinions on HB-1797, but having them understand the benefits is an important aspect that would help preserve our environment, keep New Hampshire’s people healthy and keep business local.
Business and Industry Association | New Hampshire's Statewide Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from http://www.biaofnh.com/
(J. Job, Personal communication, February 4, 2018).
Lee, D. S. (2015, July). TOURISM SATELLITE ACCOUNT NEW HAMPSHIRE FISCAL YEAR 2014. In New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from
https://www.visitnh.gov/getmedia/9f3f9800-a923-4985-889f-d280ca1516c9/Industry-FY14-Report.pdf
Mercer, L., & Group, L. (n.d.). How Do Ski Resorts Affect the Environment? Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://traveltips.usatoday.com/ski-resorts-affect-environment-106575.html
New Hampshire Public Health Association - New Hampshire Public Health Association. (n.d.). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from https://nhpha.org/
Snajdr, J. The production of artificial snow - ecological, social and economical aspects. , 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.alpconv.org/en/publications/otherinfo/thesis/Documents/SNAJDR-Artifical%20snow.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Thomas, E. (2018, February 10). Personal interview.
TUFPAK. About Us. (2017). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from http://www.tufpak.com/about/
How would the proposed bill change state law?
by
Sam Cantone, Erika Grand, Courtney Quick, and Jacqueline Lundsted
On January 3, 2018 Rep. Jim McConnell and five co-sponsors proposed a new bill, HB 1797, which would add a 50% charge to the costs of an environmental contamination, clean up, and remediation. This act would add to the following current state laws: Air Toxic Control Act, Air Pollution Control, Hazardous Waste Management, Solid Waste Management, Water Pollution and Waste Disposal, Sewage Disposal Systems, and Soil Pollution. This bill could be vital for companies because they might not want to move to New Hampshire if they know they could have a risk of paying a fine for polluting. All laws are enforced by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services, Robert R. Scott, or the commissioners authorized representative. The proposed bill does not change any of the laws as they are currently. Rather it adds to them to create a harsher penalty, in hopes that it will deter companies from polluting.
Title X, Public Health, Chapter 125-I of the Air Toxic Control Act states that an air contaminant means any soot, cinders, ashes, dust, fume, gas, mist (other than water), odor, toxic or radioactive material, particulate matter or any combination of. The purpose of the Air Toxic Control Act is to promote public health of the state by reducing human exposure to toxic chemicals by regulating releases of toxic chemicals into the ambient air. The Department of Environmental Services has a statewide permit system for stationary sources which release regulated toxic air pollutants into the ambient air. An administrative fine of up to $2,000 for each offense may be imposed for any violations.
Title X, Public Health, Chapter 125-C of the Air Pollution Control states that the purpose of the chapter is to achieve and maintain a reasonable degree of purity of the air resources of the state so as to promote the public health, welfare, and safety, prevent injury or detriment to human, plant, and animal life, physical property and other resources, foster the comfort and convenience of the people, promote the economic and social development of this state and to facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the state. The powers and duties of this chapter are granted to the commissioner who may exercise them by developing a comprehensive program and provide services for the study, prevention, and abatement of air pollution; conduct and encourage studies relating to air quality and advise, consult and cooperate with cities and towns and other agencies of the state, federal government, interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or group in matters relating to air quality, to name a few. This chapter, 125-C, is also under the statewide permit system for the construction, installation, operation or modification of air pollution devices and sources. A device could be any burner, furnace, machine, equipment or article which, in the opinion of the commissioner, contributes or may contribute to the pollution of the air.
Under Title X, Public Health, section 147-A:16-a, hazardous waste is defined as “a solid, semi-solid, liquid or contained gaseous waste, or a combination of these wastes” (Title X, Public Health, 1996). They are considered “hazardous” because of their potential to contribute to mortality or irreversible illness in people, or if it can “pose a present or potential threat to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise mismanaged” (Title X, Public Health, 1996). Under section 147-A:16-a of this statue, those who are responsible, or are even aware of irresponsibly handling, treating, sorting, transporting, or disposal of such material can be penalized. These actions cannot take place without a permit. Not having a permit or being aware of the lack of a permit puts you at fault. This can also include bringing hazardous waste to a location that does not have the proper permit. A person in possession of hazardous material can also be found guilty if they discard or hide material, as well as documentation of said material. It is unlawful to transport hazardous material to another country without their permission, or in a manner that violates an agreement between the United States and another country. Doing so could put the receiving person in danger of being hurt or killed by the hazardous material. Under this law a “natural person,” meaning a human, and not the company is convicted of a class A felony, and can be fined up to $250,000 if they are found guilty of a violation. The company itself, if found guilty is convicted of a felony, and can be fined up to $1,000,000.
Title X, Public Health, addresses solid waste management under chapter 149-M. This chapter focuses on disposal of waste into landfills and incinerators, as well as limiting the amount of waste. Solid waste can be disposed of in a landfill or incinerator if it “cannot be reduced, reused, recycled or composted” (Title X, Public Health, 1999). Every town is expected to create a plan for solid waste management, which takes into account environmental and economic impact. Citizens within these towns are expected to comply with the plan in place. Section 15 of this chapter states that any person who violates the proper management of solid waste to be given an order. This order can be appealed to the waste management council if it is not an emergency situation. An emergency situation requires said person to comply and the order is considered effective immediately. It is considered an emergency if it threatens the health of the public. A company found guilty of a violation will be convicted of a felony, but a natural person will be convicted of a misdemeanor. In addition to the felony charges, any person can be fined up to $25,000 per violation, per day.
Section 38 of chapter 149M-solid waste management, addresses toxics reduction. These toxins are identified as lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium, which are found in packaging materials. Packaging material is expected to be recycled to prevent these materials from sitting in a landfill or being burned. A company found guilty of a violation under this law can be convicted of a felony, and a natural person can be convicted of a misdemeanor. In addition a natural person can be fined up to $25,000. Any other persons can be fined up to $25,000 per day (every day the violation goes unresolved is considered a separate violation). An administrative fine may be applied as well, which can cost up to $2,000 per day of an ongoing violation.
Chapter 485-A of water pollution and waste disposal states that any solid or hazardous waste including bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap metal, junk, paper, garbage, tires, old automobiles or parts and trees or parts not be put on any surface of water (ice) or on any banks of water. If a person does this unlawful act the department of environmental services has the opportunity to ask them for the immediate removal of the material. If the person does not listen to the agent of department of environmental services the material could be questioned and cost of the removal will be an action of debt brought on by the attorney general, Joseph Foster. If a natural person recklessly violates this law they will be guilty of a misdemeanor but if it is any other person they will be guilty of a class B felony.
Chapter 12-E states that if any person who violates this chapter, any rule, or ceases order of the commissioner in accordance with this chapter or any limitation in a permit or amendment that was issued with this chapter or who refuses to obey an order in accordance with the chapter, will be subject to a civil penalty that will not exceed $20,000 for everyday the violation continues. The commissioner potentially will write a cease to stop all illegal action in violation of this chapter. If this happens the superior court may urge the application upon a request to the attorney general. The written cease will be recorded in a registry of deeds in the county where the site takes place. After this is recorded the people shall run with the land, meaning the contract is tied to the land but not the property owner. They will have to provide a description of the land and including the names of the owner. There will be no fee charged for recording this information, but there will be a fee for discharge of the order that will be the same as a real estate property mortgage.
Chapter 485-A of Sewage disposal states anyone who violates this subdivision or knowingly refuse to obey an authorized agent of the department and knowingly make a misstatement of material fact will be guilty of a misdemeanor if it is a natural person but if it is any other person they will be guilty of a felony. If any person is liable for any other penalty it will be no more than $10,000 per day of the violation. If any person id neglecting or refusing to comply with the provisions will be subject to pay a fine of $1,000 for each day it is neglected. The commissioner of environmental services may force a fine that would not exceed $2,000 for each offense upon a person who violates any provision. The proceeds of administrative fines will be deposited into the state department fund.
House Bill 1797 does not propose to remove any of the provisions within theses laws that currently stand. The bill only suggests the addition of another penalty to ensure that New Hampshire continues to be a clean and safe place to live. The addition of a penalty of 50 percent of the cost of remediation of a contamination will hopefully prevent companies within New Hampshire from polluting.
References
Environmental Laws. Department of Justice. (2011). Retrieved from
https://www.doj.nh.gov/environmental-protection/laws.htm
Title I- The State and its Government. (September 18, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/12-E/12-E-12.htm
Title L- Water Management and Protection. (January 1, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/L/485-A/485-A-15.htm
Title X- Public Health. (July 1, 1996) Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/147-A/147-A-16-a.htm
Title X, Public Health. (July 20, 1999). Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/149-M/149-M-2.htm
Title X, Public Health, Chapter 125-I of the Air Toxic Control Act states that an air contaminant means any soot, cinders, ashes, dust, fume, gas, mist (other than water), odor, toxic or radioactive material, particulate matter or any combination of. The purpose of the Air Toxic Control Act is to promote public health of the state by reducing human exposure to toxic chemicals by regulating releases of toxic chemicals into the ambient air. The Department of Environmental Services has a statewide permit system for stationary sources which release regulated toxic air pollutants into the ambient air. An administrative fine of up to $2,000 for each offense may be imposed for any violations.
Title X, Public Health, Chapter 125-C of the Air Pollution Control states that the purpose of the chapter is to achieve and maintain a reasonable degree of purity of the air resources of the state so as to promote the public health, welfare, and safety, prevent injury or detriment to human, plant, and animal life, physical property and other resources, foster the comfort and convenience of the people, promote the economic and social development of this state and to facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the state. The powers and duties of this chapter are granted to the commissioner who may exercise them by developing a comprehensive program and provide services for the study, prevention, and abatement of air pollution; conduct and encourage studies relating to air quality and advise, consult and cooperate with cities and towns and other agencies of the state, federal government, interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or group in matters relating to air quality, to name a few. This chapter, 125-C, is also under the statewide permit system for the construction, installation, operation or modification of air pollution devices and sources. A device could be any burner, furnace, machine, equipment or article which, in the opinion of the commissioner, contributes or may contribute to the pollution of the air.
Under Title X, Public Health, section 147-A:16-a, hazardous waste is defined as “a solid, semi-solid, liquid or contained gaseous waste, or a combination of these wastes” (Title X, Public Health, 1996). They are considered “hazardous” because of their potential to contribute to mortality or irreversible illness in people, or if it can “pose a present or potential threat to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise mismanaged” (Title X, Public Health, 1996). Under section 147-A:16-a of this statue, those who are responsible, or are even aware of irresponsibly handling, treating, sorting, transporting, or disposal of such material can be penalized. These actions cannot take place without a permit. Not having a permit or being aware of the lack of a permit puts you at fault. This can also include bringing hazardous waste to a location that does not have the proper permit. A person in possession of hazardous material can also be found guilty if they discard or hide material, as well as documentation of said material. It is unlawful to transport hazardous material to another country without their permission, or in a manner that violates an agreement between the United States and another country. Doing so could put the receiving person in danger of being hurt or killed by the hazardous material. Under this law a “natural person,” meaning a human, and not the company is convicted of a class A felony, and can be fined up to $250,000 if they are found guilty of a violation. The company itself, if found guilty is convicted of a felony, and can be fined up to $1,000,000.
Title X, Public Health, addresses solid waste management under chapter 149-M. This chapter focuses on disposal of waste into landfills and incinerators, as well as limiting the amount of waste. Solid waste can be disposed of in a landfill or incinerator if it “cannot be reduced, reused, recycled or composted” (Title X, Public Health, 1999). Every town is expected to create a plan for solid waste management, which takes into account environmental and economic impact. Citizens within these towns are expected to comply with the plan in place. Section 15 of this chapter states that any person who violates the proper management of solid waste to be given an order. This order can be appealed to the waste management council if it is not an emergency situation. An emergency situation requires said person to comply and the order is considered effective immediately. It is considered an emergency if it threatens the health of the public. A company found guilty of a violation will be convicted of a felony, but a natural person will be convicted of a misdemeanor. In addition to the felony charges, any person can be fined up to $25,000 per violation, per day.
Section 38 of chapter 149M-solid waste management, addresses toxics reduction. These toxins are identified as lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium, which are found in packaging materials. Packaging material is expected to be recycled to prevent these materials from sitting in a landfill or being burned. A company found guilty of a violation under this law can be convicted of a felony, and a natural person can be convicted of a misdemeanor. In addition a natural person can be fined up to $25,000. Any other persons can be fined up to $25,000 per day (every day the violation goes unresolved is considered a separate violation). An administrative fine may be applied as well, which can cost up to $2,000 per day of an ongoing violation.
Chapter 485-A of water pollution and waste disposal states that any solid or hazardous waste including bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap metal, junk, paper, garbage, tires, old automobiles or parts and trees or parts not be put on any surface of water (ice) or on any banks of water. If a person does this unlawful act the department of environmental services has the opportunity to ask them for the immediate removal of the material. If the person does not listen to the agent of department of environmental services the material could be questioned and cost of the removal will be an action of debt brought on by the attorney general, Joseph Foster. If a natural person recklessly violates this law they will be guilty of a misdemeanor but if it is any other person they will be guilty of a class B felony.
Chapter 12-E states that if any person who violates this chapter, any rule, or ceases order of the commissioner in accordance with this chapter or any limitation in a permit or amendment that was issued with this chapter or who refuses to obey an order in accordance with the chapter, will be subject to a civil penalty that will not exceed $20,000 for everyday the violation continues. The commissioner potentially will write a cease to stop all illegal action in violation of this chapter. If this happens the superior court may urge the application upon a request to the attorney general. The written cease will be recorded in a registry of deeds in the county where the site takes place. After this is recorded the people shall run with the land, meaning the contract is tied to the land but not the property owner. They will have to provide a description of the land and including the names of the owner. There will be no fee charged for recording this information, but there will be a fee for discharge of the order that will be the same as a real estate property mortgage.
Chapter 485-A of Sewage disposal states anyone who violates this subdivision or knowingly refuse to obey an authorized agent of the department and knowingly make a misstatement of material fact will be guilty of a misdemeanor if it is a natural person but if it is any other person they will be guilty of a felony. If any person is liable for any other penalty it will be no more than $10,000 per day of the violation. If any person id neglecting or refusing to comply with the provisions will be subject to pay a fine of $1,000 for each day it is neglected. The commissioner of environmental services may force a fine that would not exceed $2,000 for each offense upon a person who violates any provision. The proceeds of administrative fines will be deposited into the state department fund.
House Bill 1797 does not propose to remove any of the provisions within theses laws that currently stand. The bill only suggests the addition of another penalty to ensure that New Hampshire continues to be a clean and safe place to live. The addition of a penalty of 50 percent of the cost of remediation of a contamination will hopefully prevent companies within New Hampshire from polluting.
References
Environmental Laws. Department of Justice. (2011). Retrieved from
https://www.doj.nh.gov/environmental-protection/laws.htm
Title I- The State and its Government. (September 18, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/12-E/12-E-12.htm
Title L- Water Management and Protection. (January 1, 2010). Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/L/485-A/485-A-15.htm
Title X- Public Health. (July 1, 1996) Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/147-A/147-A-16-a.htm
Title X, Public Health. (July 20, 1999). Retrieved from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/149-M/149-M-2.htm