WHO Report On Exposure to Chemicals & Health Risks in Children

Jul 27: The World Health Organization (WHO) released the first-ever report highlighting children's special susceptibility to harmful chemical exposures at different periods of their growth. The new volume of the Environmental Health Criteria series, Principles for Evaluating Health Risks in Children Associated with Exposure to Chemicals, is the most comprehensive work yet undertaken on the scientific principles to be considered in assessing health risks in children. It highlights the fact that in children, the stage in their development when exposure occurs may be just as important as the magnitude of the exposure.

According to a release, the scientific principles proposed in the document for evaluating environmental health risks in children will help the health sector, researchers and policy makers to protect children of all ages through improved risk assessments, appropriate interventions and focused research to become healthy adults. Dr Terri Damstra, WHO’s team leader for the Interregional Research Unit said, "Children are not just small adults. Children are especially vulnerable and respond differently from adults when exposed to environmental factors, and this response may differ according to the different periods of development they are going through. For example, their lungs are not fully developed at birth, or even at the age of eight, and lung maturation may be altered by air pollutants that induce acute respiratory effects in childhood and may be the origin of chronic respiratory disease later in life."

Air and water contaminants, pesticides in food, lead in soil, as well many other environmental threats which alter the delicate organism of a growing child may cause or worsen disease and induce developmental problems. Over 30% of the global burden of disease in children can be attributed to environmental factors. Children have different susceptibilities during different life stages, due to their dynamic growth and developmental processes. Some examples of health effects resulting from developmental exposures prenatally and at birth include miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight and birth defects; in young children, infant mortality, asthma, neurobehavioural and immune impairment; and in adolescents, precocious or delayed puberty. Emerging evidence suggests that an increased risk of certain diseases in adults such as cancer and heart disease can result in part from exposures to certain environmental chemicals during childhood.

This central focus of this new study is on the child including developing embryo, fetus, infant and adolescent, and on the need to have a good understanding of the interactions between exposure, biological susceptibility, and socioeconomic and nutritional factors at each stage of a child’s development. The work was undertaken by an Advisory group of 24 scientific experts, representing 18 countries.

Access a release and links to related information (click here). Access the complete 351-page report (click here). [*Toxics]

Bisphenol A Panel Makes Conclusions; Sides Divided

Aug 9: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) expert panel that met on August 6-8, 2007, in Alexandria, Virginia to evaluate an extensive Bisphenol A report, has posted a summary of its meeting [See WIMS 8/8/07]. This was the second public meeting of the expert panel, a group of 12 independent scientists convened to review and assess scientific studies on the potential reproductive and developmental hazards of Bisphenol A. The review has been highly controversial as previous reported. The panel divided its conclusions into three categories: For pregnant women and fetuses; For infants and children; and For adults.

According to the conclusions for pregnant women and fetuses the Expert Panel expressed: some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero causes neural and behavioral effects; expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero causes effects on the prostate; minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero potentially causes accelerations in puberty; and negligible concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero produces birth defects and malformations.

For infants and children the Expert Panel expressed: some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral effects; and minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes accelerations in puberty.

For adults the Expert Panel expressed: negligible concern for adverse reproductive effects following exposures in the general population to Bisphenol A. For highly exposed subgroups, such as occupationally exposed populations, the level of concern is elevated to minimal.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Scientist Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, issued a statement in response to the panel saying they "largely ignore wide ranging scientific research connecting human health risks with exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA). The panel instead endorsed an error riddled, industry influenced 'report' minimizing the risks that BPA poses to humans."

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release saying the panel report "dramatically understates the human health risks from real-world exposure to the toxic chemical Bisphenol A (BPA)" and, NRDC’s senior scientist in Health and Environment Programs, Dr. Jennifer Sass, said, “If I were a committee member, I wouldn’t sign off on this broken report.”

To the contrary, Steven Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group said, “The safety of our products is our top priority. The conclusions reported today provide strong reassurance to consumers that they are not at risk from use of products made from bisphenol A. Most importantly, these conclusions are from a very credible, highly qualified group of independent scientists with no conflicts of interest, operating in an open and transparent review process.”

NRDC also points out that a consensus statement, published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, from 38 internationally recognized scientific experts saying, “The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.” ACC was highly critical of the journal report, saying, "conflicts of interest and the potential for bias are apparent in the list of authors, which includes several with well established positions who have actively advocated against bisphenol A."

The next steps will be for the National Toxicology Program to compile all information, including the consensus data of the 38 experts and its own in-house experts to draft its final report.

Access extensive information on the August 6-8 expert panel meeting including the meeting summary (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). [*Toxics]

Controversy Over Bisphenol A Continues

Aug 8: The National Toxicology Program (NTP), Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), second Bisphenol A (BPA) Expert Panel Meeting being held on August 6–8, 2007, in Alexandria, VA continues to generate controversy. The highly complex, 417-page, interim draft expert panel report containing sections 1–4 is currently being reviewed [See WIMS 6/27/07].

Bisphenol A (CAS RN: 80–5–07) is a high production volume chemical used in the production of epoxy resins, polyester resins, polysulfone resins, polyacrylate resins, polycarbonate plastics, and flame retardants. Polycarbonate plastics are used in food and drink packaging; resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some polymers used in dental sealants and tooth coatings contain bisphenol A. Exposure to the general population can occur through direct contact to bisphenol A or by exposure to food or drink that has been in contact with a material containing bisphenol A.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a release on August 6, indicating "...the CERHR assessment -- prepared in part by a contractor since fired over concerns about conflicts of interest -- fails to meet the most basic scientific standards, even as independent scientists have declared BPA a clear risk to human health." EWG said the draft report "contains hundreds of potential errors of fact and interpretation, inconsistencies, and biases. The independent scientists who reviewed the latest CERHR draft documented pervasive and fundamental errors throughout, identifying almost 300 potential errors and 195 instances of incomplete reviews, as well as at least 48 basic inconsistencies."

Meanwhile, the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it supports the sound scientific evaluation process of the CERHR and said they were "dismayed by the report on bisphenol A published on-line this week in the journal Reproductive Toxicology." According to a consensus statement from a panel of researchers contributing to the journal report, the low doses of BPA during pregnancy can have profound effects on fetal prostate, breast, testicle, mammary glands and brain development in animals.

Steven Hentges, Ph.D., of the ACC Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group said, “When the safety of common consumer products is in question, public health interests are best served by a rigorous, open and transparent scientific evaluation in which conflicts of interest and bias are tightly controlled and reported. The evaluation process used by CERHR was designed to meet these criteria and has been successfully applied for many years."

ACC said, unlike CERHR, the competing evaluation was conducted in a closed process with no opportunity for public input or participation. They said, "Although conclusions are represented as a scientific consensus, conflicts of interest and the potential for bias are apparent in the list of authors, which includes several with well established positions who have actively advocated against bisphenol A."

In March, EWG) released a report saying that the industrial chemical used to line cans of foods is linked to birth defects and was found in more than half of the samples of canned fruit, vegetables, soda, and baby formula from supermarket shelves. EWG said a comprehensive independent laboratory analysis conducted for EWG found bisphenol A, in 55 of 97 cans of food purchased from major supermarket chains in California, Connecticut and Georgia [See WIMS 3/6/07].

Access extensive information on the August 6-8 expert panel meeting (click here). Access a release from EWG with links to further information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to further information (click here). Access information on the journal article (click here). Access the NTP BPA website for links to meeting announcements and the complete draft report (click here). Access various recent media report on BPA (click here). [*Toxics]

Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg

Aug 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 04-15442. The case provides another interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. U.S (See links below). Defendant/Appellant City of Healdsburg (Healdsburg) appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Northern California River Watch (River Watch), an environmental group, in this litigation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Plaintiff alleges that Healdsburg, without first obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, violated the CWA by discharging sewage from its waste treatment plant into waters covered by the Act. Healdsburg discharged the sewage into a body of water known as “Basalt Pond,” a rock quarry pit that had filled with water from the surrounding aquifer, located next to the Russian River.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the issue is whether Basalt Pond is subject to the CWA because the Pond, containing wetlands, borders additional wetlands that are adjacent to a navigable river of the United States. The district court held that discharges into the Pond are discharges into the Russian River, a navigable water of the United States protected by the CWA. The court followed the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985). The Supreme Court, however, has now narrowed the scope of that decision. See Rapanos v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006). In a 4-4-1 decision, the Appeals Court said, "the controlling opinion is that of Justice Kennedy who said that to qualify as a regulable water under the CWA the body of water itself need not be continuously flowing, but that there must be a 'significant nexus' to a waterway that is in fact navigable.

"In light of Rapanos, we conclude that Basalt Pond possesses such a 'significant nexus' to waters that are navigable in fact, not only because the Pond waters seep into the navigable Russian River, but also because they significantly affect the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the River. We affirm the district court’s holding that Basalt Pond is subject to the CWA. We also affirm the district court’s ruling that neither the waste treatment system nor the excavation operation exceptions in the Act apply to Healdsburg’s discharges."

Access the complete opinion (click here). [Access various posts on WIMS-eNewsUSA Blog and the WIMS-EcoBizPort Special Report on the Rapanos Supreme Court Decision & Related Activities]. [*Water]

House Passes Comprehensive Energy Bill 241-172

Aug 4: In a lengthy Saturday session, preceding the Congressional summer recess, a highly partisan debate ultimately led to the passage of the comprehensive 888-page House energy bill -- New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 3221). The bill passed by a vote of 241 to 172, that included 26 Republicans voting for the measure and 9 Democrats voting against. Twenty members did not vote on the measure including 13 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The Senate passed its version of a comprehensive energy bill on June 21 [See WIMS 6/22/07]. Of note, the House-passed bill does not address the controversial issue of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) gas mileage standards which were included in the Senate bill; and, the Senate bill does not address the hotly debated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS, aka RES, Renewable Energy Standard), while the House-passed bill does. The House Democratic leadership has indicated it will address the CAFE standards and other global warming related issues in the fall.

At a press briefing following passage of the bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "Today, the House propelled America’s energy policy into the future with the passage of the ‘New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.’ Energy independence is a national security issue, an economic issue, an environmental and health issue, and a moral issue... A new coalition is forming in the Congress. The legislation proves that energy production, job creation, and environmental protection can be achieved all at once, which is why a new coalition of labor and environmental groups have come together to endorse our bill. It is a remarkable development that shows what cooperation and consultation can achieve... this was a flagship issue for my Speakership, that we get this energy bill passed, because it represented real change and a New Direction. It represented a break from the past. It represented a decision on the part of the Congress of United States, the House of Representatives, to make a decision for the future and not the status quo..." The speaker also released a Title-by-Tile summary of the bill and the full text [See links below].

One of the most significant amendments considered was that of the RPS standard. Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) offered the amendment which would require electric suppliers, "other than governmental entities and rural electric cooperatives," to provide 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy resources by the year 2020. The amendment would allows 4 percent of the requirement to be satisfied with electricity efficiency measures. The amendment passed by a vote of 220 to 190. Udall called the RPS an incremental federal standard for electric utilities to provide 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar, other renewable energy sources and efficiency by 2020. The bill would require the RPS to be 2.75 percent by 2010, gradually increasing thereafter to meet the 2020 goal.

Udall said, "I am very proud to say that as a result of the extraordinary work of our amendment’s cosponsors and supporters, the House has passed a base Renewable Electricity Standard which will spur our nation one step closer to a clean energy future. Almost half of the states in our nation have already proven this standard is both achievable and realistic." Cosponsor Representative Todd Platts (R-PA) said, "This amendment is an important step -- similar to what is already taking place in many states, including my home state of Pennsylvania -- to help ensure America reduces its dependency on foreign oil and meets its growing energy needs in an environmentally-friendly manner. The question is whether we continue to approach the energy issue as we have for the past 30 years, or if we are going to work towards a more diversified, reliable, and clean energy supply. I look forward to seeing this or a similar provision in any final conference agreement with the Senate." The legislation was actively supported by a number of organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, and renewable energy industry groups.

A release from the House Science and Technology Committee highlighted several provisions of the bill that originated from that Committee including advancing the development of solar power, geothermal power, carbon capture and sequestration, alternative fuels, and other energy technologies. Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) said, “With concerns about global climate change, high gas and electricity prices, and our growing reliance on unstable energy-supplying nations, energy has been placed at the top of the congressional to-do list. Our future lies in our ability to develop a wide-range of energy technologies, make the use of coal -- which is our country's most affordable and abundant domestic energy resource -- cleaner through carbon capture and sequestration, and improve energy efficiency.”

In a separate, but closely related action, the House also passed a package of tax incentives to encourage the use and production of renewable energy and energy conservation and repeal, what Democrats called "excessive tax breaks for oil and gas companies." H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 includes an estimated $16 billion in tax credits and bonds to promote investment in renewable energy production from wind, solar, geothermal, cellulosic ethanol and biofuels and other critical energy conservation initiatives. The measure would be financed by eliminating some $16 billion in oil and gas subsidies. The measure passed by a vote of 221-189.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) said, “This bill makes an investment in America’s energy independence through long-term incentives for the production and use of renewable energy and energy conservation. This bill sets an example by closing loopholes and repealing generous tax breaks to oil and gas companies enjoying record profits, to help American companies and communities lead the way in developing technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat the harmful effects of global warming. H.R. 2776 will also help cities and states provide bonds and grants to make sure that working families and businesses can do their share to purchase energy efficient heat pumps, appliances and make home improvements to conserve energy.” According to Speaker Pelosi, H.R. 2776 will be "combined with the larger package through the rule."

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel Bodman issued a statement on the passage of H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221 saying, "Today the House passed legislation that does little to increase our nation's energy security or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the bills will actually lead to less domestic oil and gas production and increased dependence on imported oil. Because H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221 fail to deliver American consumers or businesses more energy security, but rather would lead to higher energy costs and higher taxes, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto these bills. As the full Congress considers this legislation, I urge them to implement President Bush's Twenty in Ten Initiative that will reduce gasoline usage 20 percent in ten years and put America on a path towards a stronger, cleaner energy future." DOE also released a 2-page "Statement of Administration Policy" further detailing its objections to the bills.

[Note: Space limitations prevent a lengthy summary of individual groups' reaction. WIMS has included links to industry and environmental organization statements on H.R. 3221 below.]

Access legislative details for H.R. 3221 (click here). Access the rollcall vote on final passage of the bill (click here). Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a summary of H.R. 3221 and H.R. 2776 (click here). Access the full text of H.R. 3221 (click here). Access a release from Representative Udall (NM, click here). Access a release from Representative Platts (click here). Access a release from Representative Gordon (click here). Access the briefing overview and link to the audio of the briefing (click here). Access links to various media reports on the bill passage (click here). Access a release from Representative Rangel (click here). Access a summary and additional information on H.R. 2776 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2776 (click here). Access the DOE statement and link to the Administration Policy (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from Natural Resources Defense Council (click here). Access information and link to a statement from the National Environmental Trust (click here). Access a letter from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access a brief statement from the American Petroleum Institute (click here). Access a release and links to extensive information opposing the RPS from the Edison Electric Institute (click here).[*Energy, *Climate]

Need More Daily Environmental Information?
Try WIMS Daily or eNewsUSA Free For 30-days (click here)
OR
Daily Environmental Federal Register Report (click here)

Senate Hearing On Renewable Fuels Infrastructure

Jul 31: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy, Chaired by Byron Dorgan (D-ND), held a hearing to receive testimony on Renewable Fuels Infrastructure. Witnesses testifying at the hearing include Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; and representatives of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition; National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; VeraSun Corporation; Chrysler Technology Center; and the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition.

In a release Senator Dorgan said, “There are 16,000 flexible-fuel vehicles on the road and only 23 E-85 pumps in North Dakota. The Senate has passed legislation to increase the production of renewable fuels by seven fold in the next 15 years. But if we don’t have the infrastructure in place like flexible-fuel vehicles and renewable fuels pumps to absorb all this new ethanol, we could be left with lots of undistributed fuel and have a collapse in the market. Big oil companies are contributing to the problem by placing barriers in their franchise agreements that discourage retail gas stations from offering E-85 fuel, while at the same time seeing record profits. Policy changes must be made to expedite the infrastructure development, which will have a profound impact on the ethanol market in North Dakota and the rest of the country.”

Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, which ranks first in the nation in E-85 infrastructure with 320 pumps out of 1250 in the nation -- far more than any other state -- said the Federal government can learn from Minnesota’s example. First, she said, "wherever possible, we should encourage ethanol producers to sell directly to gas stations. Outside of Minnesota, ethanol is generally sold under long-term contract to blending terminals, which are part of the oil company-owned pipeline system. The terminals then re-sell the ethanol to gas stations. In essence, the price that consumers pay for ethanol is usually set by ethanol’s biggest competitor, the oil companies." When ethanol producers sell ethanol directly to gas stations without a middleman she said, "drivers get the benefit of a low-cost fuel; the ethanol producers collect the 51 cent-per-gallon federal blender’s credit instead of the oil companies; and America’s energy dollars come right back to our rural communities."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access a release from Senator Dorgan (click here). [*Energy]

Groups Say EPA Nano Plan "Too Little, Too Late"

Aug 2: According to a release from Environmental Defense, U.S. EPA must act much more aggressively to protect the public and the environment from the potential risks of engineered nanoscale materials. The urgent call came at a public meeting on EPA’s proposal for a voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) in the only testimony given by a member of the Federal advisory committee that counseled EPA to launch such a program two years ago. Richard Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist for Environmental Defense said, “Two years in the making, EPA’s tepid proposals have actually set back the clock. As a government response to addressing the possible downsides of the nanotechnology revolution, it’s simply ‘too little, too late.’”

On October 18, 2006, EPA invited stakeholders to participate in the design, development, and implementation of the NMSP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [See WIMS 10/19/07]. Denison said that key features of the Federal advisory committee’s original proposal had been stripped out of EPA's proposal.

On July 12, EPA released two draft documents for public review and comment. The documents are entitled, (1) TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances--General Approach (7-page); and (2) Concept Paper for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA (21-pages). The first document describes EPA's current thinking regarding whether a nanoscale material is a "new" or "existing" chemical substance under TSCA. The second document describes the Agency's general approach, issues, and considerations for NMSP and is intended to serve as a starting point for continuing work with stakeholders on the detailed design of NMSP. Comments on the documents are being accepted until September 10, 2007, and a public meeting about the proposed approaches was held on August 2, 2007, in Arlington, VA.

Environmental Defense indicated, the tiny high-tech materials -- measuring in billionths of a meter -- are already showing up in hundreds of consumer products, ranging from paints to cosmetics to stain-resistant treatments for clothing. Initial studies show that some of them may be able to enter the body and even individual cells and, once there, can cause damage. Denison said, “We supported the original proposal for a voluntary program two years ago because it was one element of a comprehensive plan that also included regulatory steps intended to provide a ‘backstop,’ and it was to be launched and completed quickly. By contrast, EPA now is calling for an open-ended program with no plan B should its voluntary plan A fall short.”

Environmental Defense indicated that the United Kingdom has operated a program, similar to what EPA is suggesting, for over nine months and has attracted only seven companies to volunteer. They said the design and timing of the EPA program is likely to yield similarly disappointing participation, resulting in a very selective and skewed picture of the state of nanotechnology.

Environmental Defense instead urged EPA to rapidly develop and implement mandatory reporting rules to level the playing field for the nanotechnology industry and ensure that relevant information is communicated -- a step EPA said it had initiated more than two years ago, but for which it has provided no public indication of actual progress. Environmental Defense also opposed EPA’s decision to treat nanoscale materials as if they are no different from their conventional counterparts.

On June 21, Environmental Defense and DuPont released their final comprehensive framework to assist with the responsible development and use of nanotechnology and to help inform global dialogue on its potential risks [See WIMS 6/21/07]. A preliminary framework was released on February 26, 2007 [See WIMS 2/27/07] to solicit comments from interested parties. Environmental Defense has been working since 2003 to ensure that the potential risks of nanoscale materials are identified and mitigated. The organization has advocated for more Federal funding for health and environmental risk research and says it is the only U.S. environmental NGO active at the international level in efforts to address nanoscale material risks.

Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Policy and Senior Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), J. Clarence (Terry) Davies also testified on EPA's NMSP. Davies said, "...the long delay in starting the volunteer program indicate that EPA is not serious about nanotechnology oversight. I hope this is not true. It is certainly not the signal the agency should be giving."

In a related matter, on July 31, 2007, a broad international coalition of consumer, public health, environmental, labor, and civil society organizations spanning six continents called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new nanotechnology and its products. The coalition release what it is calling the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials. The coalition's declaration outlines eight fundamental principles necessary for adequate and effective oversight and assessment of the emerging field of nanotechnology.

Access a release from Environmental Defense and links to their complete statement and additional information on nanotechnology (click here). Access the testimony from PEN (click here). Access the PEN website for extensive information (click here). Access a release from Friends of the Earth on the Principles and link to the complete document (click here).Access the FR announcement of the EPA documents, meeting and comment period (click here). Access links to the two draft reports and related information (click here). Access complete information on the conference (click here). Access the National Nanotechnology Initiative website for additional information (click here). Access WIMS-EcoBizPort Nanotechnology links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]

Senate EPW Committee Passes "Landmark" Bills

Jul 31: The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved what Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called "landmark" bills banning the importation and use of asbestos (S. 742, Murray, Isakson, Boxer et al. manager’s substitute amendment); reversing the Bush Administration’s rollback of rules requiring polluters to fully report releases of toxic chemicals (S. 595, Lautenberg et al); and requiring U.S. EPA to issue a decision on California’s request for a waiver to regulate global warming pollution from cars (S. 1785, Nelson, Boxer et al. manager’s substitute amendment, with technical correction). The Committee also approved the National Infrastructure Improvement Act, S. 775 (Carper, Voinovich et al. manager’s substitute amendment).

Senator Boxer said: “Today is a truly historic day for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the legislation we moved today will save lives, protect families and communities, and advance the fight against global warming. Today, we turned the page on a painful chapter in our nation’s history by reporting a bill that will finally ban asbestos and assist people who suffer from the deadly diseases it causes.

“We reversed a Bush Administration order that increased the level at which crucial information on toxic releases must be reported to nearby communities. For years, the reporting threshold was 500 pounds, but the Bush Administration increased the threshold to 2000 pounds. Our bill returns the reporting threshold to 500 pounds. Passage of the Nelson-Boxer waiver bill (S. 1785) sends a signal that EPA should stop stalling and act now on California’s request so California and 12 other states can begin setting and enforcing standards on carbon emissions from the transportation sector.”

In a release, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), sponsor of S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007, indicated the 19-0 vote included strong support from Chairman Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA). Next, the bill will head to the Senate floor. A date for floor consideration has not been set yet. Murray said, "I'm thrilled that the entire committee has sent a clear and loud message of support, giving us strong momentum heading to the Senate floor. To the families who have been waiting for help, to the workers who need to be protected, I'd say we're almost there. We've made great progress in the past few months, but I'm not going to stop until we cross the finish line. I'm especially heartened that my bill has garnered unanimous bipartisan support in the EPW committee. I really want to thank Chairman Boxer for her commitment to moving this bill forward and Senator Isakson for his willingness to work in a bipartisan manner." Murray's bill would ban asbestos, invest in research and treatment, and launch a public education campaign.

Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ), sponsor of S. 595 said, “My law creating the EPA’s Public Right-to-Know program has provided Americans with information about toxic chemicals stored and released in their communities. Last December, President Bush’s EPA weakened the rules to let companies report less information and keep the public in the dark. This decision by the Bush Administration was a gift to the chemical industry. People have a right to know about the toxic chemicals bordering their backyards and our bill today would restore that right.”

Senator Nelson's (D-FL) bill, S. 1785, to expedite the EPA approval of the California waiver petition, passed the Committee by a close 10-9 vote and sets the stage for what Nelson called a contentious showdown between the administration and other opponents of tougher auto emission standards versus a bipartisan coalition of governors, environmentalists and members of Congress who are all seeking cleaner air measures. Nelson filed the legislation to pave the way for Florida, and every other state, to set its own emission standards as long as they’re tougher than the limits in the federal Clean Air Act. More specifically, the bill would force federal environmental officials to act within one month on a long-delayed decision on California’s first-in-the-nation emission standards - which Florida Governor Charlie Crist adopted at a recent two-day global warming summit in Miami.

Senator Carper's (D-DE) National Infrastructure Improvement Act, S. 775 is designed to address the deteriorating condition of America’s roads, bridges, drinking water systems, dams and other public works. Carper said the legislation to establish a National Commission on Infrastructure, was included in a larger bill approved by the full EPW Committee to enhance economic growth by ensuring the nation’s infrastructure can meet current and future demands. The bill also has the support of Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Carper said, “No nation can be prosperous without maintaining its fundamental infrastructure building blocks. Economic development and public safety hinge on upgrading our nation’s infrastructure, including enhanced transportation, water quality and flood controls. As our federal budget constraints tighten, we must protect our communities’ current infrastructures and set priorities for future infrastructure investments.”

Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Murray (click here). Access a release from Senator Lautenberg (click here). Access a release from Senator Nelson (click here). Access a release from Senator Carper (click here). Access legislative details for S. 742 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 595 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1785 (click here). Access legislative details for S. 775 (click here). [*Toxics, *Climate, *Water, *Transport]

First-Ever UN General Assembly Exclusive Meeting On Climate Change

Jul 31: In New York, the United Nations General Assembly is considering how to translate the growing scientific consensus on climate change into a broad political consensus for action during a two-day thematic debate that began today (July 31, 2007). The debate, which features prominent scientists, business leaders and United Nations officials, is expected to raise awareness and momentum for action on climate change, in preparation for the Secretary-General’s high-level event in September and for the climate change conference that will take place in Bali this December.

Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain, President of the General Assembly said, “This debate is a testimony to the political importance of addressing climate change. We will need political action if we are to protect our environment, secure our planet and safeguard our future, for our children and generations to come. This is one of the greatest challenges of our time.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported this year that the world’s temperature warmed by 0.74°C during the last century and that it is likely to rise 3°C in this century, unless measures are taken to reduce the rate of warming. The Panel found that the evidence that warming was occurring is unequivocal and that it is due to human activities.

The two-day meeting is featuring interactive panel discussions with climate change experts, a plenary debate with statements on national strategies and international commitments by Member States, as well as addresses by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and two of his Special Envoys on Climate Change, former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and former Korean Foreign Minister Han Seung-soo. The debate marks the first time the General Assembly has ever devoted a session exclusively to a discussion of climate change in plenary.

The debate is being made carbon neutral by offsetting emissions from the air travel to bring experts to the debate and the entire carbon-dioxide emissions of the United Nations Headquarters, by making investments in a biomass fuel project in Kenya. The fuel switch project in Kenya supports the use of agricultural waste instead of traditional fossil fuels to power a crude palm oil refinery, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating new economic opportunities for local farmers.

Access a UN release (click here). Access the UN website for the Informal Thematic Debate Climate Change as a Global Challenge (click here). Access links to news and live and archived webcasts of the meeting (click here). Access various media reports of the meeting (click here). [*Climate]

Hotly Contested Farm Bill Passes House 231-191

Jul 27: The U.S. House of Representatives passed a new Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) by a largely party-line vote of 231-191, which House Democrats say makes "historic investments in fruit and vegetable production, conservation, nutrition and renewable energy while maintaining a strong safety net for America’s farmers and ranchers." Agricultural Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) said, “This Farm Bill is about much more than farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and increasingly the fuel we will use. It assures that we will have a safe, strong food supply now and for years to come. I am proud of the balanced and forward-looking Farm Bill that we have passed supporting conservation, nutrition, rural, renewable energy, labor, and farm country.”

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration. The 2002 Farm Bill expires on September 30, 2007. Highlights of the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) include: Investing more than $1.6 billion in priorities to strengthen and support the fruit and vegetable industry in the United States. A new section for Horticulture and Organic Agriculture includes nutrition, research, pest management and trade promotion programs. Implementing Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for fruit, vegetables and meat after years of delay. Key provisions that invest in rural communities nationwide, including economic development programs and access to broadband telecommunication services.

Also included are provisions: Providing farmers participating in commodity programs with a choice between traditional price protection and new market-oriented revenue coverage payments. Strengthening payment limits to ensure that people making more than $1 million a year (adjusted gross income) can’t collect conservation and farm program payments and closing loopholes that allow people to avoid payment limits by receiving money through multiple business units. Extending and making significant new investments in popular conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, and many others.

And additionally: Making important new investments in renewable energy research, development and production in rural America. Rebalancing loan rates and target prices among commodities, achieving greater regional equity. Establishing a new National Agriculture Research Program Office to coordinate the programs and activities of USDA’s research agencies to minimize duplication and maximize coordination at all levels and creates a competitive grants program. Protecting and sustaining our nation’s forest resources.

The bill also includes legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) known as the Pollinator Protection Act, to provide $86.5 million in Federal funding for research and grant programs at the USDA over five years for work related to maintaining and protecting bee and native pollinator populations.

An amendment known as The Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to the Farm Bill Extension Act, offered by a bipartisan group of legislators, and supported by environmental and conservation groups did not pass. The Amendment was designed to reduce and restructure farm subsidies and to increase spending on USDA nutrition, conservation and rural development programs. Scott Faber, Farm Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense issued a statement saying, "The pressure created by House reformers like Ron Kind [D-WI] and Jeff Flake [R-AZ] has forced House leaders to improve the bill, including new funding for conservation and nutrition. Nevertheless, many legislators missed an opportunity to do considerably more for their farmers and the environment by voting against the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment. Farmers are eager to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat and our farm policies should do more to reward -- not reject -- farmers when they volunteer to meet our environmental challenges."

Representative Kind issued a statement saying, "...by changing this Farm Bill debate, our reform coalition was able to push the Agriculture Committee to make additional investments in conservation and nutrition, and make some modest inroads on limiting subsidies to the largest and wealthiest farmers."

House Agriculture Committee Republicans were outraged and said they learned that the funding promised to the Committee to offset nutrition spending would be paid for by a tax increase, despite prior promises by the Democratic Leadership to the contrary. They said while the Committee approved bipartisan farm bill language last week, the tax provisions were added to the bill after Committee action without consideration or input from Republicans. Committee Republicans said they felt deceived by the Democratic Leadership.

In a release from Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), “After the Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan bill, the bill was hijacked by forces outside of our control and the tax increase proposals were introduced without any input from the Republican members of the Committee. Despite repeated assurances that the $4 billion in offsets would not come from tax increases, here we are looking at tax increases as the “funding mechanism” of choice employed by the Democratic Leadership. The House Agriculture Committee Republicans are united in our outrage at the inclusion of these tax provisions in what should be a bipartisan bill and the underhanded tactics employed by the Democratic Leadership to bypass this Committee and include these provisions in the bill. Earlier this week, my Republican colleagues were prepared to support the farm bill because we understand it needs bipartisan support; however, today, the farm bill has taken a very different form and is no longer about American agriculture but something far more political. Due to the inclusion of the tax increases, we are prepared to vote against this bill.”

In extensive comments from USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, he said, "The ranking member of the House Ag Committee last night spoke of betrayal and described a well that had been poisoned. Thankfully, many House members refused to drink from that poisoned well. They stood on their principles. They said, "no" to a provision crafted under a cloak of secrecy and then presented in the 11th hour. These members rejected the effort to paint another bull's eye on the back of the American farmer in the form of a $7 billion tax hike..."

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, issued a statement concerning provisions included in the Farm Bill regarding outer continental shelf deepwater leases negotiated in 1998 and 1999. Domenici said the Farm Bill "is not the right place to decide this issue." Additionally he indicated, "while I agree that it is unfortunate that an error made by the Clinton Administration has cost the Federal Treasury revenues, a punitive provision such as the one in the House farm bill will not solve the problem." Finally, he said, "...imposing fees on domestic oil and gas production would only serve to raise the price of gasoline, and could cause a delay in leasing."

Access a release and summary from House Democrats (click here). Access the House Farm Bill homepage for extensive information including the complete Committee bill and section by section details (click here). Access a release from Environmental Defense (click here). Access a release from Representative Kind (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Representative Goodlatte (click here). Access a release from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a lengthy transcript of July 27, remarks from U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and links to additional USDA information including extensive USDA Farm Bill comments (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]

U-M Study Says Big 3 Would Benefit Under New CAFE Standards

Jul 24: A new study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)indicates that Detroit automakers would gain market share and increase profits under proposed new fuel economy standards. Under the highest proposed fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon, General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Corp. stand to make $14.4 billion by 2017 -- at least $6 billion more than the competition. The study, The Impact of Attribute-Based Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards on the Automotive Industry, is the first rigorous analysis of the economic impacts of current legislative proposals to raise CAFE under the reformed "attribute-based" structure, according to Walter McManus, director of UMTRI's Automotive Analysis Division.

McManus' preliminary analysis evaluates three scenarios that represent alternatives under consideration in Congress. Whereas historic CAFE standards set one benchmark for every automaker, the reformed system fundamentally alters the impact of the standards on individual companies by setting standards based on a vehicle's attributes, such as size. McManus said, "The new, attribute-based CAFE is not one-size-fits-all. It takes into account the differences between vehicles and light trucks, which will have lower targets than cars. The new system doesn't penalize the Big Three for making large cars and trucks, but it does require that they improve the fuel economy of those vehicles. In so doing, they will gain market share and boost profits."

Among the study's findings: (1) An attribute-based CAFE would mean lower standards for Detroit's automakers. Under a size-based standard of 35 mpg, the Big Three could be required to meet a 33-mpg standard, while the rest of the industry would have to meet a 38-mpg standard. (2) An attribute-based CAFE yields greater gains in market share and profits for the Big Three than for the rest of the industry. Detroit automakers stand to receive more of the profit gains from higher CAFE because they will be making improvements that have higher market value and higher profit margins. (3) Higher CAFE standards yield higher profits. The strongest CAFE proposal currently under consideration in Congress (Markey-Platts) provides the greatest profit for Detroit automakers. GM, Ford and Chrysler have projected profits of $14.4 billion by 2017-- more than twice as much than the weaker proposal under consideration (Hill-Terry).

McManus said, "Many in Washington are discussing the old form of CAFE and are not directly dealing with the new reformed, attribute-based CAFE that legislative proposals would actually create. As the House of Representatives considers CAFE legislation, members should be aware of this important distinction and the impacts on costs and profits it will create."

Access a U-M release on the study (click here). Access the complete 20-page report (click here). Access various media reports on the study (click here). [*Energy]

Group Releases Report & Map On "Factory Farms"

Jul 24: Food & Water Watch America (FWWA) issued a release saying that "rural communities from coast to coast are living with the human health and environmental costs of factory farms that cram together hundreds of thousands of animals in filthy conditions." The organization released a first-ever national map charting factory farms to illustrate how the facilities are concentrated in some regions of the country. FWWA Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said, "People working in these animal factories or those living nearby often suffer intensely from the odors and experience a range of negative physical effects. People thousands of miles away from factory farms are not immune to their impacts. Consumers eating the dairy, egg, and meat products produced there are faced with the consequences of antibiotic and artificial hormone use and other food safety problems."

Bob Lawrence, Johns Hopkins University professor and director of the Center for a Livable Future said, "Factory farms create serious human health and environmental risks [to] the communities where they locate. The millions of gallons of manure with the toxic chemicals they emit harm human health and cause hazardous air and water pollution.”

The FWWA factory farm map illustrates that confined animal feeding operations, the dominant form of livestock production in the United States, also known as CAFOs or factory farms, are found throughout the country. But some regions host a comparatively large share of intensive animal production – Iowa and North Carolina for hogs, California and Idaho for dairy cows, Texas and Kansas for cattle feedlots, Georgia and Alabama for broiler chickens, and Iowa and Ohio for egg production.

FWWA released a companion report, Turning Farms into Factories, that explains the forces driving factory farms, as well as the environmental, public health, and economic consequences of this type of animal production. FWWA Assistant Director Patty Lovera said, "As industrial animal operations spread, they drive more family farmers out of business. Factory farming must end, and Congress and regulatory agencies need to make certain that food is produced in a sustainable way that does not harm people and the environment."

Access a lengthy release with recommendations and with links to additional information (click here). Access the interactive factory farm map website (click here). Access the 15-page report (click here). [*Agriculture]

U.S. Chamber Launches Global Regulatory Cooperation Project

Jul 17: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched the Global Regulatory Cooperation Project (GRC) to combat what they say is the growing problem of in-country barriers (ICBs), or protectionist and divergent regulations that distort markets and undermine U.S. competitiveness. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue said, "The growing interdependence of the world's economies requires a systematic approach to reducing adverse impacts on trade. The U.S. and its major trading partners must work to open markets and improve the flow of trade and investment through a vigorous agenda of enhanced regulatory reform and cooperation. The stakes are simply too high not to undertake this effort and succeed."

The Chamber said, a concerted effort over the last 50 years to eliminate tariffs and quotas around the world has helped generate prosperity. Despite this progress, "market-distorting regulations remain. Protectionist and divergent regulations have consequences every bit as costly as high tariffs." To reach its goal, the Chamber said it will pursue many avenues. These include advocating for the creation of a new White House coordinating office, prioritizing and monetizing the impact of ICBs, educating policymakers about the impact of regulations in global markets, creating new regulatory agreements, and strengthening existing trade agreements to successfully secure open and competitive markets. Donohue said, "Through this new initiative, the Chamber will bring together the business community, the U.S. government, and governments worldwide to urge that specific steps be taken to eliminate in-country barriers to trade. The goal is to ensure market access and a competitive marketplace for businesses and consumers."

Additional information on the GRC indicates, "This threat is urgent and growing. Increasingly burdensome and interventionist policies in the areas of intellectual property (IP) law, standards, (e.g. technology, environment, health, and safety), state owned enterprises, subsidies, competition policy, and investment regulations are hindering the operation of efficient markets and preventing some of the most successful and innovative companies from commercializing their technologies in foreign markets. Not only will companies be disadvantaged, but consumers are likely to face fewer choices and higher prices."

As part of the GRC launch, the Chamber and BUSINESSEUROPE, the largest European business organization, also announced a new strategic partnership to monitor the progress of the recently created U.S. and EU Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC). The council was established to address regulatory barriers between the transatlantic markets.

Access a release from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access more detailed information on the GRC including a webcast of the launch event and a powerpoint presentation (click here). Access a release on the BUSINESSEUROPE partnership and link to additional information (click here). [*All]

EcoBizPort.com
#1 "Environmental Business Portal"
Yahoo, Google, MSN, Ask

Disposal Options For Greater Than Class C Radioactive Waste

Jul 23: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it will evaluate disposal options for Greater Than Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generated from the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, medical activities and nuclear research. DOE published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will evaluate how and where to safely dispose of GTCC LLW that is currently stored at commercial nuclear power plants and other generator sites across the country [72 FR 40135-40139]. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires DOE to report to Congress on its evaluation of safe disposal options for this commercial waste.

The NOI includes a list of the preliminary disposal options for analysis in the EIS, describes the inventory of waste to be analyzed, identifies dates and locations of public meetings, and invites public comments on the proposed scope of the EIS.

GTCC waste is commercial LLW generated from activities conducted by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees and stored at sites where it is generated throughout the United States. DOE estimates the total stored and projected quantity nationwide of the GTCC LLW to be 2,600 cubic meters. GTCC LLW is grouped into three general waste types: (1) activated metals, which come from the maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear power plants; (2) radioactive sealed sources that are no longer used, including irradiation of food and medical purposes; and (3) miscellaneous waste, such as contaminated equipment from industrial research and development.

In addition to the GTCC LLW, DOE intends to include in the EIS evaluation certain LLW and transuranic waste that is generated from DOE activities, which may not have an identified disposal path, and has characteristics similar to GTCC LLW. This DOE waste is estimated to be 3,000 cubic meters.

Regulations require that GTCC waste be disposed of in a geologic repository unless alternate proposals for its safe disposal in a NRC licensed facility are approved by the NRC. DOE will evaluate a range of disposal alternatives in preparing the EIS to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, DOE will submit a Report to Congress after the final EIS is complete and await Congressional action before making a decision on the disposal alternative or alternatives to be implemented by DOE as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The EIS will evaluate a range of disposal methods and locations that include: (1) geologic disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository; (2) enhanced near-surface disposal at the Hanford Site, Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, Savannah River Site, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant vicinity, or a generic commercial location; and (3) intermediate depth borehole disposal at the same locations identified in (2). The EIS will consider these alternatives individually and in combination.

DOE is inviting public review and comment on the proposed scope of the EIS and other information presented in the NOI during a 60-day comment period, which ends on September 21, 2007. All comments received during the public scoping period will be considered in preparing the GTCC EIS.

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the Greater than Class C EIS Information Center for complete information (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]

The Rush To Ethanol: Not All BioFuels Are Equal

Jul 18: The future of biofuels is not in corn, says a new report released by Food & Water Watch, the Network for New Energy Choices, and the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment. The corn ethanol refinery industry, the beneficiary of new renewable fuel targets in the proposed energy legislation as well as proposed loan guarantee subsidies in the 2007 Farm Bill, will not significantly offset U.S. fossil fuel consumption without unacceptable environmental and economic consequences.

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter said, "Rural communities won't benefit from the Farm Bill becoming a fuel bill. In the long run, family farmers and the environment will be losers, while agribusiness, whose political contributions are fueling the ethanol frenzy, will become the winners.”

Scott Cullen, Senior Policy Advisor for the Network for New Energy Choices said, "Rising oil prices, energy security, and global warming concerns have led to today's 'go yellow' hype over corn ethanol. But all biofuels are not equal. Expansion of the corn ethanol industry will lead to more water and air pollution and soil erosion of America's farm belt, while failing to significantly offset fossil fuel use or combat global warming."

The report entitled, The Rush to Ethanol: Not all BioFuels are Equal, is a comprehensive review of the literature on the environmental and economic implications of pinning our hopes on corn ethanol to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Among other findings the report concludes that corn is the least sustainable biofuel feedstock of all raw materials commonly used. The report indicates, "The capacity of corn ethanol to offset U.S. fossil fuel use is extremely limited. Dedicating the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol production would only offset 15 percent of gasoline demand. Conversely, modest increases in auto fuel efficiency standards of even one mile per gallon for all cars and light trucks, such as those passed by the Senate last month could cut petroleum consumption by more than all alternative fuels and replacement fuels combined."

The report also finds that, "Corn ethanol is the wrong biofuel for combating global warming. The most favorable estimates show that corn ethanol could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent to 28 percent, while cellulosic ethanol is estimated to offer a reduction of 87 percent compared to gasoline."

The groups indicate that both the farm and energy legislation being debated in Congress contain provisions that will set biofuels policy for years to come. They said, "While the politicians promise that America will be driving on switchgrass-based ethanol instead of gasoline in the next decade, the majority of the subsidies will go to corn-based ethanol refiners in the near term." They made recommendations on U.S. biofuels policy including proposed reforms to ethanol provisions of the 2007 Farm Bill.

For example, they say biofuels promotion policies should be tied to a sustainable fuel standard; ethanol funding should focus on research and development of cellulosic ethanol; no coal-fired ethanol refineries should be eligible for federal subsidies; and loan guarantees for refineries should be directed to locally owned facilities that benefit farmers and rural communities.

The report also cautions that there are concerns even with the large scale development of cellulosic ethanol. It is indicated, for example, that removing agricultural residues beyond what is needed to maintain and replenish soil organic matter (SOM) will exacerbate erosion; converting protected lands, such as those enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, to energy crops will significantly compromise the ecological benefits of land conservation; planting switchgrass has conservation value relative to corn row cropping, but is not a substitute for (in terms of wildlife protection and soil conservation) diverse, native habitats on protected lands; and technical processes for breaking down cellulose for ethanol refining likely would place increasing pressure on water resources.

The report concludes, "Ethanol is not the silver bullet that will solve the problems of rising oil prices, dependency on foreign oil, or greenhouse gas emissions. Biofuels, if produced sustainably, should instead be considered in the context of a comprehensive transportation model transformation based on energy efficiency and conservation, and focused on reducing fuel demand."

Access a release and link to the complete 78-page report and a report summary (click here). Access the Food & Water Watch website for additional information (click here). Access various eNewsUSA Blog posts regarding corn and ethanol issues (click here). [*Energy, *Biofuels, *Agriculture]

NPC Report: Facing The Hard Truths About Energy

Jul 18: A major new report by the National Petroleum Council (NPC) says that, “Accumulating risks to the supply of reliable, affordable energy” require an integrated national strategy. The 422-page report entitled, Facing the Hard Truths about Energy: A Comprehensive View to 2030 of Global Oil and Natural Gas, delivered to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman indicates that, “Over the next 25 years, the United States and the world face hard truths about the global energy future,” that will require “all economic, environmentally responsible energy sources to assure adequate, reliable supply.”

Unique in its scope, the 18-month study of global energy to 2030 involved more than 350 experts from diverse backgrounds and organizations -- the majority of them from outside the oil and gas industry. Bodman said the report “is different from other studies. It usefully identifies strategies for consideration by policy and decision makers at all levels of government and industry." The report says, “The world is not running out of energy resources, but many complex challenges could keep the world’s diverse energy resources from becoming the sufficient, reliable, and economic energy supplies upon which people depend. These challenges are compounded by emerging uncertainties: geopolitical influences on energy development, trade, and security; and increasing constraints on carbon dioxide emissions that could impose changes in future energy use. While risks have always typified the
energy business, they are now accumulating and converging in new ways.”

The report identifies five core strategies for meeting future energy challenges: (1) Moderate the growing demand for energy by increasing efficiency of transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. (2) Expand and diversify production from clean coal, nuclear, biomass, other renewables, and unconventional oil and natural gas; moderate the decline of conventional domestic oil and gas production; and increase access for development of new resources. (3) Integrate energy policy into trade, economic, environmental, security, and foreign policies; strengthen global energy trade and investment; and broaden dialogue with both producing and consuming nations to improve global energy security. (4) Enhance science and engineering capabilities and create long-term opportunities for research and development in all phases of the energy supply and demand system. (5) Develop the legal and regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In addition, as policymakers consider options to reduce CO2 emissions, provide an effective, global framework for carbon management, including establishment of a transparent, predictable, economy-wide cost for CO2 emissions.

One of the important, so-called "hard truths" about the global energy future over the next 25 years relates to the concept of "energy independence. The report says, "'Energy Independence' should not be confused with strengthening energy security. The concept of energy independence is not realistic in the foreseeable future, whereas U.S. energy security can be enhanced by moderating demand, expanding and diversifying domestic energy supplies, and strengthening global energy trade and investment. There can be no U.S. energy security without global energy security." Among five other "hard truths" identified are that "coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meeting total projected energy demand growth;" and "Policies aimed at curbing CO2 emissions will alter the energy mix, increase energy-related costs, and require reductions in demand growth."

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) commented on the report and said, "“This report underscores the urgency for America to move faster and go farther to secure its energy future. I agree with its conclusion that greater energy efficiency is required throughout all sectors of our economy. I also am pleased that the study recognizes the need to boost science and engineering and create long-term opportunities for R&D in all phases of the global energy system. The Senate faced and addressed those ‘hard truths’ in the energy bill (HR.6) [See WIMS 6/22/07] it passed last month, and in the America COMPETES Act (S.761) that currently is being conferenced. Building a cleaner and more energy self-reliant future is a grand challenge for our country and I hope this study energizes us to keep making progress toward that important goal.”

The NPC is a Federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. The sole purpose of the Council is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters relating to oil and natural gas or to the oil and natural gas industries. The Council membership of approximately 175 persons is selected and appointed by the Secretary of Energy. Individual members serve without compensation as representatives of their industry or associated interests as a whole, not as representatives of their particular companies or affiliations. In selecting the membership, special attention is given by the Secretary to assure a well-balanced representation from all segments of the oil and gas industries, all sections of the country, and from large and small companies. The Council also has members with interests outside of oil or gas operations, including representatives from academic, financial, research, Native American, and public interest organizations and institutions.

Access a release from NPC (click here). Access report materials as distributed at July 18 Council meeting (click here). Access an Executive Summary (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access a webcast archive of meeting and press conference (click here). Access the NPC website for additional information (click here). Access the complete remarks of Secretary Bodman (click here). Access a release from Senator Bingaman (click here). [*Energy]

Split Appeals Court Upholds EPA Agreement With Animal Feeding Operations

Jul 17: In the case of Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. No. 05-1177 (Consolidated with 05-1336, 05-1337, 06-1053, 06-1209, 06-1320, 07-1038). Community and environmental groups petition for review of agreements between EPA and animal feeding operations (AFOs). The agreements are designed to bring the facilities into compliance with the permitting and reporting requirements of three environmental statutes. Petitioners argue that the agreements are rules disguised as enforcement actions, that EPA did not follow proper procedures for rulemaking, and that EPA exceeded its statutory authority by entering into the agreements. In a split decision, the Appeals Court held that "the agreements do not constitute rules, but rather enforcement actions within EPA’s statutory authority." The majority dismissed the petitions for review because "exercises of EPA’s enforcement discretion are not reviewable by this court."

In a dissenting argument, Justice Judith Rogers says, "...by imposing a civil penalty on AFOs in the absence of individualized determinations of statutory violations, EPA has attempted to secure the benefits of legislative rulemaking without the burdens of its statutory duties. Our precedent does not permit the boundless stretching of Chaney [Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832-33 (1985)] to undercut the purposes of notice-and-comment rulemaking..."

In the majority opinion the Appeals Court defined the pollutants and the issue saying the pollutants – ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds – emanate from animal housing structures and areas used to store and treat manure... An AFO that releases these pollutants in sufficient quantities may be required to report them under CERCLA and EPCRA, and may be subject to various requirements under the Clean Air Act... An AFO emitting these pollutants in quantities below the statutory thresholds, however, has no obligation under the Acts to obtain permits or report its emissions.

Petitioners, a number of community and environmental groups, some of whose members live near AFOs argued that the AFOs emit particulate pollution and terrible odors, and that they attract hordes of flies that leave their droppings on everything from cars to outdoor furniture. As a result, petitioners claim that their members suffer effects ranging from reduced enjoyment of the outdoor portion of their property to adverse health effects such as respiratory and heart problems. Additionally, as long as the AFOs’ emissions are not definitively determined to be above or below the statutory thresholds, petitioners’ members suffer from the uncertainty of not knowing whether the AFOs’ emissions exceed legal limits, and not knowing how their long-term health may be affected. Because the Acts apply only to emissions above specified levels, EPA cannot enforce the statutory and regulatory requirements without determining an AFO’s emissions.

The present uncertainty hampers EPA’s ability to enforce the requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPCRA, and CERCLA against AFOs. To resolve the dilemma, EPA’s solution was to invite AFOs to sign a consent agreement under which each AFO will assist in developing an emissions estimating methodology. In exchange, EPA will not pursue administrative actions and lawsuits against the AFOs for a defined period of time. In the agency’s judgment, this is the “quickest and most effective way” to achieve compliance. To date, several thousand AFOs have signed Agreements. As data from the study is received, EPA will use it along with existing emissions data to develop scientifically sound tables or models for AFOs to estimate their emissions. Id. at 4960. In consideration for the AFOs’ assistance, EPA agrees not to sue participating AFOs for certain potential past and ongoing violations of the Acts for the duration of the study. Within 120 days after EPA publishes the new methodologies, however, the AFO must initiate compliance efforts such as applying for a permit. EPA predicts that this schedule will result in compliance by participating AFOs within about four years from the start of the study.

The Petitioners, however, believe that the AFOs should be forced to comply more quickly with the statutory requirements. They also argue that the procedures by which EPA entered into the Agreement did not afford them the meaningful opportunity for comment required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Petitioners challenged the Agreement before the agency while it was being developed, and now identify ten agency actions that they contend should be vacated.

In the dissent, Justice Rogers summarizes her opinion of the results of the agreement saying, "For a minimum penalty plus $2,500, an AFO can, under the enforcement protocol, avoid liability for any potential and ongoing violations of three statutes for at least a two-year period while EPA gathers and studies emissions data and for an indeterminate period thereafter while EPA develops and publishes new estimation methodologies... at no point are there repercussions beyond a possible future enforcement action if an AFO opts out of the agreement to be bound by the methodology regulations that EPA develops. Assuming no glitches, EPA’s endeavor to develop reliable methodologies could, according to the recommendations it has followed, take five, twenty, or even thirty, years. This is not an enforcement scheme at all, and is not a decision that Congress committed to agency discretion."

Access the complete opinion and dissent (click here). Access EPA's website for the AFO Consent Agreement and Final Order for complete background documents (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort CAFO links for additional information (click here). [*Air, *Agriculture]