OMB Recommends Veto Of House Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Bill

Feb 14: The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" on the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R.7) [See WIMS 2/1/12] saying that if it were presented to the President, "the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto this legislation." The bill will be considered this week on the House Floor and House leaders say that its various parts will be considered separately. The House bill is the showcase bill of the House Republican leadership to address transportation reauthorization and energy issues and is in stark contrast to the bipartisan, Senate Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, S.1813) [See WIMS 2/8/12], which would reauthorize surface transportation programs for two years at current funding levels which is also scheduled to be considered soon on the Senate Floor. The current transportation authorization expires on March 31, 2012.

 

    The White House policy statement indicates, "The Administration strongly opposes the Rules Committee Print of H.R.7, which includes H.R. 3408, the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security (PIONEERS Act) and H.R. 3813, the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012. H.R. 7 does not reflect the historically bipartisan nature of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The Administration has serious concerns with provisions in the bill that would make America's roads, rails, and transit systems less safe, reduce the transportation options available to America's traveling public, short circuit local decision-making, and turn back the clock on environmental and labor protections.

 

    "This bill would reduce safety throughout the Nation's transportation system by failing to make necessary investments in roads and bridges, limiting funding to State and local governments for highway safety, and repealing requirements that help ensure the safe handling of hazardous materials by railroads. The bill also fails to adequately improve transit safety in accordance with recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board and legislation submitted by the Administration in December 2009.

 

    "H.R. 7 eliminates programs that ensure the Nation's metropolitan areas have sufficient resources to provide multiple transportation options to help reduce congestion. H.R. 7 also eliminates a thirty-year legacy of dedicated transit funding from the Highway Trust Fund. The bill allocates Federal funding for transit in a manner that undermines local decision making regarding the operation of local transit systems. This bill also reduces authorized funding levels for Amtrak and loosens the requirements on loan programs, putting taxpayer dollars at risk. In addition, the bill inappropriately targets funding towards systems that carry only a small number of the Nation's bus passengers. Finally, while the Administration appreciates that the bill does not contain earmarks, H.R. 7 eliminates funding for a number of discretionary grant programs, missing an opportunity to promote competition and innovation.

 

    "H.R. 7 would also significantly weaken environmental protections for transportation projects and undermine civic engagement in the decision-making process. The bill includes arbitrary timelines that deem an environmental and substantive review satisfactory regardless of a project's complexity and impact. The bill also limits judicial recourse of parties affected by transportation projects in a manner that undermines well-established judicial principles.

 

    "The Administration is committed to promoting safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production as part of a broad energy strategy that will protect consumers and reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the bill includes pay-fors that open up pristine natural habitats not suitable for resource extraction and undermine prudent development of the Nation's oil and natural gas resources by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial development, mandating lease sales in new offshore areas with no Secretarial discretion for determining which areas are appropriate and safe for such exploration and development, and preempting a Bureau of Land Management environmental impact statement on oil shale extraction. Further, this bill seeks to circumvent a longstanding process for determining whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline project despite the fact that the pipeline route has yet to be identified and there is no complete assessment of its potential impacts, including impacts on health and safety, the economy, foreign policy, energy security, and the environment.

 

    "The Administration is committed to working on a bipartisan basis on a surface transportation reauthorization bill that provides the necessary funding to modernize the Nation's surface transportation infrastructure, increase transportation options, maintain and create good paying jobs, and ensure lasting economic competitiveness. Because this bill jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental and labor protections, and fails to make the investments needed to strengthen the Nation's roads, bridges, rail, and transit systems, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto this legislation.

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) issued the following statement saying they will consider the bill this week and, "Republicans pledged to pass bills in a more transparent manner and reverse the era of quickly moving massive bills across the floor without proper examination. Accordingly, the energy/infrastructure jobs plan will be considered on the floor in the same manner in which it was written and voted upon in committee – in separate pieces, allowing each major component of the plan to be debated and amended more openly, rather than as a single 'comprehensive' bill with limited debate and limited opportunity for amendment.  

    "Hundreds of amendments relating to the energy/infrastructure jobs package have already been offered in committee, and we are determined to allow as many members to participate and offer their amendments on the floor as possible. The process will facilitate this. This more open, inclusive process will continue the contrast between the new Republican majority in the House and the previous Democratic majority, whose preference for large bills with limited debate and minimal opportunities for amendment infamously resulted in flawed legislation."

    Access the White House policy statement (click here). Access the statement from House leaders (click here). Access more details on H.R.7 from the House Rules Committee (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.7 (click here). Access legislative details for S.1813 (click here). [#Transport, #Energy]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

EPA Issues Final Rules For PVC Production Facilities

Feb 14: U.S. EPA issued what it called strong final standards requiring facilities that produce polyvinyl chloride and copolymers (PVC) to reduce harmful air emissions, and said they will improve air quality and protect people's health in communities where facilities are located. Exposure to toxic air pollutants, like those emitted from PVC facilities, can cause respiratory problems and other serious health issues, and can increase the risk of developing cancer. In particular, children are known to be more sensitive to the cancer risks posed by inhaling vinyl chloride, one of the known carcinogens emitted from PVC facilities.

    EPA said the final standards are based on currently available technologies and will reduce emissions of air toxics, such as dioxin and vinyl chloride. Facilities will have the flexibility to choose the most practical and cost-effective control technology or technique to reduce the emissions. Facilities will be required to monitor emissions at certain points in the PVC production process to ensure that the standards are met. EPA had a 74-day public comment period and held two public hearings on the proposal before issuing the final rule.

    Currently, there are 17 PVC production facilities throughout the United States, with a majority of these facilities located in Louisiana and Texas. All existing and any new PVC production facilities are covered by the final rule. PVC production facilities manufacture PVC resins that are used to make a large number of commercial and industrial products at other manufacturing facilities. These products include latex paints, coatings, adhesives, clear plastics, rigid plastics, and flooring.

 

    The final rule regulating emissions limits for air toxics from polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production and sets maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for major sources and generally available control technology (GACT) for area sources of PVC production. Emissions sources addressed in the rule include PVC process vents, stripped resin, equipment leaks, wastewater, heat exchangers, and storage vessels. The final rule sets emission limits and work practice standards for total organic air toxics, and also for three specific air toxics: vinyl chloride, chlorinated di-benzo dioxins and furans (CDDF), and hydrogen chloride. This is a change from the previous rule, which set an emission limit for vinyl chloride only, and used vinyl chloride as a surrogate for all other air toxics.

 

    There are currently 15 major and two area source PVC facilities in the United States. They are located in eight states: Delaware (one), Illinois (one), Kentucky (one), Louisiana (six), Michigan (one), Mississippi (one), New Jersey (two) and Texas (four). There are no small businesses. The annual emission reductions from major sources are estimated to be 238 tons of total air toxics, 21 tons of hydrogen chloride, and 0.017 grams of CDDF. The annual emission reductions from area sources are 24 tons of total air toxics. The final rule replaces the previous rule for larger emitting PVC production facilities (major sources) EPA issued in July 2002. That rule was vacated by the District of Columbia Circuit Court as a result of a petition. The final rule also amends the existing air toxic rule for smaller emitting PVC production facilities (area sources) that EPA issued in 2007.    

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a fact sheet on the final rule (click here). Access the prepublication copy of the 491-page final rule (click here). [#Air]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

GOP & Dems React Totally Opposite To DOE Loan Report

Feb 10: On Friday afternoon, the White House released a highly anticipated, 75-page, independent review of the current state of the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee portfolio, focusing on future loan monitoring and management. The review was requested on October 28, 2011, by the White House Chief of Staff and was conducted by Herb Allison, who has wide-ranging experience in the finance, business, and government sectors during a career in public and private service that spans four decades and both Republican and Democratic Administrations.

The White House said the independent report "confirms that the loan portfolio as a whole is expected to perform well and holds less than the amount of risk envisioned by Congress when it created and funded the program." The report also includes a number of recommendations on how to improve the management of the Department's loan program and ongoing monitoring of the loan portfolio. The Department of Energy is reviewing the recommendations to determine the best way to use them to further strengthen the program.

    In a blog posting the White House indicated that "DOE's loan programs are generating $40 billion in private investment in America's economy that is supporting 60,000 direct jobs and thousands more up and down the supply chain. With the help of this program, American workers will build wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power plants across the country that will help power our economy for decades to come -- as well as the next generation of automobiles that will reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. And these numbers don't include the investments made in the supply chain or from other investments made from projects that have been able to get financing because the loan program helped structure and establish a market for them."

    The White House noted that when Congress first developed this program under the Bush Administration, the purpose was to help fund some high risk projects to put America at the cutting edge of innovation. The White House indicated, "There's no question, as the report indicates, we expect more bumps along the road in emerging industries like clean energy. But as the President said in his State of the Union message, that's not a reason to throw up our hands and cede the jobs of the future to China or Germany or anywhere else. We have subsidized oil companies for a century.  It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and invest in a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

    Among other things the report recommends:

• DOE should assign authorities for decision-making only to individual managers and never to committees where collective responsibility can obscure individual accountability.
• DOE should develop explicit objectives and standards of performance for managing the Portfolio during the construction phase of the projects and beyond.
• DOE should create a new Risk Management department encompassing all DOE functions that monitor LPO [Loan Program Office] and should appoint a highly experienced Chief Risk Officer to head it. DOE should also reorganize oversight of the Program.
• Overall governance of the Programs would benefit from access to senior government officials of other departments and agencies who have knowledge of proven 'best practices' across credit programs government-wide.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated, "Clean energy jobs are critical to rebuilding our economy and powering America's future growth opportunities. I am encouraged that this independent evaluation shows that the Obama administration's investments are helping the private sector create thousands of good paying, clean energy jobs in Nevada and across the country. This should be an area where Democrats and Republicans can agree, and I hope Republicans will work with us to help create more clean energy jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make our country stronger and more competitive."

 

    Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) said, "Mr. Allison's review is a careful and thoughtful analysis of the Department of Energy's loan programs. As the report makes clear, Congress established these programs to support innovative projects employing technologies that have not reached commercial maturity, and thus were not likely to receive support from commercial debt markets. That's why Congress provided money up front to account for anticipated losses. The report gives reassurance that the accounting for the risks of DOE's loans appear to be accurate.  Mr. Allison also provided a number of recommendations to further improve these programs. I look forward to having Mr. Allison come before the Committee next month to present his analysis and recommendations, once our Members have had a chance to read and consider today's report."

 

    Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee said, "Republicans have been infected by a Solyndra syndrome, and hopefully this report is the cure. This report serves a strong dose of reality for Congressional Republicans who have chosen to use the failure of one loan guarantee recipient as the premise for abandoning all support for clean energy. Clean energy has been an economic bright spot in our tough economic times, creating jobs and attracting investment. It is time for Republicans to stop persecuting the entire clean energy industry and join Democrats to start producing America's clean energy future. This report also makes some important recommendations about how the Loan Guarantee Program can be reformed. I strongly support the Department of Energy immediately moving to implement any and all recommendations from the Allison Report that will enhance taxpayer protections."

 

    House Energy & Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, "The Allison report shows that the DOE loan program is working. It is promoting innovation, creating jobs, and helping U.S. companies compete with China. The report is a repudiation of the partisan attack on the program by congressional Republicans and the oil and coal industries. I hope Republicans will stop insisting that the U.S. cannot compete in these industries of the future and join an effort to promote U.S. manufacturing, increase our energy security, and protect our environment."

 

    Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said, "It's clear that implementation of the DOE's loan programs has flaws that need to be addressed. As the Senate committee of jurisdiction, it's our responsibility to understand these problems and correct them to ensure that the programs are working as intended and are not wasting taxpayer dollars. Simply ignoring the problems does the programs a disservice and leaves them vulnerable to elimination. Between the House and the Senate, we are the only committee that has not held a hearing to look into DOE's loan programs. I'm a strong proponent of the program, but it's clear that there are some issues that need to be addressed for me to defend it." 

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) expressed concern with the Allison's audit. They said, "Two out of the first three loan guarantee recipients, Solyndra and Beacon Power, have already filed for bankruptcy. The committee leaders are concerned with the health and management of the overall program, and have repeatedly requested financial information on the entire portfolio."

 

    They said in a joint release, "The first step on the road to recovery is overcoming denial, and this audit is a long-overdue acknowledgement that the Obama administration has a problem. But when taxpayers are the ones paying the price, this sort of managerial soul searching should take place before billions of dollars are doled out, not after. It would be a stunning case of bureaucratic disregard to declare victory because the government is expecting to lose 'just' $3 billion. One key lesson is that taxpayers should not have been placed in the position to lose one dollar, let alone billions, all because the stimulus allowed companies with shaky finances to apply for and receive taxpayer support without putting up any money.

    "The very suggestion of an early warning system misses the point given that the internal warnings on Solyndra were abundant well before the half a billion dollar loan guarantee was finalized. What use are early warnings if they are ignored? Every warning on Solyndra fell on deaf ears – while the experts understood Solyndra was doomed for failure, they were overruled every step of the way. If the Obama White House is indeed sincere about protecting taxpayers, its team of lawyers should swiftly comply with our subpoena for West Wing Solyndra documents. It has been 100 days since we were forced to subpoena the White House, and they continue withholding documents and shielding key staff from our investigators. This report reveals broad-based weaknesses, but it does not answer some of the most fundamental questions about how these risky bets were made over the objections of experts. Our investigation continues as we work to ensure taxpayers are never again stuck paying hundreds of millions of dollars because of the Obama administration's risky bets."

    Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said, "The findings of today's report are startling. The Obama Administration has acted as if Solyndra was a fluke, but the reality is -- as this report concludes -- the entire process was flawed. Most concerning is the revelation that the Secretary of Energy was not adequately informed about loan performance and risk while his department was ill-equipped to assess that risk. The report also noted that the Department did not have clear guidelines for granting loans and relied on an ad-hoc decision-making process. Billions of taxpayer dollars were -- and remain -- in jeopardy because of President Obama's green energy gamble, while private capital has been pushed aside by government money and markets disrupted by government intervention. This report underscores the importance of our Committee's and Congressional investigations into Department of Energy and Obama Administration agencies to shed light on a process that has been shielded from the scrutiny of the very public who are underwriting the risk."

    Access the White House blog post (click here). Access the complete report (click here). Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access a release from Representative Waxman (click here) Access the statement from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access the joint release from Reps. Upton & Stearns and link to related information (click here). Access the release from Rep. Issa and link to related information (click here). [#Energy]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

State Department IG Report On Keystone XL Permit Process

The U.S. Department of State (DOS), Office of Inspect General (OIG) has issued a report entitled, Special Review of the Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Process (Report Number AUD/SI-12-28, February 2012). The report indicates as part of the background, that on September 19, 2008, TransCanada submitted a Presidential permit application to the Department of State (Department) for the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Keystone XL is a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline connecting Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Department is responsible for reviewing such applications for cross-border oil pipelines by virtue of the Presidential delegation of authority contained in Executive Order 13337 and deciding whether issuance of a requested permit "would serve the national interest."

 

    As part of the review process for Keystone XL, the Department prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) to inform the overall "national interest determination." The Department used third-party contractors to assist in the preparation of the EIS. In 2006, the Department consulted with the Council on Environmental Quality and agreed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's process for using third-party contractors to prepare environmental documents was the best model for the Department to follow.

 

    The EIS process included evaluation of the proposed Federal action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action; solicitation of input from organizations and individuals who could potentially be affected; and the presentation of direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts for public review and comment. On August 26, 2011, the Department issued a final EIS and subsequently entered into the broader national interest determination period for Keystone XL [See WIMS 9/7/11]. The national interest determination involves consideration of many factors, such as energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; and foreign policy.

   

    The Department of State, Office of Inspector General (OIG), conducted the special review at the request of several members of Congress in an October 26, 2011, letter (included in Appendix B of the report). The Members asked that OIG "launch an investigation into the State Department's handling of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and National Interest Determination (NID) for TransCanada Corporation's proposed Keystone XL pipeline." OIG's objective was to determine to what extent the Department complied with Federal laws and regulations relating to the Keystone XL oil pipeline Presidential permit process. In conducting this review OIG asked seven researchable questions.

 

    Among other things, the Members of Congress requesting the report indicated, "We are disturbed by reports, such as those in The New York Times on October 7, 2011, that the State Department allowed TransCanada, the pipeline developer, to screen applicants to conduct the EIS mandated by federal law. The reports also allege that TransCanada successfully recommended the State Department select Cardno Entrix to conduct the EIS, despite Cardno Entrix listing TransCanada as a "major client" and Cardno Entrix having a pre-existing financial relationship with TransCanada. On its face alone, this creates an appearance of a conflict of interest and raises several questions. . ." In the report, the OIG responds to a seven major questions raised by the Members including:

• To what extent and in what manner did TransCanada improperly influence the Department in the selection of a contractor for the EIS?
• To what extent did the Department's final EIS fully incorporate the views and concerns of Federal agencies with expertise, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, in relation to alternatives and mitigation, pipeline safety, and environmental risks?
• To what extent is there a contractual or financial relationship between Cardno Entrix and TransCanada beyond Keystone XL, and does Cardno Entrix have a contract or agreement with TransCanada wherein Cardno Entrix would provide services, such as spill response, for Keystone XL? Furthermore, did the Department employees who selected Cardno Entrix have personal financial conflicts of interest?
• To what extent did the Department violate its role as an unbiased oversight agency by advising TransCanada to withdraw their permit request to operate the pipeline at higher pressures with the reassurance that TransCanada could apply for the permit at a later date through a less scrutinized and less transparent process?
• To what extent did communication between Department officials, TransCanada, the Canadian Government, or proponents of Keystone XL deviate from the Department's obligations under Federal law to provide an objective analysis of the project and its potential risks?
• To what extent did the Department and all parties fully comply with the letter and spirit of all Federal disclosure laws and regulations in regard to Keystone XL?
• To what extent were Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for materials related to Keystone XL timely fulfilled by the Department?

    On the major question of a conflict regarding the selection of Cardno Entrix, "OIG found no evidence that TransCanada (the applicant) had improperly influenced the Department's selection of Cardno Entrix as the Keystone XL EIS third-party contractor. The Department followed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's third-party contracting process, from reviewing, editing, and approving the draft request for proposal to independently reviewing proposals and selecting a contractor. This process allows the applicant to influence the selection of the EIS contractor by (1) deciding which contractors will receive the request for proposal, (2) reviewing all proposals received in response to the request for proposal, and (3) forwarding to the Department the three ranked proposals to review. However, TransCanada's influence was minimal, given the Department's (1) control of the language in the request for  proposal, (2) general familiarity with the environmental contractor community, and (3) independent review of proposals and selection of the contractor. A prime factor in the Department's selection of Cardno Entrix was the Department's previous experiences using the company as a third-party contractor for other EISs."

 

    On the questions of incorporating agencies' input such as from EPA, the OIG indicated, "The Department's final EIS for Keystone XL generally addressed and incorporated the views and concerns of Federal agencies with expertise in relation to alternatives and mitigation, pipeline safety, and environmental risks from this project. However, some concerns, such as the manner in which alternative routes were considered in the Department's EIS, were not completely incorporated. OIG also determined that the Department's limited technical resources, expertise, and experience impacted the implementation of the NEPA process. . . As a result, OIG believes the EIS and related processes were less effective, thereby delaying the decision for approval or denial of the Keystone application."

 

    The OIG audit resulted in three major recommendations including: that the DOS redesign its process for selecting third-party contractors by maximizing the Department's control of each step and minimizing the applicants' role in the process; that DOS fill at least one full-time position with staff who have experience and expertise in handling National Environmental Policy Act issues and the environmental impact statement process; and that DOS redesign the Department of State process for selecting and using third-party contractors in order to improve the Department's organizational conflict of interest screening process.

 

    API President and CEO Jack Gerard issued a statement saying, "The IG report gives the Keystone XL environmental review process a clean bill of health and concludes that the review was correct and done well. It's clear that another excuse not to build the pipeline has been removed, so we can only ask ourselves what's the excuse now for not approving Keystone? It's also ironic that on the same day the IG report is released, Canadian Prime Minister Harper is in China securing his country's economic and energy future by sending more Canadian oil to Asia. We're calling on our president to lead. In 2009, President Obama showed leadership when approving the Alberta Clipper pipeline. Back then his administration said that approval of the Clipper pipeline sent a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period. The same applies to Keystone XL, and we are asking the president to reconsider his decision to reject this shovel-ready project that will put 20,000 American[s] back to work."

 

    Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) one of the Members that requested the OIG investigation issued a release saying the report "finds flaws in pipeline review." Senator Sanders said, "The findings confirm once again why the project should not be rubber stamped for approval, despite efforts by Republicans in Congress to do just that. The more we learn, the less merit there is to this project. For those of us who are concerned about the consequences of global warming and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the idea of producing oil that emits 82 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil is indefensible. We have better options for the American people that do not jeopardize the future of our country and our planet. These include increasing fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks, a step which would cut pollution and save up to three times as much oil as Keystone XL could ever deliver."

 

    Access the complete 58-page OIG report (click here). Access complete details and background from the DOS Keystone XL Pipeline Project website (click here). Access the API release (click here). Access a release from Senator Sanders (click here). [#Energy/OilSands, #Energy/Pipeline]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

NRC Approves Two SNC Licenses For Reactors Near Augusta, GA

Feb 9: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it has concluded its mandatory hearing on Southern Nuclear Operating Company's (SNC) application for two Combined Licenses (COL) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. In a 4-1 vote, the Commission found the staff's review adequate to make the necessary regulatory safety and environmental findings, clearing the way for the NRC's Office of New Reactors to issue the COLs. The Commission imposed a condition on the COLs requiring inspection and testing of squib valves, important components of the new reactors' passive cooling system.

 

    The NRC staff is expected to issue the COLs within 10 business days. The COLs will authorize SNC to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle site, adjacent to the company's existing reactors approximately 26 miles southeast of Augusta, GA. NRC construction inspectors have been on-site since April 2010, examining SNC's activities to prepare the plant's foundation under a Limited Work Authorization the NRC issued on August 26, 2009. On December 22, 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to approve a rule certifying an amended version of Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design for use in the United States [See WIMS 1/4/12].

 

    SNC submitted its COL application on March 28, 2008, and supplemented the application on October 2, 2009. The NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) independently reviewed aspects of the application that concern safety, as well as a draft of the staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER). The ACRS provided the results of its review to the Commission in a report dated January 24, 2011. The NRC completed its environmental review and issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Vogtle COLs on March 24, 2011. The NRC completed and issued the FSER on August 9, 2011.

 

    The NRC certified Westinghouse's amended AP1000 design on December 30, 2011. The AP1000 is a 1,100 megawatt electric pressurized-water reactor that includes passive safety features that would cool down the reactor after an accident without the need for electricity or human intervention.

 

    A release from Southern Company indicates construction is set to begin on the nation's first two new nuclear units in 30 years. Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Thomas Fanning said, "This is a monumental accomplishment for Southern Company, Georgia Power, our partners and the nuclear industry. We are committed to bringing these units online to deliver clean, safe and reliable energy to our customers. The project is on track, and our targets related to cost and schedule are achievable." The company expects to deliver to customers more than $1 billion in benefits from the Department of Energy loan guarantees, production tax credits and recovering financing costs during construction. The company said Georgia Power expects Unit 3 to begin operating in 2016 and Unit 4 in 2017.

 

    Georgia Power President and CEO Paul Bowers said, "The new Vogtle units will provide our customers and the communities we serve with clean, affordable, reliable energy. Our communities and our country will benefit from this more than $14 billion investment, representing 4,000 to 5,000 jobs on site during peak construction, and in the process creating over 25,000 direct and indirect jobs by this project alone." Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company, is overseeing construction and will operate the two new 1,100-megawatt AP1000 units for Georgia Power and co-owners Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Georgia Power owns 45.7 percent of the new units, with a certified cost of $6.1 billion.

 

    Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) issued a statement saying in part, "This is a historic day. Today's licensing action sounds a clarion call to the world that the United States recognizes the importance of expanding nuclear energy as a key component of a low-carbon energy future that is central to job creation, diversity of electricity supply and energy security. The Nuclear Energy Institute congratulates Southern Company, the Shaw Group, Westinghouse Electric and other project participants on this exciting achievement. The United States is building new nuclear energy facilities under an improved licensing process that exhaustively addresses safety considerations. It also assures that the lessons learned from the industry's licensing and construction experience are properly applied to future projects. Ultimately, this also will benefit consumers who depend on reliable, affordable electricity from those facilities. . .

 

    "The two new reactors will power more than 1 million homes and businesses in Georgia. Westinghouse's new standardized design takes reactor safety to the highest level in U.S. history and is a huge stride forward for the nuclear energy industry and the nation. Thousands of jobs, direct and indirect, will be created from the largest construction project in Georgia history, and the electricity produced will help sustain economic growth in the region for 60 years." 

 

    Access a release from NRC (click here). Access a release from Southern Company (click here). Access a release from NEI (click here). Access more information about the amended AP1000 design review (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Senate Highway Trust Fund Bill Heads To Floor Vote

Feb 7: The Senate Finance Committee favorably reported legislation written by Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) that would make critical infrastructure investments across the country and create good-paying jobs by fully funding the Highway Trust Fund and the projects it supports [See WIMS 2/6/12]. Baucus's legislation, The Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012, was favorably reported by a count of 17 to 6, with one Senator voting present. Senator Baucus said, "This bill will make meaningful investments in transportation and will help create jobs in Montana and across the country.We need a highway system built for a 21st century economy. Our communities and businesses depend on effective transportation to help them grow, so we need to build and maintain highways to meet their needs, create jobs and improve our economy."

 

    Baucus's legislation would reauthorize and raise a total of $10.5 billion for the Highway Trust Fund, which contributes to projects that maintain the interstate highway system. Those projects ensure safety and mobility, sustain good-paying jobs, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and fund infrastructure projects of regional and national significance across the country.

 

    According to the Federal Highway Administration, every billion dollars invested in infrastructure creates or sustains nearly 35,000 jobs. With more than $10 billion of investments made, this bill could create or sustain 350,000 jobs. Infrastructure improvements also cut operating costs for businesses and allow them to grow. The Highway Trust Fund primarily relies on fuel excise taxes for its revenue, but because higher gas prices are keeping many families off the roads, receipts have dropped. Baucus's legislation would recoup those losses and reauthorize the trust fund to continue making critical investments.

 

    In explaining how the funding shortfall would be met, Senator Baucus said, "Thanks to input from Senator Hatch [Ranking Member] and other Committee members, the Chairman's Mark raises $3.7 billion for the Highway Trust Fund by moving money from the surplus Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. It is important to note that this funding comes from the fuel tax, the primary funding source for the Highway Trust Fund. Where we cannot find more revenue from the Highway Trust Fund's usual funding sources, we have focused on funding that bears a nexus to transportation. We have therefore explored funding from transportation and energy sources. These include revenues from import tariffs on foreign cars. In cases like the gas guzzler tax, where we have to move money that currently goes into the General Fund of the Treasury, we have replenished the General Fund with new revenue.  Importantly, we do this by closing tax gaps rather than raising taxes.

 

    Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT), opposed the tax portion of the bill. Senator Hatch said, "I appreciate the effort to move a bipartisan proposal forward, but increasing taxes for more federal spending in this fragile economy doesn't create a sustainable foundation for our nation's transportation system. As such, I could not, in good faith, support this legislation out of committee. Furthermore, a better way forward is through bringing more revenue and more energy, as my substitute amendment would have accomplished. Accessing more American energy both on and offshore, and allowing the Keystone pipeline to move ahead is what our nation and our economy needs."

    Hatch filed amendments which he said would improve the two-year surface transportation bill, including an amendment that would have allowed the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward and that would have opened more American energy resources both on and off shore to fund the bill. That amendment was ruled nongermane and out of the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. A Hatch amendment to clarify that retirement accounts for Federal employees are treated the same as the retirement accounts of private citizens was included in the final mark that was reported from committee. According to IRS data, current and retired Federal employees owe more than $3.3 billion dollars in delinquent taxes. Hatch said, "It's past time federal employees, who aren't paying their taxes to the tune of $3.3 billion, are put on the same footing as every other American. If you break the law and don't pay your taxes, you should be penalized the same as everyone else, irrespective of where you work. I'm glad this common-sense amendment that will level the playing field for taxpayers across the country has been incorporates into this legislation."

    The Baucus's bill is a companion piece to the Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and if favorably reported by the Finance Committee, it will be folded into the larger transportation bill for Senate debate. The Senate has developed the bipartisan MAP-21 proposal (S.1813), which would reauthorize surface transportation programs for two years at current funding levels [See WIMS 1/27/12]. 

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, released a statement on the Finance Committee's approval saying, "I am very pleased with the bipartisan vote in the Finance Committee. All systems are a go to pass a bill that will respond to our transportation needs and ensure job creation." The EPW Committee unanimously approved the two-year MAP-21, which maintains funding at current levels, on November 9, 2011 [See WIMS 11/10/11]. The Senate Finance Committee was the last committee of jurisdiction to act on their portion of the bill, which now heads to the full Senate for consideration. The current transportation authorization expires on March 31, 2012.

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate EPW Committee applauded the markup of the financing provisions that will be included in S.1318. Senator Inhofe said, "With bipartisan support, the highway bill now moves to the Senate Floor. I appreciate the hard work of the Senate Finance Committee to come to a solution on how to fund our highway bill. Today's progress is the culmination of the bipartisan efforts we have already seen in the Banking and Environment and Public Works Committees, and I look forward to these efforts continuing on both sides of the aisle as we move forward. The next step is to get this bill to the floor as soon as possible so that we can proceed to conference. . ."

 

    Access a release from Senator Baucus (click here). Access a Committee statement from Senator Baucus (click here). Access a release from Senator Hatch and link to further information about his amendments (click here). Access the markup website for links to amendments and documents (click here). Access a 4-page MAP-21 bill summary (click here). Access the complete 600-page draft MAP-21 bill (click here). Access legislative details for S.1813 (click here). [#Transport]

House E&C Committee Approves Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Feb 7: The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee held opening statements on February 6, on the markup of H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act [See WIMS 2/6/12], and continued the markup and final vote of 33-20 today. The approval was largely along party-lines where Republicans outnumber Democrats 31-23. A number of Democratic amendments were defeated. The bill will now go to the full House where it is expected to be folded into the House Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R.7) [See WIMS 2/1/12] when that legislation comes to the House floor for a vote this month.

 

    The bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority and oversight over the pipeline's permit and construction. The legislation requires FERC to approve the pipeline's permit within 30 days, with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared by the U.S. State Department as the basis for its decision. The legislation gives FERC 30 days to approve a Nebraska re-route after the State's governor has completed necessary environmental review and approved it.

 

    A Republican release indicates that Republican members touted the pipeline's numerous economic and energy security benefits while some Democrats attempted to distract the debate by suggesting the pipeline would be built to facilitate oil exports. Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said, "This argument is nothing more than red herring." 

    Whitfield pointed to a Department of Energy memorandum which he said refutes Democrats' argument that the oil transported by Keystone would be sent to China, concluding Gulf Coast refineries will likely consume additional Canadian oil sands well in excess of what would be provided by the Keystone XL pipeline. It also concludes that exports of Canadian oil sands from Port Arthur, Texas, are unlikely. Republicans said, "To suggest the Keystone XL pipeline would be built to ship oil to China defies both common sense and economic sense. If the goal were to get Canadian oil to Asian markets, it would be far easier to build a much shorter pipeline to the west and ship the oil to China -- a project Canada is considering now that President Obama has further-delayed the pipeline's construction."
 
    Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "We have been told that the new pipeline is not designed to increase supplies here, but rather to export supplies from the Gulf to other countries, including China. But that doesn't pass the common sense test. The real risk of losing out on this energy comes from not building the pipeline. If the U.S. refuses to allow this project to move forward, then not a single drop will come through Keystone XL to refiners in the Midwest and Gulf Coast. The Canadian government would have little choice, as they have made clear, but to pursue other markets for its growing oil production, including construction of a pipeline to the Pacific coast for export to China."
 
     Representative Lee Terry (R-NE), author of H.R.3548 said, "The Keystone XL pipeline will greatly enhance America's energy security. With this proposed pipeline our crude imports from Canada could reach 4 million barrels a day by 2020, twice what we currently import from the Persian gulf. Enhancing our energy partnership from Canada will strengthen America's energy future. Each additional drop of oil from Canada offsets a drop of OPEC oil."
 
    In an opening statement Chairman Upton said, "Some have questioned the widely used estimates that more than 100,000 jobs would be created by the pipeline project, including 20,000 direct jobs in construction and manufacturing. Opponents derisively claim the number could be as few as 5,000 jobs. Now, I tend to believe the labor unions and TransCanada, who have actually signed Project Labor Agreements specifying how this pipeline will be built, and by how many workers. But I have to question the project's opponents, who are so quick to dismiss their low-ball estimate of 5,000 jobs -- ignoring the fact that 5,000 jobs would make Keystone XL a much better job creator than many taxpayer-funded projects funded under the stimulus package. Before Solyndra went under, it employed 1,100 people and cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars. Today, Solyndra isn't creating any jobs except for a few bankruptcy attorneys."

 

    Chairman Upton also said, ". . .there is reason to question the claims that stopping the pipeline is the right thing to do environmentally. Without Keystone XL, Canada's rising oil production will reach its end users via increased use of tankers, barges, trains, and trucks -- all of which are riskier modes of transport than pipelines. The administration's own Final Environmental Impact Statement concludes that there is nothing to be gained by rejecting the pipeline."

 

    In an opening statement Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, "If we approve the Keystone XL pipeline, we might help with job creation in other countries. But it won't do much for the United States. A green light for Keystone will lead to massive imports of transmission pipe manufactured overseas. I'm sure the steel mills in India or China will be delighted. Canada will be able to export its tar sands to the global market, rather than having to sell it at a discounted rate in the Midwest. And because the products will be exported from a Foreign Trade Zone, China will be pleased that it can buy petroleum products without having to pay U.S. Customs duties. . .

 

    "The American people will bear the risks, and Big Oil will reap the rewards. With this pipeline, we get more carbon pollution . . . more dangerous oil spills . . . land seizures by a foreign company . . . and higher oil prices in the Midwest. Big Oil gets the ability to extract more profits from the Midwest . . . a conduit for exporting tar sands products to China . . . and the green light to exploit the tar sands at maximum speed, regardless of the consequences.

 

    "President Obama listened to the differing views of American citizens and made a responsible decision. He would not approve the pipeline through the ecologically fragile Sand Hills area in Nebraska, but the State Department would consider an alternative route. Nebraska is taking the time to find a route that is acceptable, and the President is making sure that he has all the information he needs to make the right decision. This bill takes the opposite approach. It gives the pipeline an unprecedented regulatory earmark. It directs FERC to approve the pipeline even though we don't yet know what route it will take through Nebraska. . .

 

    "I wanted to know why Koch would tell the U.S. Congress one thing and the Canadian government the exact opposite. Unfortunately, Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield have refused to invite Koch to testify. So we are left with unanswered questions. Why is Koch Industries being placed in a witness protection program? What does the company have to hide? And why does the company get special treatment while the American people get left in the dark?. . . This pipeline is a bad idea, and so is this bill."

 

    Democrats offered amendments which were defeated relating to: regarding restrictions on use of eminent domain (defeated); barring the exportation of any pipeline products; requiring the President's approval; requiring a review of the risks associated with transporting diluted bitumen; and requiring that at least 75% of the iron and steel used be produced in North America.

 

    Access a release from House Republicans (click here). Access the Republican markup website for background information, full text, webcast and opening statement (click here). Access the Democratic markup website for Democratic amendments, webcast and opening statement (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3548 (click here). [#Energy/KXL]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House Hearing On EPA & Fostering Quality Science

Feb 3: The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Chaired by Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) held a hearing entitled, "Fostering Quality Science at EPA: Perspectives on Common Sense Reform – Day II." Witnesses included representatives from the Health Effects Institute; EPA's Science Advisory Board; American Chemistry Council; Regulatory Checkbook; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa; and the National Institute of Statistical Sciences.

 

    In a release from the Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) it was noted that the first hearing of this series, held last November, was intended to serve as an opportunity to evaluate EPA's research enterprise, but instead the discussion focused on hydraulic fracturing. The second hearing was intended to inform the subcommittee on structural and substantive concerns of external stakeholders related to EPA's research activities, but the witness panel was primarily made up of representatives from right-wing think tanks.

 

    In a brief opening statement, Chairman Harris said, "Unfortunately, the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act, or ERDDAA, which is the statute authorizing R&D at EPA as well as the Science Advisory Board, was last reauthorized for fiscal year 1981. I think we can all agree that our fiscal, environmental, and economic priorities have changed dramatically over the last 30 years, and we should have statutes and a Congressional role in environmental policy that reflects these changes. As we have held nearly a dozen oversight hearings on specific EPA issues during this Congress, we have seen patterns of behavior that suggest the need for significant reforms.

 

    At day one of this hearing, we received testimony from several witnesses with decades of experience. . . They provided specific recommendations on reforming scientific activities at EPA, including the need to separate science and policy, to quantify uncertainties, to ensure greater transparency in the data, models, and assumptions used in regulatory decisions, to prioritize environmental problems and solutions, and to stop overly alarmist approaches to benefit-cost analysis."

 

    Representative Miller said, "I am pleased to see that we have some panelists with the experience and knowledge required to address in detail critical improvements that can make EPA's research enterprise more effective, efficient, and transparent. At the least, this is not just a panel of witnesses armed only talking points and flailing criticism meant to undermine or dismantle the one agency charged with protecting our citizens and the environment from unlawful pollution. . . As I have stated before, I approach this task hoping to work with my Republican counterparts in pursuing reforms that will lead to better research practices that help EPA accomplish its mission. . . I understand the amount of research, stakeholder conversations, and thought that must take place to write legislation as important and ambitious as the reauthorization of ERDDA."

 

    A GOP release indicated that witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need for greater transparency of scientific data and research results. Dr. Stanley Young, Assistant Director for Bioinformatics at the National Institute of Statistical Sciences said, "On publication of a paper, where research is funded by the EPA, the data should be made public. When the EPA proposes a regulation based on science, it should name the papers it is depending on and it should make data sets used in those papers publicly available. . . Claims are more likely to be valid and the resulting policy sensible.  Let normal science help in the vetting process.  Make the data available."

 

    Michael Walls, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council said, "At the heart of the problem in the Federal government's processes for assessing risks to environment and human health is the lack of a consistent, coherent, science-based framework that binds the agencies to an appropriate and transparent approach for weighing evidence, considering uncertainty, and keeping up with advances in the field. The processes for considering scientific information and data and the standards and criteria used in risk assessment need to be modernized and streamlined to meet both today's needs and greater challenges of the future."

 

    To demonstrate how the quality of science has eroded, Walls pointed to problems with the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments of n-butanol and dioxin as well as with the evaluation of formaldehyde and styrene in the 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC). He said, "Why do we need to get this right? About 80% of IRIS assessments haven't been updated for more than 15 years. 90% are now at least 10 years old. Meanwhile, the science that informs our understanding of chemicals and exposures has continued to advance by leaps and bounds. That new science should surely inform our regulatory and policy decisions."

 

    The Chairwoman of EPA's Science Advisory Board, appointed in 2008 by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson summarized saying, ". . .we are supportive of these changes at ORD. More could be done, more is being done, but I believe, and our reports have indicated, that ORD is moving in the right direction." She said, "The best available science is essential to sound decision‐making, but is not the only aspect to sound policy decisions. What is "best available science"? While hard to provide a simple one‐size‐fits‐all definition, generally it is scientific results, conclusions, and technical information that has been produced using proven methods, that has been peer‐reviewed, where hypotheses are tested with objective and unbiased approaches, and that has support for its conclusions from other independent studies. EPA cannot possibly do all of the science needed by the Program Offices and Regional Offices. Some of this needed science is conducted within EPA, and some science is used from outside research to verify, supplement, and in general add to the collective body of knowledge used to inform a given decision. . ."

   

    She continued saying, "For purposes of maximum transparency and quality assurance, we usually advise the Agency not to include reports that have not been peer‐reviewed, or journal manuscripts in preparation or draft form but not yet published. As a researcher who has received funding from EPA and many other agencies, I have found that EPA has very high standards for data quality and assurance. . . It [EPA] is sorely short of resources to provide the capacity needed for all the science questions at the Agency, and yet there is no other agency where such environmentally focused and directed science is being done to fill the unique mission of protecting the public's health and the environment on which they depend. Investing in EPA science is a wise investment. . ."

 

    Access a Republican release on the hearing (click here). Access the Republican hearing website for links to statements,  testimony and webcast (click here). Access a Democratic release on the hearing (click here). Access the Democrats website for the hearing (click here).

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

"Common-Sense Approach" Or "Plan To Block" Oil Shale Development

Feb 3: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The publication opens a 90-day public review and comment period. BLM called the proposal a "common-sense approach" while House Republican leaders said it was the Obama Administration's "plan to block U.S. oil shale development and U.S. job creation."

 

    The Draft PEIS analyzes several alternatives for land allocation and resource management. Under the BLM's Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft PEIS, the BLM would continue to support the research and development of hydrocarbon deposits in an environmentally responsible way that protects scarce water supplies in the arid West.

 

    If the BLM decides to adopt the Preferred Alternative, 461,965 acres would be available for research and development of oil shale, a kerogen-rich rock (35,308 acres in Colorado; 252,181 acres in Utah; and 174,476 acres in Wyoming). In addition, 91,045 acres in eastern Utah would be available for activities related to tar sands, a type of hydrocarbon-wet sedimentary deposit. BLM Director Bob Abbey said, "The preferred alternative continues our commitment to encouraging research, development, and demonstration projects so that companies can develop technologies that can lead to economic and commercial viability. Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale development, we are proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial-scale activity. If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first."

 

    BLM indicated in a release that, "To date, technological and economic conditions have not combined to support a sustained commercial oil shale industry in the United States, and there is currently no commercial development of oil shale in the areas under review in the draft PEIS." Lands that would be open to oil shale development under the Preferred Alternative would be available for Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) leases. BLM could issue a commercial lease after a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and meets all federal regulations for conversion to a commercial lease.

 

    Additionally, following the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office -- which determined that several fundamental questions about oil shale technologies remain unanswered, including critical questions about water demands -- the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is undertaking an analysis of baseline water resources conditions to improve the understanding of groundwater and surface water systems that could be affected by commercial-scale oil shale development.

 

    BLM indicates that "oil shale" is a term used to describe a wide range of fine-grained, sedimentary rocks that contain solid bituminous materials called kerogen. It should not be confused with "shale oil," which is not addressed by the draft PEIS.  Kerogen, which is organic matter derived mainly from aquatic organisms, releases petroleum-like liquids when subjected to extremely high temperatures -- more than 750 degrees.  Developers have been trying to produce oil from this rock in an economically-viable way for more than a century. The majority of U.S. oil shale (and the world's largest oil shale deposit) is found in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

 

    Tar sands are sedimentary rocks containing a heavy hydrocarbon compound called bitumen. They can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. However, unlike the oil sands deposits in Canada, oil is not currently produced from tar sands on a significant commercial level in the United States. Additionally, the U.S. tar sands are hydrocarbon wet, whereas the Canadian oil sands are water wet. This difference means that U.S. tar sands will require different processing techniques.

 

    Any new land allocation decisions made on the basis of the Final PEIS would replace the land allocation decisions made in 2008 that proposed making up to 2 million acres of public lands available for commercial oil shale leasing in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming and 431,000 acres available for tar sands leasing in Utah.  Some Western communities argued that the 2008 PEIS and Record of Decision would have prematurely allowed commercial leasing without technologies having been proven viable and without a clear understanding of impacts on scarce Western water supplies. In response to those concerns and in settlement of litigation, the agency agreed to reconsider the 2008 land allocation decisions.

 

    BLM indicates that a 90-day public review and comment period began on February 3, 2012 and is scheduled to end on May 4, 2012 [Note: The FR notice 77 FR 5513, indicates that the comment deadline ends on 05/02/2012]. Public meetings on the Draft PEIS will also be held in Rifle, CO; Rock Springs, WY; Salt Lake City; and Vernal, UT. The public will be notified of the dates and times of these meetings at least 15 days in advance via local media and the project website.

 

    House Natural Resources (NR) Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) immediately released a statement entitled, "Obama Admin. Announces Plan to Block U.S. Oil Shale Development and U.S. Job Creation." Representative Hastings said, "The distinction between the pro-American job policies of House Republicans and the anti-American energy policies of the Obama Administration could not be clearer. On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Committee approved a bipartisan bill [H.R.3408] to promote the development of U.S. oil shale and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs. On Friday, the Obama Administration released their plan to close over a million acres of federal land to oil shale development. Republicans have a plan to expand access to American energy resources, grow our economy, and put people back to work. The Obama Administration has a plan to lock-up U.S. energy resources and send jobs overseas. This unfortunately is just one more example to add to the ever-growing list of Obama Administration actions that block U.S. energy production."

    Rep. Hastings said that according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. holds more than half of the world's oil shale resources. The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. USGS estimates show the region may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil -- six times Saudi Arabia's proven resources, and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years.

    On February 1, the House NR Committee approved H.R.3408, the "Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act" or "PIONEERS Act" as part of the House American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R.7). The sponsor, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said, "Oil Shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made energy and the United States is fortunate to have an abundance of oil shale resources. These resources are an important component of America's energy future. This bill removes the uncertainty from oil shale development and opens up land for both research and commercial development of oil shale. It will create consistent policies that businesses can rely on to move forward, contribute to our energy security, and create good paying American jobs for thousands of Americans." 

    Access a lengthy release from BLM with contact and commenting information, and links to the Draft PEIS, FR notice and related information (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the markup website for opening statements, a video and a summary of the NR Committee's actions on the Markup (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3408 (click here). [#Energy/OilShale, #Energy/TarSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals