Thursday, July 19, 2012

GOP & DEMS Square Off On "War On Coal" Report & Hearing

Jul 19: A report, prepared by the Democratic staff of the Natural Resources Committee, at the direction of Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), calls into question the benefits to America of allowing "destructive mining practices to continue" if that coal is going to subsequently be shipped to foreign nations like China. The report, Our Pain, Their Gain, provides an analysis of coal mine data and shows that coal exports have exploded from Appalachian operations over the last few years, with some mines exporting 100 percent of their coal abroad.
 
    The report analyzed data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, and included self-reported data from the mines themselves. Some of the top findings of the report include:
  • The number of mountaintop removal, steep slope and surface mines exporting coal from West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Virginia increased from 73 mines in 2008 to 97 in 2011.
  • Coal exports from these mines in these four states have grown by 91 percent since 2009 to 13.2 million tons in 2011.
  • 25 of those mines exported more than half of their production in 2011. One Russian company is exporting nearly 83 percent of the coal from three mines in West Virginia, and five mines are shipping 100 percent of their coal abroad.
  • Overall, these 97 mines exported 27 percent of their production in 2011, more than doubling from 13 percent exported in 2008.

    Rep. Markey, the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee said, "American families are being subjected to coal mine pollution and damage, just so exports to China and other foreign nations can increase. The coal may be shipped to foreign markets, but the diseases, the destroyed mountaintops, and the environmental ruin from these destructive practices are staying right here in America."

    Rep. Markey indicated in a release that, "The report comes as Republicans and the coal industry are attempting to beat back safeguards that would protect communities from coal mining pollution, including a hearing held today [see below] by the Natural Resources Republicans to attack rules that would protect streams and drinking water from mining operation pollution." He also indicated that the export issue is not isolated in the Appalachian region, as coal companies mining in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming are angling to vastly increase coal exports.

    The House Natural Resources Committee received testimony from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) Director Joseph Pizarchik at a Committee oversight hearing on the status of the Department of the Interior's (DOI's) rewrite of a 2008 coal regulation which Republicans said "could cost thousands of jobs and economic harm in 22 states, as well as the failure of the Department to respond to Congressional subpoenas for documents on the rewrite."

    Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) said, "The Committee expects answers at this hearing. The Department has largely stonewalled the Committee's investigation into the Administration's highly unorthodox and questionable rulemaking process that could leave thousands of hardworking Americans unemployed. Director Pizarchik should be prepared to fully and completely answer questions regarding the Department's refusal to comply with the two subpoenas for documents, the current status of the rulemaking, and the Department's failure to abide by its voluntary court settlement agreement to complete the rule rewrite by the end of last month."

    In an opening statement, Chairman Hastings said, "Almost immediately after President Obama took office, his Administration tossed aside the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, which had taken over five years of thorough environmental and scientific analysis and public comment to complete. The Department then entered into a lawsuit settlement with environmental groups to rewrite the rule by June 29, 2012. The Administration has spent millions of taxpayer dollars working to rewrite this rule including hiring new contractors,. only to dismiss those same contractors once it was publically revealed that the Administration's new proposed regulation could cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 states. . .
 
    "Today, this Committee expects answers -- open, honest and complete answers. It's inexcusable the way in which the Department has stonewalled this Committee's legitimate oversight efforts. The Obama Administration has made no secret of their desire to reduce or prohibit coal production. Their war on coal is being carried out on multiple fronts -- from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Office of Surface Mining -- all using the same tactic of imposing onerous red tape that will slowly cripple the industry. Never mind the thousands of American families and small businesses that depend on coal for their livelihood. . ."
 
    OSM's Director Joseph Pizarchik testified that, "Along with responsible oil and gas development and the growth of clean, renewable energy, coal is an important component of our nation's energy portfolio, and the responsible development of this important resource is a key part of America's energy and economic security. . ."
 
    Pizarchik concluded his testimony saying, "Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to testify on the development of OSM's Stream Protection Rule. The Department recognizes congressional oversight is an important part of our system of government, and we remain hopeful that the Department and the Committee can continue to work together to satisfy the Committee's oversight interests in this matter, while also safeguarding the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the Department's ongoing efforts to develop a Stream Protection Rule. In that effort, we remain committed to developing a proposal that will more fully carry out the bureau's mission, make use of the best available science and technology, better protect communities and water supplies from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining, and provide greater clarity and certainty to the mining industry and the affected communities. We remain just as committed to providing ample opportunity for the Congress, public, industry, stakeholders and others to provide input on that proposal that will help us develop a balanced and responsible final rule. . ."
 
    Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the complete 38-page report (click here). Access the Republican hearing website for background, opening statement, testimony and a webcast (click here). [#Energy/Coal]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

API Says EPA's Science Doesn't Justify PM2.5 Proposal

Jul 17: Howard Feldman, Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute (API) delivered a statement at a U.S. EPA hearing in Philadelphia and said the Agency's scientific analysis for its proposal on fine particulate air standards was "inadequate and could not justify tightening them." He said continued implementation of the existing standards would further improve air quality.

    Feldman said, "EPA has not proven a 'cause and effect' between PM 2.5 below the current standards and health effects…. Taken as a whole, the scientific studies cut in different directions…. There is no need to move the goalposts now. I am encouraged by the progress our nation has made in reducing fine particle emissions in our skies. The concentration of PM2.5 in the nation's air has declined by 24 percent between 2001 and 2010. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry has significantly contributed to these improvements by developing and manufacturing ultra-clean fuels that can be used in the new very low emission diesel and gasoline engines. More good news is that the improvements will continue…. When announcing this proposal, EPA stated that it has issued a number of rules already that will continue to make significant strides toward reducing fine particle emissions in the years ahead. These future improvements are independent of whether any action is taken to change these standards."
 
    On June 15, U.S. EPA announced that in response to a court order, it was proposing updates to its national air quality standards for harmful fine particle pollution, including soot (PM2.5) [See WIMS 6/18/12]. A Federal court ruling required EPA to update the standard based on best available science and EPA said its proposal, met that requirement, and "builds on smart steps already taken by the Agency to slash dangerous pollution in communities across the country."
 
    EPA's said its proposal would strengthen the annual health standard for harmful fine particle pollution (PM2.5) to a level within a range of 13 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The current annual standard is 15 micrograms per cubic meter [See WIMS 9/21/06]. EPA said the proposed changes are consistent with the advice from its independent science advisors, and are based on an extensive body of scientific evidence that includes thousands of studies -- including many large studies which show negative health impacts at lower levels than previously understood.
 
    Mandy Warner, who testified at the hearing for Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Philadelphia is home to 32,000 children at risk from asthma and more than 363,000 people at risk from heart disease. Emission reductions made here in Pennsylvania, along with reductions made in other states whose pollution travels into Pennsylvania, will help improve air quality, ensuring healthier, longer lives. . . The public has been waiting long enough for updated standards based on the latest science. Every year of delay has resulted in thousands of avoidable deaths, numerous heart attacks, asthma attacks, and other health impacts. We look forward to EPA finalizing strong health-protective standards."
 
    Access a release and link to the complete statement from API (click here). Access a release from EDF with links to the complete statement (click here). Access a list of speakers at the Philadelphia public hearing (click here). Access a release from EPA on the proposal with links to a map showing counties in attainment in 2020 and more information including the proposed rule, fact sheets and support documents (click here). [#Air]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

House Ag Committee Approves Its Version Of Farm Bill

Jul 17: The House Agriculture Committee Chaired by Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) approved the House version of the Farm Bill, H.R.6083, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 (FARRM), by a vote of 35-11 on July 11. On June 21, the U.S. Senate approved its version, S.3240, with a final vote of 64-35 [See WIMS 6/21/12]. The current bill expires on September 30, and legislators and agriculture and conservation interests are now concerned that time is running short to get a bill passed the House, reconciled with the Senate bill, and to the President before the expiration deadline.
 
    The Chair and Ranking Member issued a joint statement. Chairman Lucas said, "Today marked an important step forward in the development of the next farm bill. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues and the bipartisan nature in which this legislation was written and approved. This is a balanced, reform-minded, fiscally responsible bill that underscores our commitment to production agriculture and rural America, achieves real savings, and improves program efficiency."
 
    Ranking Member Peterson said, "I'm pleased today's markup is behind us and we can continue to move the process forward. The current farm bill expires on September 30 and there only 13 legislative days before the August recess. Simply put, the House leadership needs to bring the farm bill to the floor for a vote. We should not jeopardize the health of our rural economies which, by and large, have remained strong the last few years. Our nation's farmers and ranchers need the certainty of a new five year farm bill and they need it before the current farm bill ends."
 
    On July 17, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) joined anti-hunger, public health, labor, and animal welfare groups at the National Press Club to voice deep concerns on the House version approved by Committee. EWG said, "The budget-busting House farm bill will feed fewer people, help fewer farmers, do less to promote healthy diets and weaken environmental protections – and it will cost far more than expected. This bill is Robin Hood in reverse – it cuts funding for nutrition assistance programs like SNAP to help finance even more lavish subsidies for the largest and most successful farmers.

    "By cutting more than $16 billion from SNAP and more than $6 billion from environmental programs, the House bill will leave more than 2 million people without enough food to eat and contribute to the loss of millions of acres of wetlands and grasslands. What's more, the bill guts rules that protect water quality and wetlands from pesticides, weakens federal reviews of biotech crops, and undermines the ability of states to set consumer safety or environmental standards.

    "Rather than provide a true safety net for all farmers, the House bill will give every big subsidized grower a raise in the form of higher price guarantees for their crops – at a time when large commercial farms have average household incomes of more than $200,000 a year and net farm income has nearly doubled. Instead of placing reasonable limits on crop insurance subsidies, the Lucas-Peterson proposal actually expands them – at a cost of more than $9 billion. Reasonable reforms such as payment limits, means testing and administrative reforms – which are applied to nutrition assistance but not crop insurance – could save taxpayers more than $20 billion."

    On July 3, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Farm Programs: Direct Payments Should Be Reconsidered (GAO-12-640, Jul 3, 2012). GAO recommended that Congress should consider eliminating or reducing direct payments [See WIMS 7/3/12]. 

    The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman issued a statement saying, "As the congressional calendar ticks down, time is of the essence. There are very few days remaining for this bill to be completed, but we need a new farm bill this year. We are committed to working with members of Congress to secure a bill that works for all Americans. For more than a year, we have been advocating farm policy that protects and strengthens risk management programs for all farmers. This legislation maintains proven program features such as the marketing loan provision and strengthens the crop insurance program while setting a clear example of fiscal responsibility with significant but fair reductions in agriculture spending over the next decade

    "Just as with the Senate farm bill, there are provisions we think could be improved – and we will continue working with leadership of both committees as the process moves forward. But at a time when bipartisan compromise is such a challenge in Washington, it is refreshing to see agriculture, through our elected leaders, set a clear example of working together on building a package of reforms in a fiscally responsible manner. We remain hopeful a farm bill can be completed and sent to President Obama before the current programs expire September 30."

    Access the statement from the House Ag Committee and link to more information on the FARRM bill (click here). Access the statement from EWG and link to the full press briefing (click here). Access the statement from AFBF (click here). Access the legislative details for H.R.6083 (click here). Access the legislative details for S.3240 (click here). Access the complete 57-page GAO report (click here). [#Agriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy]

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

Monday, July 16, 2012

Global Temps Fourth Warmest June Since Records Began In 1880

Jul 16: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center released its State of the Climate Global Analysis report for June 2012. According to the report, the average global temperature across land and oceans during June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F) and ranked as the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880. June 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average June temperature was June 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985. It was the second warmest June in the Northern Hemisphere, behind only the record warmth of 2010. The Southern Hemisphere had its 12th warmest June on record.

    The global land surface temperature for June was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F), the warmest June on record. This is the second month in a row that the global land temperature was the warmest on record for that month. The Northern Hemisphere average land temperature, where the majority of Earth's land is located, was record warmest for June. This makes three months in a row -- April, May, and June -- in which record-high monthly land temperature records were set. Most areas experienced much higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including most of North America and Eurasia, and northern Africa. Only northern and western Europe, and the northwestern United States were notably cooler than average.

    Across the world's oceans, the June average global sea surface temperature was 0.47°C (0.85°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the 10th warmest June on record. Ocean temperatures were notably below average in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and much higher than average in the northeast Atlantic and in the Labrador Sea near Greenland. The region of the equatorial Pacific Ocean where ENSO (El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation) conditions are measured also trended higher than average in June. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center issued an El Niño watch, and stated that there is an increased chance for El Niño beginning in July–September 2012. NOAA listed global highlights of the report as follows:

  • The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.
  • The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.
  • The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.
  • ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10th warmest June on record.
  • The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average.

    Access the complete report with charts, graphs, and tables (click here). [#Climate]

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

Friday, July 13, 2012

No More Solyndras Act Would End DOE Loan Guarantees

Jul 12: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Energy and Power and Oversight and Investigations held a joint hearing to discuss a draft of the "No More Solyndras Act." [See WIMS 7/11/12]. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) co-authored the legislation which they say will "ensure taxpayers will never again be left on the hook for the administration's risky bets." The bill would effectively terminate the administration's loan guarantee program under Section 1705, which has awarded over $16 billion in loan guarantees for clean and renewable energy projects.
 
    Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: David Frantz, Acting Executive Director of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Program Office; Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE); and representatives from Coalition for Green Capital; The Heritage Foundation; Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; Energy and Campus Development University of New Hampshire; Saint-Gobain Corporation on behalf of Industrial Energy Consumers of America; Schneider Electric on behalf of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and NEMA's Industrial Energy Efficiency Coalition; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; and Alliance to Save Energy.
 
    Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said in an opening statement, "What the critics fail to comprehend is that this has never been about the merits of one energy source over another, but rather it is a debate focused on the incompetence and gross mismanagement of the Obama administration. Our aggressive oversight uncovered the problem, and now we must fix it. The Solyndra loan guarantee was a massive failure every way you look at it. Just consider that the California solar panel maker's business model was so flawed that a $535 million dollar government handout was not enough to stop it from going bankrupt. . .
 
    "Of course, one bad loan does not make a trend, but other recipients of loan guarantees and other stimulus programs have joined Solyndra in bankruptcy, and the ultimate cost to taxpayers could reach into the billions. And even those recipients that remain solvent have achieved few worthwhile advances toward meeting the nation's energy needs. . . I still believe there is a legitimate role for the federal government in funding basic research. But sadly, the Obama administration's gross mismanagement of the loan guarantee program necessitates the phase out of the Title XVII loan guarantee program. With the bankruptcies starting to pile up, our message to American taxpayers is clear: There will be No More Solyndras."
 
    Full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "This is a hearing for politics. That's all it is. . . We need to act to reduce carbon pollution, and there are a range of options for doing that. . . House Republicans oppose every potential solution. They say "no" to market-based solutions like cap-and-trade. "No" to cost-effective regulations. "No" to loan guarantees or financial incentives for clean energy – even if they would improve our nation's global competitiveness. They even say "no" to simply understanding the problem. . . I'm sorry Solyndra happened. We lost $500 million dollars. That's a shame, but that's why loan guarantees are provided, because these are risky enterprises and not all of them are going to succeed. But there has been no showing of wrong-doing by anybody in this Administration due to the Solyndra loan loss. . .
   
    "So what are they proposing? Legislation that would, they say, end this loan guarantee program, but would instead provide billions of dollars still to be used. But they do it in a way that would ignore the best possible technologies. They create a winner's list of about 50 projects that are eligible, and if any new idea comes up in this year or next, it wouldn't even be eligible to seek a loan guarantee. Even the technologies that Republicans claim to support are abandoned. If an application for a small modular nuclear reactor or a next-generation nuclear plant is submitted, DOE is required to reject it. . ." 
 
    DOE testified that the Loan Programs Office (LPO) administers two federal loan guarantee programs -- Section 1703 and 1705 -- for energy technology projects authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) as amended. It also administers direct loans for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program as authorized under Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). DOE said the "loan programs are a critical part of our nation's commitment to clean energy."
 
    Section 1703, was established to support the U.S. deployment of new, innovative technology projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the program has $18.5 billion in loan guarantee authority for nuclear power projects, $1.5 billion in authority for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, $8 billion in authority for advanced fossil projects, $4 billion of authority allocated for front-end nuclear projects, and $2 billion of authority that is not allocated to a specific technology sector.
 
    The Section 1705 program was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, stimulus act) to jump-start the country's clean energy sector by supporting various renewable energy projects that had difficulty securing financing in a tight credit market. The ATVM Program was established to expand U.S. business opportunities for advanced automotive technologies that contribute to energy independence and security. Section 136 of EISA 2007 authorizes DOE to finance U.S.-based businesses for manufacturing advanced technology vehicles or vehicle components and for engineering integration facilities. The FY 2009 Continuing Resolution provided up to $25 billion in direct loan authority for the ATVM program, with $7.5 billion in appropriated credit subsidy.
 
    DOE indicated that the LPO has committed or closed $35 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees, which finance nearly three dozen projects, with total project costs greater than $55 billion. When the Section 1705 program ended on September 30, 2011, it included a portfolio of over $16 billion in loan guarantees for 28 renewable energy projects. Collectively, LPO projects are expected to support nearly 60,000 jobs and deploy alternative energy that will save nearly 300 million gallons of gasoline per year. Of LPO's 19 generation projects, six are already complete and nine are sending power to the electricity grid.
 
    DOE concluded, "Securing America's economic leadership in the future requires that we support innovation and deployment today. The troubles of some segments in the solar manufacturing market should not overshadow the great work that the Department's loan programs have done to date, or the need to continue to find ways to support clean energy deployment in this country. That said, developing a robust clean energy manufacturing sector in the United States is crucial to our long-term national interests, and would help enable American companies and workers to attain the tools needed to succeed in this competitive space. And one of the most important tools -- as our global competitors have learned -- is financing on reasonable terms, wisely targeted and responsibly deployed. The question is whether we are willing to take on this challenge, or whether we will simply cede leadership in clean energy to other nations and watch as tens of thousands of jobs are created overseas. We were once the leaders in this field, and we can be again."
 
    Access the Republican website for the hearing including statements, testimony, background, draft bills and webcasts (click here). Access the Democratic website for the hearing including statements, testimony and webcasts (click here). Access a Republican release for the hearing (click here). [#Energy/Renewable, #Energy/Clean]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Industry Groups Release Critical Analysis Of EPA Fracking Study Plan

Jul 10: The American Petroleum Institute (API) senior policy advisor Stephanie Meadows told reporters that more collaboration is needed on EPA's study on hydraulic fracturing and drinking water [See WIMS 3/19/12]. She said a new 166-page Battelle Memorial Institute report -- Review of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan EPA/600/R11/122 -- concluded that the study could be enhanced in several ways, including encouraging more stakeholder collaboration. API and America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) sponsored the Battelle report. EPA has indicated that a first progress report on its study is planned for late 2012, and a final draft report is expected to be released for public comment and peer review in 2014.

    Meadows said, "Battelle's analysis of the plan for EPA's study reinforces many of our previously stated concerns about the study and raises new ones. It finds deficiencies in the rigor, funding, focus and stakeholder inclusiveness of the plan. We intend Battelle's report to be -- and hope the agency sees it as -- our continued interest in working together to produce the most scientifically sound study possible. A robust, thorough, careful study is important because it has the potential to affect the future course of shale energy development, which has enormous potential for improving our energy security and economy for decades to come. We're not calling on EPA to stop its study. We're calling on them to do it right. We hope Battelle's analysis will encourage that."
 
    ANGA President and Chief Executive Officer Regina Hopper said, "This is a study with potentially great significance to our nation's energy future, and it must be pursued with the utmost scientific rigor. The Battelle analysis clearly shows that we aren't there yet.  But we can get there-and we must get there. ANGA and its members continue to support EPA's effort to conduct a balanced study based on sound scientific principles. Given industry's extensive experience with production of oil and gas from unconventional reservoirs, its unique expertise in the process of hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies, and its wealth of relevant data and information available to inform this effort, it is a weakness of the study plan, and its implementation, that significant industry collaboration is not envisioned. EPA's study has the potential for enormous impacts on citizens, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and all economic sectors. We remain confident that a science- and data-driven examination will provide policymakers and the public with even greater reassurance of the safety of this practice."
 
    According to the Battelle report, EPA states the purpose of the planned study "is to elucidate the relationship, if any, between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources." Furthermore, according to EPA, the overarching goal is to answer the following two research questions: 1) can hydraulic fracturing impact drinking water resources? and 2) if so, what conditions are associated with these potential impacts? Lastly, EPA defines hydraulic fracturing as "a well stimulation technique used to maximize production of oil and natural gas in unconventional reservoirs, such as shale gas, coalbeds, and tight sands."

    Battelle indicates, "While those stated purposes, goals and definitions are all consistent with the congressional request, the actual scope and design of the study plan do not provide the same consistency. They reach beyond "studying the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water" encompassing numerous peripheral elements related to the broader enterprise of all oil and gas exploration and production activities, such as various upstream and downstream stages of the water lifecycle, site preparation and development, and standard oil and gas production and other industrial activities. EPA also elected to add a study element on Environmental Justice (EJ) that is not central to a scientific study of the drinking water effects of hydraulic fracturing. It is neither explicitly nor implicitly included in the congressional request. . ."

    In March 2010, EPA released a scoping document for evaluating the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. The initial study design adopted "a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to identify potential interrelationships between energy, water, the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, the surrounding environment, and safeguards for public health protection." In April 2010, the EPA received advice on the scoping document from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in an open meeting, followed in June 2010 by written recommendations. Public comments were also submitted. Later in 2010, EPA held sector specific and State and Federal partner consultation meetings, public meetings and other meetings to solicit input to the overall study plan. EPA also requested information from nine hydraulic fracturing service companies on the chemical composition and other information related to fracturing fluids. In February 2011, EPA released a draft study plan, followed in August by the SAB's evaluation of the draft study plan. Finally, in November 2011 EPA released the Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (study plan) [See WIMS 11/3/11].

    Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from ANGA (click here). Access the complete 166-page Battelle report (click here). Access a release from EPA on its study plan (click here). Access the 190-page final EPA study plan (click here). Access a new Q&A document on EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing study (click here). Access EPA's release on the seven case study locations (click here). Access EPA's website on the fracking study (click here). Access more information on EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing website (click here). [#Energy/Frack]

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

House Hearing On Alternative Fuels & Vehicles

Jul 10: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing entitled, "The American Energy Initiative: A Focus on Alternative Fuels and Vehicles, Both the Challenges and the Opportunities." Witnesses included representatives from the: Cumberland Gulf Group; American Petroleum Institute; Renewable Fuels Association; American Tradition Institute; Advanced Biofuels Association; Truman National Security Project; National Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia University; National Wildlife Federation; Methanol Institute; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Flex Fuel US; America's Natural Gas Alliance; and Johnson Controls Inc. Much of the hearing dealt with the pros and cons of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that requires 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into transportation fuel by 2022.
 
   In an opening statement from Representative John Sullivan (R-OK) said, "Gasoline and diesel fuel currently dominate the transportation sector, and that is not likely to change any time soon. For that reason, we need to take steps to ensure plentiful and affordable supplies of petroleum and the fuels that are made from it. That means expanding domestic oil production, approving the Keystone XL pipeline to allow more Canadian oil to come into the country, and reviewing the red tape that raises the cost of refining crude into gasoline and diesel fuel. That is why I strongly supported measures like the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, and why I will continue to fight for a commonsense, pro-consumer, pro-jobs, and pro-energy policy.

    "But in addition, we need to look at options other than petroleum derived fuels, and indeed we are doing so. We are well into implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard created in the 2005 energy bill and expanded in the 2007 bill. The RFS has achieved some successes such as increased ethanol production. However, some also see shortcomings with the RFS that may need to be addressed. Even beyond ethanol and other biofuels, there are many other alternative fuels and vehicles, including natural gas, electricity, coal-to-liquids, methanol, and flex-fuel vehicles. Each offers its own unique mix of advantages as well as disadvantages, and all offer the benefits of diversification."
 
    Full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement highlighted the benefits from the Administration's finalized and proposed fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards saying they "will save 2.2 million barrels of oil a day by 2025" and "reduce our carbon pollution by over 6 billion metric tons." But, he said, ". . .we have more work to do. American families are still getting whipsawed when gasoline prices unexpectedly spike. The money we spend on oil abroad continues to conflict with our foreign policy goals and national security."
 
    Rep. Waxman also discussed recent extreme weather events and said, "We cannot afford to ignore climate change in the development of our energy policies. The two are inextricably linked." He concluded, "We need to continue our push towards alternative fueled vehicles, whether they are plug-in electric drive commuter vehicles, long-haul natural gas trucks, or renewable fuels. The Obama Administration has made real progress on a seemingly intractable problem. We're finally heading in the right direction."
 
    American Petroleum Institute (API) testified that it "supports the continued, appropriate use of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels as blending components in transportation fuels" but said, "EPA has allowed the RFS law's volume requirements to drive decisions that are inappropriate and unwise. The law has become increasingly unrealistic, unworkable, and a threat to consumers. It needs an overhaul, especially with respect to the volume requirements." On the E15 waiver API said, "E15 is a different transportation fuel, well outside the range for which the vast majority of U.S. vehicles and engines have been designed and warranted."
 
    The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) praised the RFS and said, "One important alternative fuel -- ethanol -- is already helping to address these national concerns. America's ethanol industry -- buttressed by a visionary Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) -- is already decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, already exerting downward pressure on gasoline prices, already employing tens of thousands of American workers, and already cleaning up our air. As a result of the forward-looking nature of the RFS, the industry is poised to make even more significant contributions to our nation's economic and environmental security in the future."
 
    National Wildlife Federation (NWF) testified extensively on extreme weather events and said, "Carbon pollution is changing our climate; and our changing climate is contributing to extreme weather; and in order to slow down this devastating trend, we need to dramatically cut carbon pollution. . . Corn ethanol has shown what is possible, but it is not the long term answer to our nation's energy needs. We need more support to get us to the next generation of biofuels from non-food, perennial crops and wastes, that create significant greenhouse gas reductions and not lead to other major environmental problems. New fuel economy standards are essential. . ."
 
    Access the Republican website for the hearing with statements, testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the Democratic website for the hearing with statements, testimony and a webcast (click here). [#Energy/RFS, #Energy/CAFO]

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

NTSB Report On Enbridge Oil Spill Near Marshall, MI

Jul 10: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held a meeting to release its findings on the July 25, 2010, Enbridge Incorporated pipeline rupture in Marshall, Michigan, and the subsequent release of more than 840,000 gallons of crude oil into nearby wetlands, Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents, promoting transportation safety, and assisting victims of transportation accidents and their families. Deborah Hersman, NTSB Chairman delivered a haunting account of the Enbridge spill events in opening statement as follows:
Over the course of this investigation, I travelled to Marshall twice. During my first trip, I met with local, state and federal officials, and Enbridge officers and had the opportunity to survey the damage and the extensive cleanup effort supervised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. My second time in Marshall I joined other federal and state agencies for a town hall meeting with the community.
 
While there have been larger onshore oil spills, in this case, Enbridge Incorporated is responsible for the release that has been the most expensive to clean up. According to a recent Enbridge SEC filing and the EPA, the total cleanup cost, so far, is more than $800 million dollars. That is already more than five times the next most-costly onshore oil spill.
EPA continues to oversee the cleanup and reports that parts of the area known as the Morrow Lake Delta are still closed. And, in the weeks following the rupture and spill, the Michigan Department of Community Health said that 320 people reported symptoms consistent with crude oil exposure. Further, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that nearly 4,000 animals were affected.
 
On that July evening [Sunday, July 25, 2010], at about 6 PM when many people in Marshall were sitting down to dinner, Enbridge's Line 6B ruptured and began spewing crude oil through a more than six-and-a-half-foot-long fracture. For more than 17 hours and over three shifts, the people controlling the pipeline did not respond to the alarms, pressure differentials or even follow one of their own safety procedures established following another catastrophic release in 1991 in Grand Rapids.
 
The people of Marshall would finish their dinners, get ready for the week ahead and go to bed. As they slept, and even when they got up on Monday morning, instead of stopping the flow, Enbridge staff twice pumped more oil -- about 81 percent of the total release -- into the ruptured pipeline. It wasn't until late Monday morning -- 17 hours and 19 minutes after the rupture -- that a worker from a local gas utility found the spill and notified the Enbridge control center. Then, and only then, did the Enbridge staff begin their response and start closing remote valves upstream and downstream of the rupture.
 
Learning about Enbridge's poor handling of the rupture, you can't help but think of the Keystone Kops. Why didn't they recognize what was happening? What took so long? Today, we'll hear about the many failures that allowed a bad situation to get worse. From Enbridge -- its employees, procedures, and priorities -- and too little focus on safety and too little follow up on known safety risks.
 
And, from the regulators -- upon which the people of Marshall depended for the well being of their community -- there was too little regulatory oversight. Here are the issues - what I'll call the four Rs of a rupture.
 
One, recognition. When the pipe had ruptured, multiple alarms were generated, which the Enbridge control center staff failed to understand. Over three shifts, the control center misinterpreted repeated leak alarms as a condition known as "column separation" and re-started the pipeline twice.
 
Two, response. Once notified by another utility that their line had ruptured, Enbridge did act. But, the crude actions taken by the Enbridge employees in Marshall displayed a lack of understanding regarding source control and were completely ineffective in the face of this worst-case release. Compounding the problem, Enbridge's closest oil spill response contractor identified in their response plan was out of state and more than 10 hours away.
 
Three, responsibility. Pipeline operators are required to have an integrity management program, which continually assesses and addresses the safety risks on their pipelines, particularly those in high-consequence areas. In 2005, Enbridge detected the very defect that led to this failure -- located within a corrosion area that Enbridge had identified the year before. Yet, for five years they did nothing to address the corrosion or cracking at the rupture site -- and the problem festered. The responsibility for a thorough, accurate and robust integrity management program rests with the operator. But in the end, Enbridge's program lacked integrity.
 
That brings me to the fourth R and, that is regulatory oversight. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [PHMSA] provides this safety net for our citizens and our communities. In this rupture, we saw the operator take advantage of weak regulations for assessing and repairing crack indications; and PHMSA was ineffective in overseeing Enbridge's pipeline integrity management programs, control center procedures, and public awareness programs; and had inadequate review of oil spill response plans. Let me note that last week PHMSA issued proposed enforcement actions and maximum fines against Enbridge. This is a necessary and important step.
 
Last year, we were in this room talking about PG & E and the explosion in San Bruno, California, that killed eight people and injured 58 more. Today, we meet to talk about Enbridge and significant environmental damage in Marshall, Michigan, with more than 840,000 gallons of oil released and record cleanup costs. In both cases, we found problems with integrity management programs, control centers, public awareness programs, and emergency response.
 
While our findings raise red flags about the safety of these two companies, they should also force us to ask hard questions of this vital industry. With more than 2.5 million miles of pipeline running through this country -- enough to circle the Earth one hundred times -- we have to ask, "Are these companies representative of others?" If the answer is yes, we can expect to be back here again discussing the same issues with a different company. The only unknowns are when? Where? And, how much damage?"
    In closing remarks, Hersman said, ". . .this accident was the result of multiple mistakes and missteps made by Enbridge. But, there is also regulatory culpability. Delegating too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse. Regulators need regulations and practices with teeth - and the resources to enable them to take corrective action before a spill. Not just after. That's the point of the recommendations we issue today. It's time for operators and regulators to make the needed changes to protect our citizens and communities and prevent such tragic and needless events. Safety is a commitment. It is a requirement. It must be a way of doing business and not just a slogan. If companies commit to safety with the same vigor that they pursue profits, then we will see integrity management programs with real integrity."
 
    Access the meeting information website with links to webcast and final report information (click here). Access the complete NTSB docket with extensive and detailed information on the Enbridge oil spill (click here). Access the NTSB website for more information (click here). [Note: Webcasts are archived for a period of three months from the time of the meeting and should be available by the end of today (click here). A synopsis of the report is available on the website and the complete report will appear on ntsb.gov in several weeks]. [#Energy/OilSpill, #MIEnergy/OilSpill, #MIWater, #MIRemed]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Monday, July 09, 2012

President Signs H.R.4348 - Highway Transportation Funding Bill

Jul 6: President Obama officially signed the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act" (MAP-21, the highway transportation bill, H.R.4348), at an event at the White House with construction workers, and indicated the bill will ,put Americans to work repairing the nation's crumbling roads and bridges. H.R.4348, reauthorizes taxes that support the Highway Trust Fund through September 30, 2016, and authority to make expenditures from that Fund through September 30, 2014, and makes major reforms to surface transportation programs; reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through September 30, 2017 [See WIMS 6/28/12, & WIMS 7/2/12].

    The conference report, approved on June 29, 2012, provides $105 billion for the nation's surface transportation programs, and it continues the current level of funding plus inflation through FY2014. It is estimated to save and create nearly three million jobs per year, consolidates programs from 90 to about 30, and eliminates earmarks. As a procedural matter, the President signed H.R.6064, the Temporary Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, which provided funding for programs funded from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) for the period June 30, 2012, through July 6, 2012. The following is a summary of the reforms in the transportation bill conference report. The summary was released by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK) who sponsored the Senate version of the MAP-21 transportation bill.

  • America Fast Forward - To address the nation's massive investment needs, the conference report builds upon the success of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program to help communities leverage their limited transportation resources and stretch federal dollars further than they have been stretched before.
  • Freight Movement - The conference report establishes a National Freight Policy, directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop a National Freight Strategic Plan to identify the most critical freight routes so investments can be made to improve freight movement, and provides incentives to states to develop freight plans and invest highway funding to address freight movement.
  • Projects of National and Regional Significance - The conference report includes authorized funding for a Projects of National and Regional Significance Program that can fund all modes of transportation projects, including highways, transit, freight and passenger rail, and intermodal projects.
  • Performance measures - The conference report provides accountability for how tax dollars are spent on transportation projects and focuses on key national priorities, such as reducing fatalities, improving road and bridge conditions, reducing congestion, increasing system reliability, and improving freight movement and economic vitality.
  • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) - The conference report maintains the CMAQ program, which helps to improve air quality and provide congestion relief.
  • Surface Transportation Program - The conference report maintains the existing Surface Transportation Program and provides funding comparable to current law to be sub-allocated to metropolitan areas. It also expands eligible activities in order to provide flexibility to fund activities from programs that have been consolidated.
  • Transportation Alternatives - The conference report continues to dedicate funding for bike paths and pedestrian walkways and sends half of the funds directly to local entities, while giving states more flexibility on their share. The funds may be used for similar activities that were eligible in MAP-21, including the traditional transportation enhancement activities with slightly modified eligibilities, recreational trails program, and the safe routes to school program.
  • Accelerating Project Delivery - The conference report maintains the vast majority of project acceleration provisions in MAP-21. It also includes new provisions that will maintain substantive environment and public health protections and enhances efficiency and accountability in the project delivery process. The conference report rejected provisions contained in the House bill that would have harmed important health and environmental safeguards.
  • RESTORE ACT - The conference report includes a provision (the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourism Opportunities and Revived Economy of the Gulf Coast Act of 2012 ) that provides a significant investment to help restore the long-term health of the ecosystems and economy along the Gulf Coast, which sustained tremendous damage due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. The RESTORE Act is a bipartisan, regional approach that dedicates 80 percent of Clean Water Act penalties paid by responsible parties for the restoration of the Gulf Coast environment and economies and provides needed resources to Gulf Coast states to start immediate recovery.
    Access a White House blog post and video on the signing (click here). Access a brief White House statement (click here). Access a statement from Sen. Boxer and link to the summary (click here). Access the 599-page compromise bill (click here). Access the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference and a 91-page summary (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4348 (click here). [#Transport]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Friday, July 06, 2012

International Negotiations Towards A Global Treaty On Mercury

Jul 5: Over 500 representatives from governments and civil society organizations took part in a United Nations-backed meeting in Punta del Este, Uruguay, seeking to negotiate a global treaty that would reduce the use of mercury. The meeting was the fourth of five sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC4). After INC4 there is only one remaining session before the diplomatic conference that will convene in Japan in 2013.
 
    The Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Achim Steiner, said the six-day meeting will help governments work towards a common goal in reducing "the exposure of significant numbers of people across the globe to a highly hazardous substance whose impacts on human health are well known -- and in doing so make a serious contribution to sustainable development and a transition to an inclusive green economy in the wake of Rio+20."

    The meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee covered a wide range of areas, from products and processes that contain mercury, to the supply, trade, storage and waste of the element. UNEP also launched a practical guide at the meeting on methods and techniques to reduce mercury use and non-mercury alternative practices in Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM). Developed in collaboration with the Artisanal Gold Council and other partners, the guide informs policymakers, miners and civil society about available techniques for reducing and ultimately eliminating mercury use in ASGM.

    With the value of gold having soared amid the recent financial turmoil, small-scale, artisanal gold mining is booming throughout the world. The Artisanal Gold Council estimates that between 12 and 15 million people in over 70 countries are employed in the sector, producing up to 20 percent of the total gold supply. However, the often informal and sometimes illegal status of the sector in many countries has been one of the biggest challenges in addressing the health and environmental issues of the sector. The UNEP guide seeks to also be a useful tool for governments to explain the technical fundamentals that underpin and encourage the formalization of ASGM.

    Steiner said, "[ASGM] is an important economic activity, which can contribute directly to poverty alleviation and regional well-being. The global mercury legal instrument under development gives an important opportunity to ensure that a small-scale activity, such as this one, continues in a safe and sustainable way."

    According to a summary report from International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reporting service, which provided detailed day-by-day coverage of the meeting, "INC4 fulfilled many delegates' expectations expressed on arrival in Punta del Este. Clear progress was made swiftly on some issues like storage, wastes and contaminated sites, and narrowing options on other issues, such as articles related to information and reporting. Yet on the most crucial issues, compliance, finance and control measures for products and processes, divergent views prevailed, with discussions focusing on laying out the range of positions. Delegates met non-stop during the six-day meeting in both plenary sessions and contact groups. A full reading of the text, and division of work into several contact groups addressing key sections of the treaty, allowed delegates to advance towards a 'cleaner' version of a convention text on some issues, leaving brackets around topics that require political resolution for consideration at the next, and last, session of the INC in January 2013."

    The International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), a global network of more than 700 health and environmental organizations working in 116 countries for a toxics-free future issued a release indicating they are "deeply concerned that, with current text, the treaty may actually legitimize increased global mercury releases to protect short-term economic interests. The price tag may appear to be 'cheap' but the cost of inaction on mercury pollution will be huge." They indicated that, "Allowing the importation and use of mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) will create new contaminated sites, and more mercury polluted communities and suffering in ASGM countries." Additionally, they said, "The treaty creates no obligation for responsible parties to pay for mercury pollution cleanup or provide compensation for victims. "This lack of action runs contrary to the treaty objective."

    Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a release from UNEP and link to a video and the ASGM guide (click here). Access the INC4 website for complete details on the meeting including meeting documents (click here). Access the IISD Summary Report issued on July 5 (click here). Access the IISD INC4 Meeting Coverage website (click here). Access a release from IPEN (click here). Access the IPEN website for more information (click here). [#Toxics]

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

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Japanese Commission Highly Critical Of Fukushima Accident

Jul 5: Chairman Kiyoshi Kurokawa of The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) released the Commission's final report to Takahiro Yokomichi, the Japanese Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Kenji Hirata, President of the Japanese House of Councillors. The long-awaited report comes at the end of a six-month investigation into the nuclear accident of March 11, 2011.
 
    The Commission, the first of its kind in the history of Japan's constitutional government, received its mandate from the National Diet to investigate the causes of the accident, the causes of the subsequent damage and the effectiveness of the emergency response. The Commission was also charged with investigating Japan's nuclear policies and regulations and to offer recommendations to prevent a similar occurrence. The Commission held over 900 hours of hearings and interviews with over 1100 people. It was able to use the powers of the legislative body to obtain necessary documents and evidence. The Commission acted on behalf of the Japanese people -- independent from any elected member of either House of the Diet, from the restrictions of the government bureaucracy, and from the financial influence of the nuclear power lobby.
 
    A New York Times (NYT) article on the report summarizes saying, "The nuclear accident at Fukushima was a preventable disaster rooted in government-industry collusion. . . The commission challenged some of the main story lines that the government and the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant have put forward to explain what went wrong in the early days of the crisis."
 
    The Commission's charge indicated in part that, "A global perspective should be emphasized, so that the results and conclusions will help to prevent nuclear accidents elsewhere. The investigation's priority should be on human safety, rather than the structural safety of nuclear reactors."
 
    The Commission concludes in part, "In order to prevent future disasters, fundamental reforms must take place. These reforms must cover both the structure of the electric power industry and the structure of the related government and regulatory agencies as well as the operation processes. They must cover both normal and emergency situations. A 'manmade' disaster - The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents. . ."
 
    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), issued a release saying, "We know what happened in Japan could happen here in the United States. We are currently experiencing how susceptible the United States is to power outages, floods, and other natural disasters, and our nuclear power plants remain at the top of terrorist target lists. Yet, the majority of NRC Commissioners have consistently voted to reject most of the recommendations of the Near-Term Fukushima Task Force and implement nuclear safety upgrades in a way that acknowledges that they are necessary to ensure the adequate protection of America's nuclear power plants. I call on the Commission to stop the delays and fully implement the recommendations of the Fukushima taskforce to address the vulnerabilities to our nuclear fleet that were revealed by the Fukushima meltdowns."
 
    Rep. Markey indicated in his release that "Four of the Commissioners currently serving at the NRC regrettably have a history of voting against the safety recommendations put forward by technical experts, including its own advisory committees.  Some of these votes have occurred since the Fukushima meltdowns." He included a partial summary of the NRC votes.
   
    Access an announcement from the NAIIC (click here). Access links to the final report and executive summary (click here). Access the NAIIC website in English for more information (click here). Access the NYT article (click here). Access the release from Rep. Markey with links to related information (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Notice: July 4, 2012

Subscribers & Readers Note:
WIMS will not be publishing today,
July 4, 2012. We'll be back on July  5.
Be safe, stay cool, and
enjoy your July 4th holiday.