Senate Hearing On Enhancing Nuclear Reactor Safety

Sep 12: The Full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety held a joint hearing entitled, "Oversight Hearing: NRC's Implementation of Recommendations for Enhancing Nuclear Reactor Safety in the 21st Century." Witnesses included the newly appointed Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Allison Macfarlane and the remaining four Commissioners. Full Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) both issued opening statements.

 

    Senator Boxer recounted some of the Committee and issue history saying it was the seventh oversight meeting on the NRC since the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in Japan in March 2011. She said, "The consequences of the terrible events in Japan have prompted us to rethink how to ensure safety at the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States. Last year, the NRC created a Task Force to review our nation's safety requirements, and that Task Force made 12 recommendations to help prevent a similar disaster at nuclear facilities in the U.S.

    "Earlier this year, the NRC sent three orders to nuclear plants requiring high-priority safety improvements: the acquisition and protection of emergency equipment, better monitoring of spent fuel pools, and improved venting at boiling water reactors to help maintain containment in the case of an emergency. The NRC also directed nuclear plants to take other actions, including reanalyzing earthquake and flooding risks and reassessing their ability to safely operate following such events. In addition, the Commission issued two notices of proposed rulemaking: one concerning steps that plants should take if they lose electric power, and the other on ways to improve nuclear plants' emergency procedures.

    "While on the one hand I am encouraged that the NRC has begun moving forward, I also have concerns that the Commission is allowing some nuclear plants to delay implementing safety improvements beyond the recommended five-year period. Public safety of nuclear facilities must be the NRC's top priority, and I call on this Commission to ensure that the recommended improvements are put in place within the next five years. I intend to continue this Committee's oversight to make certain that these safety upgrades are completed without delay. . ."

 

    Ranking Member Inhofe said in part, "Ensuring the safe use of nuclear energy is a very serious job. That is why, unlike many other countries, Congress established the NRC, an independent commission, and charged five commissioners with the responsibility to protect public health and safety. We saw what happened at Fukushima and we are all committed to ensuring that a United States nuclear power plant will not experience a similar accident. That is why we have safeguards in place that would have prevented such a disaster here in the United States. For instance, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (formed by the Japanese government) reported that the Japanese plants are not required to consider a possible station blackout scenario - something the NRC instituted in the 1980's. This report concluded that 'the accident may have been preventable' if an order already required by the NRC following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. was instituted by the Japanese.

 

    "No one, on either side of the aisle, in Congress is willing to accept anything other than the safe operation and regulatory compliance of the country's commercial nuclear power plants. Throughout the NRC's history, we have applied lessons learned from nuclear and non-nuclear events. At the same time, the NRC has the vital responsibility to determine the cumulative effects that its regulations actually have on safety. It is important that regulations provide significant, tangible, and necessary safety benefits that warrant the costs - costs that are ultimately born by consumers.

 

    "To all of the Commissioners, and the new Chairman, I am pleased to see that debates and the free flow of information seem healthy and respectful again. Combined, your actions are critical to ensure the safe operation of the nuclear power plants across this country. The nation is also counting on you to prevent the imposition of an unpredictable or unnecessary regulatory burden that undermines nuclear energy economically, and avoid the way EPA regulations are driving the premature shutdown of coal-fired power plants. . ."

 

    Commissioner Macfarlane delivered an 8-page statement on behalf of the entire NRC and said in part regarding the implementation of safety enhancements based on the review of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident that, "With everything that we have assessed to date, the Commission continues to believe that there is no imminent risk from continued operation of existing U.S. nuclear power plants. At the same time, the NRC's assessment of insights from the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi led us to conclude that additional requirements should be imposed on licensees to increase the capability of nuclear power plants to mitigate the effects of beyond-design-basis extreme natural phenomena.

    "The Commission has approved the staff's prioritization of the recommendations of the Near-Term Task Force ("Task Force") into three categories, or tiers. Tier 1 consists of actions to be taken without delay, and these actions are underway. Tier 2 is the next set of actions that can be initiated as soon as staff resources become available and pertinent information is gathered and analyzed. Tier 3 recommendations require that the staff conduct further study or undertake shorter-term actions first."

    She also commented on the recent Waste Confidence ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which found that the NRC had violated the National Environmental Policy Act in issuing its 2010 update to the Waste Confidence Decision and accompanying Temporary Storage Rule [See WIMS 6/8/12]. The court vacated both the Decision and the Rule, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. She said, "On August 7, 2012, the Commission issued an Order, in response to petitions we received following the court's decision, stating that we will not issue licenses dependent upon the Waste Confidence Decision or the Temporary Storage Rule until the court's remand is appropriately addressed. This determination extends just to final license issuance; all licensing reviews by NRC staff and proceedings will continue to move forward. On September 6, 2012, the Commission directed the NRC staff to develop, within the next 24 months, an environmental impact statement, a revised waste confidence decision, and a rule on the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. As we assured petitioners in the Order, and in our direction to the NRC staff, the public will be afforded opportunities to comment on these actions. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website and link to all statements, testimony and a webcast (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear]

 

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

Hearing Sets Stage For Dealing With Nuclear Waste Next Year

Sep 12: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) held a hearing to receive testimony on S.3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012 introduced by Chairman Bingaman. Witnesses included: Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, co-chairman of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future, Washington, DC; Dr. Richard Meserve, president, Carnegie Institution for Science, Washington, DC; Dr. Peter Lyons, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Henry Barron, president and chief executive officer, Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, Baltimore, MD; Geoffrey Fettus, senior attorney of the nuclear program, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC.

 

    In an opening statement, Chairman Bingaman who will be retiring this year said, "S.3469 is intended to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission that Secretary Chu appointed to review the nuclear waste program. The Blue Ribbon Commission issued its final report in January. This Committee heard from the two chairs of the Commission, General Brent Scowcroft and Representative Lee Hamilton, on that report in February. The Blue Ribbon Commission was worthy of its name. It was made up of 15 highly distinguished individuals from academia, from industry, and from public service. They approached their task conscientiously and diligently, and they produced a very thorough and comprehensive report. 

    "The Commission presented us with 8 clear, concise, and straightforward recommendations. I have tried to implement those recommendations in the bill that is now before us for this hearing. I worked closely with Senator Murkowski and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, in the effort. Regrettably, we were not as successful as the Blue Ribbon Commission was in reaching a unanimous, bipartisan consensus. Although we were able to agree on most issues, we could not reach an agreement on the siting process for storage facilities and how to ensure that temporary storage facilities do not become permanent substitutes for an underground repository.  With time running out in this Congress, we agreed that I should go ahead and introduce the bill as it stands, and hold this hearing on the bill, and leave it to the next Congress to continue working on the issue.

    Senator Murkowski, in her opening statement said, "While I have been skeptical regarding the need to delay progress on resolving these issues while the Blue Ribbon Commission deliberated, the Blue Ribbon Commission itself is a credible group that has produced a thoughtful report regarding how to move our Nation's spent nuclear fuel program forward. Although there may be little that is truly new in their proposals, I am optimistic that the report has ignited a heightened sense of urgency and renewed focus on these issues. As the commission's report notes, the government's failure to address our nuclear waste issues is damaging to the development of future nuclear power and simultaneously worsening our nation's financial situation. We need to act, and we need to act soon.

    "Mr. Chairman, the legislation that you introduced is indicative of months of good, productive discussions between you, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander, and myself discussing ways to address the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. I congratulate you for moving the discussion forward and putting a marker out there toward reaching that goal. While we ultimately could not bridge the issue of linking progress on interim storage and a permanent repository, I want to be clear to those following these discussions that while prospects for legislative enactment this Congress are not favorable, we will continue the effort next year and build upon the progress that the Chairman has begun.

    "I will also note that the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill contains language that seeks to move interim storage forward in a timely manner. While a short-term continuing resolution appears likely to be agreed to in the next several days, I am hopeful that the interim storage language will be included when Congress acts on the full Fiscal Year 2013 spending bills. In addition, we would be remiss if we did not examine the impact of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's remand of the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision on new license applications and license renewals and how legislation along the lines of S.3469 could help address the Court's concerns."

    The BRC Co-chair Scowcroft outlined the 8 recommendations of the Commission:

• A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
• A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
• Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.
• Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
• Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
• Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available.
• Support for advances in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development; and
• Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

    In conclusion he said, ". . .as we said to this Committee in February, the national interest demands that our nuclear waste program be fixed. Complacency with a failed nuclear waste management system is not an option and the need for a new strategy is urgent. We believe the bill that Senator Bingaman has prepared represents a very useful starting point for an important discussion."

 

    Access the statement from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the hearing website and link to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access various WIMS articles on nuclear waste and the BLC (click here). Access legislative details for S.3469 (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear]

 

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

GAO Finds Security Problems With High-Risk Radiological Sources

Sep 10: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Nuclear Nonproliferation Additional Actions Needed to Improve Security of Radiological Sources at U.S. Medical Facilities (GAO-12-925, Sep 10, 2012). The report was requested by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

 

    In background information GAO indicates that in the hands of terrorists, radiological material, such as cesium-137, could be used to construct a "dirty bomb." Such material -- encapsulated in steel or titanium and called a sealed source -- is commonly found in equipment used by U.S. medical facilities to treat, among other things, cancer patients. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) is responsible for regulating the commercial use of sealed sources and has relinquished its regulatory authority to 37 states, known as Agreement States. In 2008, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) established a program to provide security upgrades to U.S. hospitals and medical facilities that use radiological sources. GAO was asked to determine: (1) the extent to which NRC's requirements ensure the security of radiological sources at U.S. medical facilities; and (2) the status of NNSA's efforts to improve the security of sources at these facilities. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and guidance; interviewed Federal agency and state officials; and visited 26 hospitals and medical facilities in 7 states and Washington, DC.

 

    GAO found that the NRC requirements do not consistently ensure the security of high-risk radiological sources at the 26 selected hospitals and medical facilities GAO visited. One reason for this is that the requirements are broadly written and do not prescribe specific measures that hospitals and medical facilities must take to secure medical equipment containing sealed sources, such as the use of cameras or alarms. Rather, the requirements provide a general framework for what constitutes adequate security practices, which is implemented in various ways at different hospitals. Some of the medical equipment in the facilities visited was more vulnerable to potential tampering or theft than that of other facilities because some hospitals developed better security controls than others. Some examples of poor security GAO observed included: an irradiator, used for medical research and containing almost 2,000 curies of cesium-137, was stored on a wheeled pallet down the hall from, and accessible to, a loading dock at one facility; at a second facility, the combination to a locked door, which housed an irradiator containing 1,500 curies of cesium- 137, was clearly written on the door frame; and at a third facility, an official told GAO that the number of people with unescorted access to the facility's radiological sources was estimated to be at least 500. In addition, some NRC and Agreement State inspectors said the training NRC requires is not sufficient.

   

    As of March 2012, NNSA had spent $105 million to complete security upgrades at 321 of the 1,503 U.S. hospitals and medical facilities it identified as having high-risk radiological sources. Of the 26 hospitals and medical facilities that GAO visited, 13 had volunteered for the NNSA security upgrades and had received security upgrades, such as remote monitoring systems, surveillance cameras, enhanced security doors, iris scanners, motion detectors, and tamper alarms; three others were in the process of receiving upgrades. However, NNSA does not anticipate completing all such security upgrades until 2025, leaving a number of facilities potentially vulnerable. In addition, the program's impact is limited because, among other things, it is voluntary, and facilities can decline to participate. To date, 14 facilities, including 4 in large urban areas, have declined to participate in the program. Combined, those 14 facilities have medical equipment containing over 41,000 curies of high-risk radiological material. According to police department officials in a major city, one hospital with a blood irradiator of approximately 1,700 curies has declined the NNSA upgrades due in part to cost concerns, even though the police department considers it to be a high-risk facility.

 

    GAO recommends, among other things, that NRC strengthen its security requirements by providing medical facilities with specific measures they must take to develop and sustain a more effective security program. NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation and stated that its existing security requirements are adequate. GAO continues to believe that implementing its recommendation would contribute to increased security at U.S. hospitals and medical facilities.

 

    Access the complete 56-page report (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear]

 

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

Scotts Miracle-Gro To Pay $12.5 Million Criminal & Civil Penalties

Sep 10: U.S. EPA announced that the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, a producer of pesticides for commercial and consumer lawn and garden uses, was sentenced in Federal district court in Columbus, Ohio, to pay a $4 million fine and perform community service for eleven criminal violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which governs the manufacture, distribution, and sale of pesticides. Scotts pleaded guilty in February 2012 to illegally applying insecticides to its wild bird food products that are toxic to birds, falsifying pesticide registration documents, distributing pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels, and distributing unregistered pesticides. This is the largest criminal penalty under FIFRA to date.

    In a separate civil agreement with EPA, Scotts agreed to pay more than $6 million in penalties and spend $2 million on environmental projects to resolves additional civil pesticide violations. The environmental projects, valued at $2 million, will acquire, restore and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of agricultural chemicals into nearby waterways. The violations include distributing or selling unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. This is the largest civil settlement under FIFRA to date. 

    Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "The misuse or mislabeling of pesticide products can cause serious illness in humans and be toxic to wildlife. Today's sentence and unprecedented civil settlement hold Scotts accountable for widespread company noncompliance with pesticide laws, which put products into the hands of consumers without the proper authorization or warning labels."

    Ignacia Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice said, "As the world's largest marketer of residential use pesticides, Scotts has a special obligation to make certain that it observes the laws governing the sale and use of its products. For having failed to do so, Scotts has been sentenced to pay the largest fine in the history of FIFRA enforcement. The Department of Justice will continue to work with EPA to assure that pesticides applied in homes and on lawns and food are sold and used in compliance with the laws intended to assure their safety."

    In the plea agreement, Scotts admitted that it applied the pesticides Actellic 5E and Storcide II to its bird food products even though EPA had prohibited this use. Scotts had done so to protect its bird foods from insect infestation during storage. Scotts admitted that it used these pesticides contrary to EPA directives and in spite of the warning label appearing on all Storcide II containers stating, "Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife." Scotts sold this illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees specifically warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides. By the time it voluntarily recalled these products in March 2008, Scotts had sold more than 70 million units of bird food illegally treated with pesticide that is toxic to birds.

    Scotts also pleaded guilty to submitting false documents to EPA and to state regulatory agencies in an effort to deceive them into believing that numerous pesticides were registered with EPA when in fact they were not. The company also pleaded guilty to having illegally sold the unregistered pesticides and to marketing pesticides bearing labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by EPA. The falsified documents submitted to EPA and states were attributed to a federal product manager at Scotts.

    In addition to the $4 million criminal fine, Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon's Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio to support the protection of bird populations and habitats through conservation, research, and education.

    At the time the criminal violations were discovered, EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered numerous civil violations spanning five years. Scotts' FIFRA civil violations included the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, EPA issued more than 40 Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products. 

    Following the Friday afternoon hearing in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio, ScottsMiracle-Gro Chairman and CEO Jim Hagedorn said the DOJ's investigation identified conduct that was not consistent with the company's core values, but ultimately resulted in improvements to the company's regulatory compliance programs. He said, "As we reach closure on these issues, it's important for all of our stakeholders to know that we have learned a lot from these events and that new people and processes have been put in place to prevent them from happening again. Our consumers are at the heart of our business, and I hope they'll see our openness, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility are all a part of our commitment to provide products they can trust and rely upon."

    According to a company release a former associate has pleaded guilty to federal crimes related to these activities and awaits sentencing.  She has repeatedly acknowledged to law enforcement authorities that she acted alone. Hagedorn said, "While no one else in the company knew about the illegal activities of one of our associates, the company nonetheless bears the responsibility for her actions, and for that we apologize."

    Regarding the separate civil administrative agreement which the company stressed "neither admits nor denies the allegations, it believes concluding the matter is in the best interest of the company, its shareholders and its associates," Hagedorn said, "In both the civil and criminal cases we have fully cooperated with the government and have accepted responsibility for these events. This has been a difficult time for us and we are glad to have put it behind us. I want to thank our associates who committed themselves to resolving this matter and I also want to thank both the EPA and DOJ for the professional way in which they handled it."

    Access a release from EPA with links to related information (click here). Access complete information and background on the settlement including the consent agreement and final order (click here). Access a release from Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (click here). [#Toxics, #Wildlife]

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

Conservatives Groups Call For End To Wind Production Tax Credit

Sep 6: A coalition of 64 organizations, led by the Koch brothers-backed group, Americans for Prosperity and including the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Freedom Action, National Taxpayers Union, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Informed Citizens of Michigan, Great Lakes Wind Truth, US; and others have sent a letter to House and Senate members expressing their strong opposition to extending the federal Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). The letter indicates:

"The principal federal support for wind energy, the so-called Production Tax Credit (PTC), is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The undersigned organizations and the millions of Americans we represent stand opposed to extending the wind PTC. This special provision continues the deplorable practice of using the tax code to favor certain groups over others.

 

"Whenever the government protects a particular industry, as it has with wind energy production, the industry tends to remain dependent on it. As Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman noted, 'The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up.' The wind PTC, like other green energy incentives, is a prime case in point. The PTC was created in 1992 to get the wind industry off the ground. Yet 20 years later, we have little to show for it. We're still providing a $5 billion special tax break each year for an industry that supplies just over 2% of our power.

 

"If a new technology truly has worthwhile benefits for American consumers such as lower cost, higher efficiency, or environmental benefits, then that technology will demonstrate its value by competing in the open market for consumers' dollars -- not by living off of special provisions in the tax code. American consumers—not Washington lawmakers—should decide the future of American energy.

 

"It is time to end special tax provisions that distort the energy market and increase energy prices. We urge you to let the wasteful wind PTC expire as planned at the end of the year."

        As WIMS has previously reported there are clear differences between President Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney on the issue of wind energy and the continuation of the PTC [See WIMS 8/1/12]. Mitt Romney indicated he would, "allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits. . . Wind energy will thrive wherever it is economically competitive, and wherever private sector competitors with far more experience than the President believe the investment will produce results." The President, who favors continuing the wind energy PTC indicates, ". . .windmills aren't imaginary. Wind energy is a real job creator and energy producer. . . wind energy is an emerging industry that's producing next-generation good-paying, manufacturing, middle-class jobs."

 

    In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau, and Edison Electric Institute are among over 400 organizations and companies endorsing the PTC extension. An article, published in The Hill on Sep. 6, cited by the Governors' Wind Energy Coalition (GWEC) indicates that, Peter Kelley, spokesman for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), said "it is not a surprise" that AFP came out against the incentive. "We don't think it makes any difference. They were opposed to us before, they're still opposed to us and we're still going to win this fight." Kelley said the $5 billion figure the conservative groups used was "unrealistically high," and that the uncertainty surrounding the incentive ensures wind installations will decline next year.

 

    Access the letter and list of signers from the conservative groups (click here). Access the release from the GWEC (click here). Access a second release from GWEC indicating Paul Ryan's support of the Romney position (click here). Access the summary of bipartisan support from AWEA and facts about wind energy (click here). Access the Sierra Club statement (click here). Access the AWEA website for more information (click here). [#Energy/Wind, #Energy/Renewable]

 

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

NRC Responds To Appeals Court Decision On Nuclear Waste Storage

Sep 6: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed the Agency's staff to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) and a revised waste confidence decision and rule on the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. The EIS and rule, which are in response to a June 8 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [See WIMS 6/8/12], are to be completed within 24 months. "Waste confidence" is a generic finding that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored for decades beyond the licensed operating life of a reactor without significant environmental effects. It enables the NRC to license reactors or renew their licenses without examining the effects of extended waste storage for each individual site pending ultimate disposal.

    In a Staff Requirements Memorandum, the Commission directed the staff to "proceed directly" with development of the EIS and a revised waste confidence rule to satisfy the deficiencies the Appeals Court found in the NRC's 2010 waste confidence revision. The Commission said the staff should draw on the agency's "long, rich history" with waste confidence determinations as well as work performed by other agencies, such as environmental assessments, technical studies and reports addressing the impacts of transportation and consolidated storage of spent fuel.

    The Appeals Court ruled that NRC should have considered the potential environmental effects in the event a permanent repository for disposing of spent fuel is never built, and found other deficiencies with the Agency's consideration of leaks and fires involving spent fuel pools. NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane said, "Resolving this issue successfully is a Commission priority. Waste confidence plays a core role in many major licensing actions, such as new reactors and license renewals. I applaud my fellow Commissioners for their swift action in setting a path forward to resolve the Court's remand, and we have confidence in the staff's ability to meet this demanding deadline."

    On August 7, the Commission issued an Order that NRC will not issue licenses dependent on the waste confidence rule - such as new reactors and renewal of existing reactor operating licenses -- until the Court's remand is appropriately addressed. That Order remains in effect. The Commission directed the staff to "provide ample opportunity for public comment" on the EIS and rule, even while looking for ways to make the EIS and rulemaking process more efficient. It said the staff should form an inter-office team of the agency's most-accomplished environmental experts to develop the EIS and resolve comments "with the urgency that this matter deserves."

The NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, which has regulatory responsibility over spent fuel storage and disposal, has established a Waste Confidence Directorate to develop the waste confidence EIS. The new directorate will be headed by Dr. Keith McConnell, currently deputy director of the Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection in the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. The Commission's SRM, a staff paper outlining options to address the Court's ruling (COMSECY-12-0016), and the Commissioners' vote sheets with comments, are available on the NRC website.

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, one of the key attorneys in the NY v. NRC lawsuit, called the June 8, 2012, Appeals Court decision "a landmark victory." He said the decision means that the NRC cannot license or re-license any nuclear power plant, including the Indian Point facility in Westchester County, until it examines the dangers and consequences of long-term on-site storage of nuclear waste. He said the appeals court found that the spent nuclear fuel stored on-site "poses a dangerous, long-term health and environmental risk."

    Access a release from NRC (click here). Access the COMSECY-12-0016 Memo (click here). Access the Sep 6, 2012 Staff Directive Memo (click here). Access the NRC votes and individual Commissioner comments (click here). Access the complete Appeals Court opinion (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear]

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

Administration Gives Shell Go Ahead For Chukchi Sea Exploration

Aug 30: The Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Director James Watson announced that Royal Dutch Shell will be allowed to move forward with certain limited preparatory activities in the Chukchi Sea offshore Alaska. Watson said, "It is our highest priority that any activities that occur offshore Alaska be held to the highest safety, environmental protection, and emergency response standards. Shell's applications for permits to drill into potential oil reservoirs remain under review, and Shell will not be authorized to drill into areas that may contain oil unless and until the required spill containment system is fully certified, inspected, and located in the Arctic. The announcement authorizes Shell to move forward with limited activities well short of oil-bearing zones that can be done safely now prior to the certification and arrival of the containment system."

    Under the permit approved, Shell will be allowed to begin certain preparatory activities in the Chukchi Sea that will increase overall safety. These activities include the creation of a mudline cellar, a safety feature that ensures that the blowout preventer is adequately protected below the level of the seafloor. Shell is also authorized to drill and set the first two strings of casing into shallow non-oil-bearing zones.

    Under conditions and requirements set forth in Shell's Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Exploration Plans and Oil Spill Response Plans, which were approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and BSEE, Shell is required to receive certification of its containment system, which is designed to capture flowing liquid hydrocarbons in the unlikely event of a loss of well control, by the U.S. Coast Guard and have the vessel positioned in the Arctic before any drilling into oil-bearing zones can occur. BSEE engineers recently conducted an initial inspection of Shell's containment system, but the company has yet to secure the final Coast Guard certification.

    BSEE inspectors will be present on the Noble Discoverer to provide continuous oversight and monitoring of all approved activities. BSEE safety experts have already conducted thorough and comprehensive inspections of the drillship and Shell's response equipment. 

 

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee issued a release commenting on the BSEE decision saying, "Today's decision is a positive step that will allow Shell to begin necessary preparatory work, while maintaining the highest environmental standards to ensure the protection of the Arctic. While we would all like to see a discovery this summer, the most important thing is for Shell to continue to make progress and demonstrate once again that Arctic drilling can be done safely. While many environmental activists continue to cast doubt on Arctic production, we know from experience that development can be carried out safely -- more than 100 wells have been drilled in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas since the 1970s." She indicated that the Arctic waters off Alaska's northern coast contain an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Federal government.

 

    Earthjustice attorney Holly Harris in Alaska released a statement saying, "Secretary Salazar promised the most heavily scrutinized operation in the world, but so far when push comes to shove, the administration is not holding Shell to its commitments. Shell has known the barge and the containment system were required for months, but has failed to meets its safety and spill response obligations and even its basic deadlines. Nonetheless, the Secretary today announced that he will let Shell move forward with preparatory work and drilling without the required oil spill response equipment.

 

   "Today's announcement also made no mention of the disturbing trend of broken promises and questionable actions by Shell in recent weeks. Shell has admitted that it cannot comply with the terms of its Clean Air Act permit. Instead, Shell is asking the Environmental Protection Agency for a waiver. Shell also backed away from the fact that it based its oil spill cleanup plans on the assumption it will remove 95 percent of spilled oil before that oil reaches shore, now claiming that it will only 'encounter' the oil. Shell also lost control of its Noble Discoverer drillship near Dutch Harbor, Alaska a few weeks ago, but never explained why it happened or why it won't happen again. The Administration promised scrutiny, but we're not seeing it yet. Enough is enough -- it is time for the Administration stop making excuses for the one of the most profitable companies in the world."

   

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior attorney Niel Lawrence issued a statement saying, "Secretary Salazar is right to keep repeating that he will hold Shell accountable to make sure drilling in America's Arctic is safe. But today's action looks like the administration is playing right into Shell's game of acting like drilling is inevitable. While this is an interim step only, this is like a building inspector letting a developer start construction on a skyscraper on shaky ground before the safety plans are even complete. It's premature, it's unwarranted and it's wrong -- especially when it's happening in one of the most pristine places on earth."

 

   Access the BSEE release (click here). Access the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Shell 2012 Exploration Plan - Chukchi Sea (click here). Access the release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). [#Energy/OCS]

 

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

Administration Adopts Final MY2025 54.5 MPG CAFE Standards

Aug 28: The Obama Administration finalized the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. When combined with previous standards set by the Administration, the move will nearly double the fuel efficiency of those vehicles compared to new vehicles currently on our roads. In total, the Administration's national program to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will save consumers more than $1.7 trillion at the gas pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels. The final rule will become effective 60-days following publication in the Federal Register.

    President Obama said, "These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This historic agreement builds on the progress we've already made to save families money at the pump and cut our oil consumption. By the middle of the next decade our cars will get nearly 55 miles per gallon, almost double what they get today. It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle class families and it will help create an economy built to last."

    The standards issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. EPA build on the Administration's standards for cars and light trucks for Model Years 2011-2016. Those standards, which raised average fuel efficiency by 2016 to the equivalent of 35.5 mpg, are already saving families money at the pump.

    Last year, 13 major automakers, which together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States, announced their support for the new standards. By aligning Federal and state requirements and providing manufacturers with long-term regulatory certainty and compliance flexibility, the standards encourage investments in clean, innovative technologies that will benefit families, promote U.S. leadership in the automotive sector, and curb pollution. President Obama announced the proposed standard in July 2011, joined by Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo, as well as the United Auto Workers. The State of California and other key stakeholders also supported the announcement and were integral in developing this national program. 

    DOT Secretary Ray LaHood said, "Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther, and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before -- all while protecting the air we breathe and giving automakers the regulatory certainty to build the cars of the future here in America. Today, automakers are seeing their more fuel-efficient vehicles climb in sales, while families already saving money under the Administration's first fuel economy efforts will save even more in the future, making this announcement a victory for everyone." EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "The fuel efficiency standards the administration finalized today are another example of how we protect the environment and strengthen the economy at the same time. Innovation and economic growth are already reinvigorating the auto industry and the thousands of businesses that supply automakers as they create and produce the efficient vehicles of tomorrow. Clean, efficient vehicles are also cutting pollution and saving drivers money at the pump."

    According to a release from the agencies, the Administration's combined efforts represent the first "meaningful update" to fuel efficiency standards in decades. Together, they will save American families more than $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, resulting in an average fuel savings of more than $8,000 by 2025 over the lifetime of the vehicle. For families purchasing a model Year 2025 vehicle, the net savings will be comparable to lowering the price of gasoline by approximately $1 per gallon. Additionally, these programs will dramatically reduce our reliance on foreign oil, saving a total of 12 billion barrels of oil and reducing oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day by 2025 -- as much as half of the oil we import from OPEC each day. The standards also represent historic progress to reduce carbon pollution and address climate change. Combined, the Administration's standards will cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in half by 2025, reducing emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the program – more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010.

    The Administration said that major auto manufacturers are already developing advanced technologies that can significantly reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions beyond the existing model year 2012-2016 standards. In addition, a wide range of technologies are currently available for automakers to meet the new standards, including advanced gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle weight reduction, lower tire rolling resistance, improvements in aerodynamics, diesel engines, more efficient accessories, and improvements in air conditioning systems.

 

    The program also includes targeted incentives to encourage early adoption and introduction into the marketplace of advanced technologies to dramatically improve vehicle performance, including: Incentives for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cells vehicles; Incentives for hybrid technologies for large pickups and for other technologies that achieve high fuel economy levels on large pickups; Incentives for natural gas vehicles; and Credits for technologies with potential to achieve real-world greenhouse gas reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards test procedures.

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the complete 1994-page final rule (click here). Access the EPA CAFE website for background information (click here). Access the DOT CAFE website for background information (click here). [#Transport/CAFE, #Climate, #Air]

 

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

Mitt Romney Releases Energy Independence Plan

Aug 23: Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney released his 23-page detailed plan for "Energy Independence." According to the plan introduction, "A crucial component of Mitt Romney's Plan for a Stronger Middle Class is to dramatically increase domestic energy production and partner closely with Canada and Mexico to achieve North American energy independence by 2020. While President Obama has described his own energy policy as a 'hodgepodge,' sent billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies, rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline as not in 'the national interest,' and sought repeatedly to stall development of America's domestic resources, Romney's path forward would establish America as an energy superpower in the 21st century." The key points of the Romney energy agenda are:

• Empower states to control onshore energy development;
• Open offshore areas for energy development;
• Pursue a North American Energy Partnership;
• Ensure accurate assessment of energy resources;
• Restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation; and
• Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies.

  Empower States: States will be empowered to establish processes to oversee the development and production of all forms of energy on federal lands within their borders, excluding only lands specially designated off-limits; State regulatory processes and permitting programs for all forms of energy development will be deemed to satisfy all requirements of federal law; Federal agencies will certify state processes as adequate, according to established criteria that are sufficiently broad, to afford the states maximum flexibility to ascertain what is most appropriate; and The federal government will encourage the formation of a State Energy Development Council, where states can work together along with existing organizations such as STRONGER and the IOGCC to share expertise and best management practices.

 

    Open Offshore: Establish a new five-year offshore leasing plan that aggressively opens new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas; Set minimum production targets for each five-year leasing plan, requiring annual reports to Congress on progress in reaching goals and implementation of new policies to compensate for any shortfall; and

Guarantee that state-of-the-art processes and safeguards for offshore drilling are implemented in a manner designed to support rather than block exploration and production.

 

    Energy Partnership: Approve the Keystone XL pipeline; Establish a regional agreement to facilitate cross-border energy investment, infrastructure, and sales; Promote and expand regulatory cooperation between governments to encourage responsible energy production, including the creation of a forum for sharing best practices and technologies; and Institute fast-track regulatory approval processes for cross-border pipelines and other infrastructure.

 

    Accurate Assessment: Approve permits for seismic surveys and exploration offshore to immediately update decades-old information; Require the sharing of onshore geological and geophysical information with the Department of the Interior; Undertake new seismic analysis in offshore areas not included in the new lease plan; and Collaborate with Canada and Mexico to ensure accurate inventory of their resources and sharing of data.

 

    Restore Transparency: Implement measured reforms of environmental statutes and regulations to strengthen environmental protection without destroying jobs, paralyzing industry, or barring the use of resources like coal; Improve the environmental review process by setting clear deadlines and statutes of limitations, requiring better coordination between federal agencies, and allowing state reviews to satisfy federal requirements; Prevent agencies from using 'sue-and-settle' techniques behind closed doors to circumvent the public rulemaking process, impose onerous regulations, and tie the hands of future administrations; and Disclose federal funds spent reimbursing groups for lawsuits against the government.

 

    Private-Sector-Led Development: Focus government investment on research across the full spectrum of energy-related technologies, not on picking winners in the market; Support increased market penetration and competition among energy sources by maintaining the RFS and eliminating regulatory barriers to a diversification of the electrical grid, fuel system, or vehicle fleet;

Ensure that policies for expanding energy development apply broadly to energy sources, from oil and gas exploration, to coal mining, to the siting of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and other renewable energy facilities; and Revitalize nuclear power by equipping the NRC to approve new designs and to license approved reactor designs on approved sites within two years.

 

    Each key point is followed by a short explanation and then a number of short quotes from various news and information sources. As an example, the "Private-Sector-Led Development" point explanation states, "The federal government has a role to play in facilitating innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to investments in basic research that have produced breakthroughs to benefit entire industries. Unfortunately, President Obama's poor understanding of the private sector has spilled directly into his energy policy, as he sought to have government play venture capitalist and spend billions of dollars subsidizing his chosen companies and technologies. Meanwhile, as companies like Solyndra were going bankrupt and the wind industry was shedding 10,000 jobs, revolutionary innovation in the private sector was paving the way for energy independence and an economic resurgence.

 

    "Instead of distorting the playing field, the government should be ensuring that it remains level. The same policies that will open access to land for oil, gas, and coal development can also open access for the construction of wind, solar, and hydropower facilities. Strengthening and streamlining regulations and permitting processes will benefit the development of both traditional and alternative energy sources, and encourage the use of a diverse range of fuels including natural gas in transportation. Instead of defining success as providing enough subsidies for an uncompetitive technology to survive in the market, success should be defined as eliminating any barriers that might prevent the best technologies from succeeding on their own." The explanation is followed by several quotes including in part:

• The Obama Administration Has Provided $34.7 Billion In Taxpayer Loan Guarantees To Companies Like Solyndra Over The Past Four Years. ("Our Projects," Loan Programs Office, DOE, Accessed 8/20/12)
• But It Has Allocated Only $11.9 Billion To Energy R&D. ("Table 9.8—Composition of Outlays for the Conduct of Research and Development: 1949–2013," Historical Tables, Office Of Management And Budget, The White House, Accessed 8/20/12)
• Environmentalists Block Wind And Solar Projects Just As They Do Fossil Fuel Projects… "Renewable-energy development, which the Obama administration has made a priority, is posing conflicts between economic interests and environmental concerns, not entirely unlike the way offshore oil and gas development pits economics against environment." (Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, "Renewable Energy's Environmental Paradox," The Washington Post, 4/16/09)

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, issued a statement on the Romney energy plan saying, "The energy agenda unveiled by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would hand over America's lands and coasts to oil companies and preserve more than $4 billion in tax subsidies every year, even as it cuts key incentives to produce more American-made wind energy. Mitt Romney would waste no time handing over our taxpayer lands and America's coasts to oil companies, but won't even lift a finger when it comes to supporting America's wind energy industry right now. Just two years after the end of the BP oil spill, Mitt Romney would truncate or eliminate important reviews for new drilling, even as he would allow oil companies to expand their operations off our coasts. This isn't a serious energy plan, it's a serious threat to our coastal economies and to America's competitive role in the world's energy future."

 

    Access the complete 21-page plan(click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a House Democratic analysis of the Romney plan released by Rep. Markey (click here). [#Energy]

 

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

Initial Reactions To Appeals Court Vacating EPA's Air Transport Rule

Aug 21: Many organizations and individuals are still reviewing yesterday's game-changing ruling from the D.C. Appeals Court that vacated U.S. EPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that was finalized in July, 2011, and required 28 states in the East, Midwest, and South to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from downwind states [See WIMS 8/21/12]. EPA posted a brief note on its website saying, "EPA is reviewing the court decision. CAIR remains in place."

 

    As the Federal Regulations Advisory blog points out, "In 2008, the court found EPA's analysis deficient and remanded EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) without vacatur, because EPA had both improperly calculated the costs applicable to individual states and required the States to share each other's burdens, neither of which was authorized. The court left CAIR in place "until it is replaced by a rule consistent with our opinion."  The 2011 Transport Rule was EPA's attempt to respond to the court's 2008 decision.  Even while the current litigation was pending, the court stayed the 2011 rule and permitted EPA to continue to administer the defective 2008 rule."

 

    Below are reactions from Republicans and Democrats and industry and environmental organizations. In general, Republicans and industry organizations applauded the decision which they said curbed and "out of control" U.S. EPA. Democrats and environmental organizations were very disappointed in the decision and urged the Administration to pursue and appeal or reconsideration.

 

Republican Reactions:

 

Republican leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee welcomed the decision. Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Today's decision striking down EPA's costly and unworkable Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is welcome news. This is a win for American families who, because of this rule, faced the threat of higher power bills, less reliable electricity, and job losses. CSAPR is just one of several new EPA rules targeting America's power sector that together will cost our economy tens of billions of dollars and put thousands of jobs at risk. The court ruled today that EPA's transport rule 'exceeds the agency's statutory authority,' offering another reminder to the American people that President Obama's EPA is an agency run out of control."

 

    Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said, "I am pleased to see the court stand up to EPA's dangerous regulatory overreach. The courts have signaled that EPA has gone too far. EPA attempted to override states' rights, but the court ruled 'EPA has transgressed statutory boundaries.' EPA has been acting without authority and without consideration of the cumulative costs of its various rules that impact the power sector, which will ultimately cause electricity rates to increase for consumers. It is time for a more commonsense approach to regulation that does not inflict undue harm on our economy. The House-passed TRAIN Act offers a permanent solution to address the EPA's transport rule and other power sector regulations by ensuring we know the costs and consequences for consumers of these regulations before they are implemented."

 

    Committee Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX) said, "I'm pleased the court has ruled against this unfair and unworkable regulation. Under EPA's proposal, Texas and other states would be forced to shoulder a disproportionate percentage of the country's emissions reductions, threatening thousands of jobs and electric reliability across the state. This decision comes on the heels of last week's court ruling vacating EPA's disapproval of the Texas Flexible Permit Program. With these decisions, the courts have reaffirmed states' authority and slowed EPA's aggressive regulatory expansion."

 

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said, "As today's court ruling on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule exemplifies, the Obama-EPA continues to exceed its authority and is living up to its 'reputation for abuse,' -- I am pleased that the courts have reined in EPA on this illegal, flawed rule. With CSAPR, EPA moved too far too fast, setting unrealistic deadlines for states to meet its stringent requirements; the agency also pushed ahead without any regard for the fact that states were intended to play the primary role in reducing emissions. As the court's CSAPR ruling rightly explains, EPA's plan rests on 'rickety statutory logic.' This is not the first time EPA has used a dubious foundation to justify its extremist agenda. Today's ruling follows three significant court rulings which found that EPA overreached to the point that the judge in one case said EPA was using 'magical thinking' and aggregating 'a stunning power' to itself. Now given EPA's track record, it will not be surprising if the courts also rein in EPA's Utility MACT rule, which suffers from similar flawed data assumptions and unrealistic time frames. . ."

 

Democrats Reaction:

 

    House Energy & Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said, "I deplore this 2-1 decision, which vacates clean air protections that would have avoided up to 34,000 premature deaths each year. Congress adopted the Clean Air Act 'good neighbor' provisions to ensure that Americans in downwind states would have effective recourse against upwind polluters. But these activist judges have flouted congressional intent, the language of the Clean Air Act, and prior D.C. Circuit opinions to impose their own policy preferences and eviscerate EPA's authority to protect downwind states and their citizens. I urge the administration to appeal this decision."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee said, "Implementation of the Transport Rule would save lives and money in Massachusetts and across the country. Cutting down on dangerous pollution traveling across state lines means cleaner air, clearer lungs and healthier lives for families across the Bay State and nationwide. I urge the Obama administration to appeal this misguided decision by the courts so that Massachusetts and other states impacted by harmful emissions from old, polluting coal plants can clean up their air."

 

Industry Organizations:

 

    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons said, "Costly and excessive regulations are harming manufacturers' ability to compete. Today the federal court agreed that the EPA had overstepped its reach with the CSAPR regulation. The CSAPR and Utility MACT regulations would cost an estimated 1.44 million jobs by 2020 and drive up energy prices nationwide by 11.5 percent. In fact, we have already begun to see the impact of CSAPR in plant closings and job losses. As users of one-third of our nation's energy, manufacturers simply cannot afford these burdensome regulations while facing an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent. As noted in a new study by MAPI today [see separate article below], manufacturers are facing more than 2,000 regulations, which have been imposed over the past three decades. EPA regulations lead the way, not only in number, but also in cost. If manufacturers are to be the engine that drives our economy and creates jobs, we need action to reduce this regulatory burden and stop the EPA's overreach."

 

    Karen Harbert, president and CEO of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Institute for 21st Century Energy said, "Today's decision is good news for consumers and for the reliability of our electricity grid. It is notable that for the second time in two weeks, federal circuit courts have affirmed the primary responsibility of states -- not the EPA -- in determining how to meet air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. It has always been the contention of the Chamber that EPA regulations should be supported by sound science and accurate analysis. The EPA has habitually inflated the benefits and underestimated the costs of its regulations. Vacating this rule relieves utilities from unrealistic timelines and unjustified standards for compliance, at least from this particular rule. However, utilities still must comply with unreasonable timelines on the Utility MACT rule, which is also undergoing judicial review. A recent Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regional electricity auction saw capacity prices increase by eight-times as much as today for 2016, the first year that utilities must comply with Utility-MACT. With today's ruling, we call on the Obama Administration to heed these judicial rulings and re-craft sensible regulations that don't jeopardize economic growth or electricity reliability."

 

   Environmental Organizations:

 

    Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign said, "The Sierra Club is disappointed with the court's decision today. Americans have been waiting for the clean air they deserve for decades and the court's ruling today further delays the Clean Air Act's promise of safe, breathable air for our children. The EPA's long overdue and much-needed rule would have helped communities clean up their air and save lives by curbing millions of tons of air pollution that travel downwind and across state lines each year. Once implemented, the rule would have prevented as many as 34,000 premature deaths annually, avoided 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and improved the lives of millions. We urge the Environmental Protection Agency to petition for rehearing and strive to preserve the public health benefits that the rule promises. As Judge Rogers of the DC Circuit has explained [in the dissenting opinion], by ruling against EPA, 'the court disregards limits Congress placed on [the DC Circuit's] jurisdiction, the plain text of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and this court's settled precedent interpreting the same statutory provisions at issue today.' EPA can and must seek a rehearing of this critical life saving rule.

 

    John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said, "This decision allows harmful power plant air pollution to continue to aggravate major health problems and foul up our air. This is a loss for all of us, but especially for those living downwind from major polluters. This rule would have prevented thousands of premature deaths and saved tens of billions of dollars a year in health costs, but two judges blocked that from happening and forced EPA to further delay long overdue health safeguards for Americans. The EPA can -- and should -- immediately appeal this decision. The dissenting judge correctly follows the Clean Air Act and prior rulings by this court. The majority opinion is an outlier at odds with the court's own rulings as well as the Clean Air Act." NRDC notes that absent this decision being overturned, "it will take years for EPA to adopt replacement health safeguards that all three judges recognize to be necessary and required by law."

   

    Access the analysis from the Federal Regulations Advisory blog (click here). Access the statements from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican members (click here). Access the complete statement of Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access the statement from the Chamber (click here). Access the statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from NRDC with more analysis and links to additional information (click here). Access EPA's CSAPR website (click here). [#Air]

 

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

GAO Finds Weakness In EPA Information Security Controls

Aug 20: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Information Security: Environmental Protection Agency Needs to Resolve Weaknesses (GAO-12-696, Jul 19, 2012). The report was requested by a bipartisan group of Chairman and Ranking members from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittees.

 

    In background information, GAO indicates that U.S. EPA is responsible for protecting human health and the environment by implementing and enforcing the laws and regulations intended to improve the quality of the nation's air, water, and lands. The Agency's policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the economy, society, and government. In addition, it relies extensively on networked computer systems to collect a wealth of environmental data and to disseminate much of this information while also protecting other forms of sensitive or confidential information.

 

    Because of the importance of the security of EPA's information systems, GAO was asked to determine whether the Agency has effectively implemented appropriate information security controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information and systems that support its mission. To do this, GAO tested security controls over EPA's key networks and systems; reviewed policies, plans, and reports; and interviewed officials at EPA headquarters and two field offices.

 

    GAO found that although EPA has taken steps to safeguard the information and systems that support its mission, security control weaknesses pervaded its systems and networks, thereby jeopardizing the Agency's ability to sufficiently protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its information and systems. The Agency did not fully implement access controls, which are designed to prevent, limit, and detect unauthorized access to computing resources, programs, information, and facilities.

 

    Specifically, the agency did not always: (1) enforce strong policies for identifying and authenticating users by, for example, requiring the use of complex (i.e., not easily guessed) passwords; (2) limit users' access to systems to what was required for them to perform their official duties; (3) ensure that sensitive information, such as passwords for system administration, was encrypted so as not to be easily readable by unauthorized individuals; (4) keep logs of network activity or monitor key parts of its networks for possible security incidents; and (5) control physical access to its systems and information, such as controlling visitor access to computing equipment.

 

    In addition to weaknesses in access controls, EPA had mixed results in implementing other security controls. For example, EPA conducted appropriate background investigations for employees and contractors to ensure sufficient clearance requirements had been met before permitting access to information and information systems. However,

• EPA had not always securely configured network devices and updated operating system and database software with patches to protect against known vulnerabilities.
• EPA had not always ensured equipment used for sanitization and disposal of media was tested to verify correct performance.

    GAO indicated that an underlying reason for the control weaknesses is that EPA has not fully implemented a comprehensive information security program. Although EPA has established a framework for its security program, the Agency has not yet fully implemented all elements of its program. Specifically, it did not always finalize policies and procedures to guide staff in effectively implementing controls; ensure that all personnel were given relevant security training to understand their roles and responsibilities; update system security plans to reflect current agency security control requirements; assess management, operational, and technical controls for agency systems at least annually and based on risk; and implement a corrective action process to track and manage all weaknesses when remedial actions were necessary. Sustained management oversight and monitoring are necessary for EPA to implement these key information security practices and controls. Until EPA fully implements a comprehensive security program, it will have limited assurance that its information and information systems are adequately protected against unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, disruption, or loss.

    GAO made 12 recommendations to the Administrator of EPA to fully implement elements of EPA's comprehensive information security program. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA's Assistant Administrator generally agreed with GAO's recommendations. Two of GAO's recommendations were revised to incorporate EPA's comments. In a separate report with limited distribution, GAO also made 94 recommendations to EPA to enhance access and other information security controls over its systems.

    Energy and Commerce  Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) commented on the report saying, "Our oversight has shed much-needed light on the vulnerability of confidential information at federal agencies. This report raises serious questions about EPA's dedication to ensuring robust information protection and underscores the urgency for the agency to address security weaknesses. We will continue our oversight with a review of EPA's implementation of GAO's recommendations in the coming months."

    Access the complete 45-page GAO report (click here). Access the release from the House Energy and Commerce  Committee (click here). [#All]

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