House Passes "Stop The War On Coal Act"; Other Bills Languish

Sep 21: [Editor's Note: Although the U.S. House of Representatives spent two and a half hours this morning passing the "Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012" which has no chance of passage in the Senate and would be vetoed if it reached the President's desk; it could not find time to address the critically needed Farm Bill which has widespread support of Democrats, Republicans, the President, business, farmers and environmental and conservation groups].

 

    H.R.3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012, which had the strong support of House Republican leadership, was approved by a vote of 233-175. Nineteen Democrats joined 214 Republicans in passing the measure. On September 20, the White House issued a policy statement indicating that, "If the President is presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill" [See WIMS 9/20/12]. The House action is the last major action until after the Presidential election in the lame-duck session.

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released a statement applauding House passage of the bill saying, "President Obama's war on coal claimed another 1,200 jobs this week, adding to the thousands of others that have been wiped out by an administration determined to put an end to coal-fired energy in America and ship the jobs that come with it overseas. 

    "At the same time that President Obama claims to support Republicans' all-of-the-above energy policy, his administration is unleashing a barrage of excessive red tape that is shutting down power producers and mining operations, and devastating the families and communities that depend on them. These regulations mean fewer jobs and higher energy costs for all Americans, who are already paying the price for President Obama's failed energy policies on everything from gas to groceries. 

    "Today, the House again stepped up to stop President Obama's war on coal by passing legislation that reins in the administration's most damaging new energy regulations and holds them accountable for the economic impact of several others.  The Stop the War on Coal Act joins nearly 40 other bipartisan, House-passed energy and jobs bills that Senate Democrats continue blocking. President Obama has an opportunity to lead by calling on Senate Democrats to pass all of these bills to promote American energy, protect jobs, and help our economy get moving again."

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) said, "President Obama has spent his entire term waging a regulatory war of red-tape and government mandates on coal miners, coal jobs and the millions of people who rely on low-cost coal-fired electricity. Just one of this Administration's most egregious regulatory attacks on American coal production will destroy thousands of jobs and inflict economic harm on over twenty other states. Without the passage of the Stop the War on Coal Act, those job losses and thousands of others will become reality for hardworking coal miners and their families across the country as a record number of coal plants will be forced to close over the coming years."

    Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) said, "Today, with bipartisan support, the House of Representatives took an important step forward in stopping one of President Obama's most economically destructive policies with the passage of the Stop the War on Coal Act. President Obama's war on coal is real and it is already costing jobs. Just this week, Alpha Natural Resources announced that it is laying off 1,200 workers in three states. These layoffs come just weeks after Murray Energy announced that it would be closing its mine in Brilliant, Ohio putting more hardworking miners in the unemployment lines. Both companies cite excessive government overregulation as the main reason for these layoffs. The Stop the War on Coal Act is common sense legislation that protects coal jobs from these destructive regulations that have put the heavy boot of an out of control federal regulatory bureaucracy on the neck of the coal industry. Protecting America's coal industry and the jobs that go with it is part of the a true 'all of the above' approach to energy production that creates jobs, lowers energy prices, and takes America one step closer to energy independence. Coal is critical to powering America, and I will always fight to END President Obama's assault on hardworking Americans who work in the coal industry and the many businesses that depend upon the reliable, cost effective energy that coal provides."

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Today, the House took a stand for jobs, families, and affordable energy. On Tuesday this week, we learned of Alpha Natural Resources will be closing 8 mines and laying off 1200 workers. I met with the Alpha CEO shortly after the announcement, and he lamented the administration's regulatory assault on coal. Sadly, the list of layoffs goes on because of the administration's 'all of the above, but nothing from below,' energy policy. Coal is the cornerstone of our economy -- estimates suggest that every mining job creates an additional 3.5 jobs. We are electricity independent -- and we want to stay that way."

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said he welcomed the passage the bill. He said, "I applaud the bipartisan House passage of the 'Stop the War on Coal Act.' Over the past four years we have witnessed an unrelenting attack by the Obama administration on American energy production -- one that has resulted in lost jobs, higher energy prices, and lessened energy security. Today's decisive achievement in the House stands in stark contrast to the stalling and inaction of the Senate. Many of my Senate colleagues have talked at length about unleashing American energy production and reining in the Obama-EPA, but when the opportunity arises to do so they hide behind cover votes. As these Senators head home to hit the campaign trail, their record is clear and excuses only go so far: thanks to many of them, the far-left polices of the Obama-EPA remain unchecked and will go forward harming American families with higher energy prices and lost jobs."

    The White House veto warning statement on the bill indicated, "H.R. 3409, for example, would block landmark Clean Air Act public health regulations, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which would reduce harmful air pollution that threatens public health, especially the health of children and seniors. . . would block the recently-finalized National Program of fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for Model Year 2017-2025 cars and light trucks. . .  would roll back the provisions of the Clean Water Act that have underpinned 40 years of progress. . ."

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee issued a lengthy release saying, "Closing out the most unproductive and anti-environmental Congress in modern history, House Republicans today passed one last giveaway to the fossil fuel industries that are flooding money into GOP campaign coffers and election advertisements." He decried "the bill and Republican attacks on the free market, on clean energy, and on our environment."
 
    Rep. Markey said, "House Republicans now leave town with the worst environmental record in history, and without extending the Production Tax Credit for wind, which will raise taxes on the wind industry by up to $4 billion and eliminate 40,000 American wind jobs. Republicans have been so busy manufacturing fake wars on coal and oil that they've missed the real American energy revolution in natural gas, wind, solar and other cleaner, cheaper forms of energy. Republicans are saying they aren't going to worry about the 44 percent of our electricity that comes from the natural gas, hydropower and clean energy industries, just like their standard-bearer at the top of the ticket won't worry about 47 percent of Americans. This bill doesn't create an American energy strategy, it's just an election strategy for Republicans.
 
    "The Republican 'Polluterpalooza' bill passed today would: --Let coal companies off the hook to safely dispose and store the coal ash that results from burning coal and dump mining waste in streams and rivers; --Repeal the fuel economy standards that will save oil and money; --Increase the levels of toxic mercury, lead and cancer-causing toxins in our air by gutting the Clean Air Act; and
--Overturn Clean Water Act protections by eliminating EPA's ability to apply minimum federal water quality standards."
 
    Rep. Markey also indicated that House Republicans rejected several Democratic amendments, including: --An amendment by Rep. Markey to set a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2035; --An amendment by Rep. Markey to protect Americans from additional heart, lung or other diseases resulting from the increase in dangerous pollution from this bill; --An amendment by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to erase language in the GOP bill that denies the fundamental science of climate change; --An amendment by Rep. Markey to protect any efforts [or] any EPA action to reduce American oil dependence, like fuel economy standards.

    Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, issued a statement saying, "Republicans in the House of Representatives today launched yet another contemptible assault on Americans' health and well-being. In a sweeping, scorched-earth campaign, they are seeking to lay waste to numerous public health protections critical to ensuring that American families have safe air and clean water. This bill is a shameless, reckless and deadly assault on key safeguards Americans count on every day. On their way out the door from one of the least productive sessions of the U.S. House in history, Congressional Republicans proved once and for all that they hold the interests of dirty, outdated fossil fuel companies above those of everyday Americans."

    Earthjustice Vice President of Policy and Legislation Marty Hayden said, "Instead of offering legislation that would bolster our economy or create jobs for hard-working Americans, our leaders in Congress are pushing a toxic bill that comes at the cost of public health and our most basic and long-held environmental protections. House leaders seem to think that the only way to put people back to work is to give polluters free rein to poison our water, air and natural resources. Not only does this bill fail to create jobs but it exposes Americans to dangerous pollutants that cause sickness and cancer. This wrongheaded initiative is a recipe for disaster for public health and our economy. The House majority is clearly out-of-touch with the serious concerns Americans have about their health and the economy. It's time for our leaders to drop the political warfare and instead work on making America more competitive and secure by investing in clean energy industries that will define the future."

    House Democratic leaders held a press conference on the Capitol steps and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "As you can see, Democrats are proudly standing on the steps of the Capitol saying we must stay here until we take action to help the American people. We are prepared to stay in session to pass President Obama's jobs bill, which can create more than one million new jobs immediately, pass a five year farm bill -- 16 million agricultural jobs depend on it, extend middle income tax cuts to provide certainty for millions of Americans and help our economy. And to pass a comprehensive and balanced bill to address our fiscal concerns -- to say to the world that we can get the job done, that we can work in a cooperative manner to reduce the deficit, to create growth, to create jobs. We're here standing together to recognize that since August 3rd, when Congress adjourned, and November 14th, when we're being called back into session, we will have been in session only eight days. That's just not right.  Democrats are prepared to stay until we get the job done." Other members also delivered statements (see link below).

    Access the roll call vote (click here). Access the statement from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access a release from Reps. Hastings and Johnson (click here). Access a release from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey with further information (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from Earthjustice (click here). Access the a release from the House Democratic Leaders (click here). Access the Statement of Administration Policy (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3409 (click here). Access a House Democratic summary of the bill (click here). Access a House Republican summary of the bill (click here). [#Energy, #Water, #Air]

 

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

Administration Recommends Veto For "Stop the War On Coal Act"

Sep 19: The White House has issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy for H.R.3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Act, sponsored by Representative Johnson (R-OH) and 19 cosponsors [See WIMS 9/17/12]. The bill, a.k.a. the "Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012'' is strongly supported by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL); House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI); and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA). The bill is scheduled for a House Floor vote tomorrow (September 21). According to the Administration policy statement:

"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3409, which packages together a number of harmful measures that would undermine landmark environmental laws and adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment. The bill would roll back safeguards that protect public health, undercut fuel economy standards that will save Americans money at the pump while decreasing our dependence on oil, and roll back key provisions underpinning Clean Water Act protections.

"H.R. 3409, for example, would block landmark Clean Air Act public health regulations, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which would reduce harmful air pollution that threatens public health, especially the health of children and seniors. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that emissions reductions resulting from meeting these standards will prevent as many as 11,000 avoidable premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks annually. The annual value of the health benefits from these rules alone is estimated to be as much as $90 billion. H.R. 3409 also would block the recently-finalized National Program of fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for Model Year 2017-2025 cars and light trucks. Further, the legislation could create uncertainty around the requirements currently in effect for the Model Year 2012-2016 vehicle standards. The historic National Program for vehicles will deliver dramatic savings for Americans at the pump, significantly cut U.S. oil consumption, and reduce harmful pollution. In addition, the bill would roll back the provisions of the Clean Water Act that have underpinned 40 years of progress in making the Nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.

"To be clear, the Administration believes that coal is and will remain an important part of our energy mix for decades to come. For that reason, since 2009, the Administration has committed nearly $6 billion in advanced coal research, development, and deployment and continues to work with industry on important efforts to demonstrate advanced coal technologies.

"As has been noted in previous statements on related legislative proposals contained within H.R. 3409, the Administration strongly rejects the notion that economic growth and protecting the health of our communities and families are mutually exclusive.

"If the President is presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

    The bill incorporates the following bills: H.R.3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act; H.R.910, Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011; H.R.2401, Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011; H.R.2273, Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act; H.R.2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. 

    Access the Statement of Administration Policy (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.3409 (click here). Access a House Democratic summary of the bill (click here). Access a House Republican summary of the bill (click here). [#Energy, #Water, #Air]

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

Report Looks At Hidden Costs Of Electric Power Generation Fuels

Sep 19: A new Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. report -- The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation Fuels -- prepared for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) indicates that huge demands on increasingly scarce water are a major hidden cost of a "business as usual" approach to American electricity generation that needs to be more fully understood by policymakers and the public. Six fuels used to generate electricity --- biomass, coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar (photovoltaic and concentrating solar power), and wind (both onshore and offshore) -- are analyzed in the following categories: water impacts, climate change impacts, air pollution impacts, planning and cost risk, subsidies and tax incentives, land impacts, and other impacts. Examples of the water-related findings in the report include the following:

• Nuclear power has critical cooling requirements that require huge amounts of water. Roughly 62 percent of U.S. nuclear plants have closed-loop cooling systems. Reactors with closed-loop systems withdraw between 700-1,100 gallons of water per megawatt hour (MWh) and lose most of that water to evaporation. Water withdrawals are even higher at open-loop cooled nuclear plants, which need between 25,000-60,000 gallons per MWh. Most of the water is returned, but at a higher temperature and lower quality.
• In addition to fouling streams and drinking water through mining and coal-ash dump sites, coal-fired power relies heavily on closed-loop cooling systems which withdraw between 500 and 600 gallons of water per MWh and lose most of this via evaporation. Withdrawals for open-looped cooled coal-fired power plants are between 20,000-50,000 gallons per MWh. Most of the water is returned, but at a higher temperature and lower quality.
• Under a so-called "Clean Energy Standard," biomass would become a much larger source of U.S. electricity generation; however, biomass also requires vast amounts of water. The report notes that a typical 50 megawatt (MW) biomass plant could withdraw roughly 242 million gallons of water per year and lose most of this. Adding 10 of these plants in a region would use 2.42 billion gallons of water per year. For dedicated energy crops, water use for irrigation can be considerable. One study estimates water use for most crops between 40,000 and 100,000 gallons per MWh, with some crops exceeding this range.
• In 2010, EPA estimated that fracking shale wells can use anywhere from two to 10 million gallons of water per well. The water is often extracted from on-site surface or groundwater supplies. Such huge water withdrawals raise serious concerns about the impacts on ecosystems and drinking water supplies, especially in areas under drought conditions, areas with low seasonal flow, locations with already stressed water supplies, or locations with waters that have sensitive aquatic communities.
• By contrast, wind and solar photovoltaic power requires little water in the electricity generation process. Concentrating solar power requires water for cooling purposes, but new technologies are placing greater emphasis on dry cooling. Solar power plants with dry cooling use only around 80 gallons per MWh - about a tenth of the low-end estimate for nuclear power and one-sixth of the low end estimate for coal-fired power generation.

    Grant Smith, CSI senior energy analyst said, "The government and energy industries are literally flying blind as they plan for continued reliance on coal, natural gas, nuclear power and industrial biomass to meet our energy needs. Each of these is water intensive and leads to pollution of water, which is increasingly scarce and in competition for other uses such as agriculture and other commercial uses. The drought intensifies the urgency and the imperative that political leaders in both parties hit the pause button on the headlong rush to support nuclear power and fossil fuel use."

    Seth Sheldon PhD, CSI lead water/energy analyst said, "In 2005 the Congress mandated a Federal water/energy roadmap. Nearly eight years later, that roadmap has not been produced and either through bureaucratic inertia or fear of hard political questions, the questions are not even being asked, much less their solutions explored. At a time of significant water scarcity and increasing threats to water quality, we can ill afford to ignore this central question about the future of our energy choices."

 

    Dusty Horwitt, EWG senior counsel said, "The rush to drill for shale gas is one of the best recent examples of how the costs of water pollution are ignored in the pursuit of supposedly cheap energy. When New York regulators estimate a price tag of $8-10 billion to build a water treatment plant for New York City if shale gas drilling contaminates its upstate water supply, it raises serious questions about whether shale gas really is so cheap and why water costs aren't always considered from the start."

    Geoff Keith, senior associate, Synapse Energy Economics Inc. said, "Too often left out of the equation are a number of important 'hidden' costs, also called 'indirect' or 'externalized' costs, associated with each generation technology. These include costs to society such as depletion of water and other resources, air and water pollution, detrimental impacts on human health and the environment, and contributions to global climate change. While direct costs (the monetary cost to build and operate a generating plant) are important to consumers, so too are these indirect costs, whether or not they can be easily expressed in monetary terms."

 

    Access a release from the groups with more details and links to informatio on the groups (click here). Access the 9-page summary of the 78+ page report (click here). [Note: The full report should be posted soon]. [#Energy/Alternatives]

 

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

Diverse Policy Experts Report To Improve Regulatory Decision-Making

Sep 18: Scientists and policy experts from industry, government, and nonprofit sectors reached consensus on ways to improve the rigor and transparency of regulatory decision-making in a report being released today (September 18, 2012). The Research Integrity Roundtable, a cross-sector working group convened and facilitated by The Keystone Center, an independent public policy organization, is releasing the new report to improve the scientific analysis and independent expert reviews which underpin many important regulatory decisions. The report, Model Practices and Procedures for Improving the Use of Science in Regulatory Decision-Making, builds on the work of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) in its 2009 report Science for Policy Project: Improving the Use of Science in Regulatory Policy.

    Mike Walls, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), one of the sponsors of the Keystone Roundtable, "Americans need to have confidence in a U.S. regulatory system that encourages rational, science-based decision-making. For this report, a broad spectrum of stakeholders came together to identify and help resolve some of the more troubling inconsistencies and roadblocks at the intersection of science and regulatory policy."

    A release from ACC indicates that controversies surrounding a regulatory decision often arise over the composition and transparency of scientific advisory panels and the scientific analysis used to support such decisions. The Roundtable's report is the product of 18 months of deliberations among experts from advocacy groups, professional associations and industry, as well as liaisons from several key Federal agencies. The report centers on two main public policy challenges that lead to controversy in the regulatory process: appointments of scientific experts, and the conduct of systematic scientific reviews.

    The Roundtable's recommendations aim to improve the selection process for scientists on Federal advisory panels and the scientific analysis used to draw conclusions that inform policy. The report seeks to maximize transparency and objectivity at every step in the regulatory decision-making process by informing the formation of scientific advisory committees and use of systematic reviews. The Roundtable's report offers specific recommendations for improving expert panel selection by better addressing potential conflicts of interest and bias. In addition, the report recommends ways to improve systematic reviews of scientific studies by outlining a step-by-step process, and by calling for clearer criteria to determine the relevance and credibility of studies.

    Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said, "Conflicted experts and poor scientific assessments threaten the scientific integrity of agency decision making as well as the public's faith in agencies to protect their health and safety. Given the abundance of inflamed partisan dialogue around regulatory issues, it was refreshing to be a part of a rational and respectful roundtable. If adopted by agencies, the changes recommended in the report have the potential to reduce the ability of narrow interests to weaken regulations' power to protect the public good."

    Members of the Roundtable include: Richard Becker, American Chemistry Council; Raymond Garant, American Chemical Society; David Goldston, Natural Resources Defense Council; Francesca Grifo, Union of Concerned Scientists; Michael Holsapple, Battelle Health & Life Sciences Global Business; Janet Mostowy, Bayer Material Science, LLC; J. Craig Rowlands, The Dow Chemical Company; and Robert Rickard, DuPont SHE & Sustainable Growth Cent. Government Liaisons included: Bruce Androphy, National Institutes of Health; Howard Gadlin, National Institutes of Health; Oscar Hernandez, Environmental Protection Agency; Annie Jarabek, Environmental Protection Agency; Dennis Keefe, Food and Drug Administration; and Alan Thornhill, Department of the Interior.

    The Keystone Center and members of the Research Integrity Roundtable welcome additional conversations and dialogue on the matters explored in and recommendations presented in this report. Founded in 1975, The Keystone Center is an independent nonprofit organization that brings together public, private, and civic sector leaders. The Center provides mediation and facilitation services that incorporate innovative decision-making methods. The result: action-oriented, sustainable solutions to complex energy, environmental, and public health issues.

    Access the 51-page report (click here). Access the 2009 BPC report (click here). Access the Keystone Center website for the report with additional information (click here). Access the release Center (click here). [#All]

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

Sen. Stabenow: Why Won't The House Vote On The Farm Bill?

Sep 14: A release from Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee reports on the "Farm Bill Now!" rally, where she says Democrats and Republicans came together to urge the House of Representatives to take up the Farm Bill. With Congress scheduled to recess on September 21, there very little time left to deal with this major issue [See WIMS 9/10/12].

 

    In June, the Senate achieved rare bipartisan agreement when it passed Sen. Stabenow's 2012 Farm Bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act ((S.3240, with a vote of 64-35) [See WIMS 6/21/12]. Her bill has been widely praised from both sides of the aisle for its significant reforms that cut spending by $23 billion, disaster assistance for farmers, and support for job creation in one of the country's largest economic sectors. The House Agriculture Committee has also passed a bipartisan Farm Bill (July 17 (H.R.6083) [See WIMS 7/17/12], but Sen. Stabenow said "the House Republican leadership is currently blocking that bill from being considered in the full House of Representatives."Work cannot continue on the bill until the full House follows the Senate's lead and passes a full Farm Bill. Sen. Stabenow was joined at the rally by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) in calling on the House to take up and pass a full five-year Farm Bill.

    Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) said, "Passing a Farm Bill is more important now than it has ever been.... I appreciate the efforts of our Chairperson in the Senate, Senator Stabenow, and my colleague from Kansas, Sen. Roberts. The evidence is there that we can come together as Republicans and Democrats to produce a Farm Bill that provides good things.... We know that when a storm comes and it's time to harvest, our farmers will hook up their tractor and go to work. They will not wait to see what's going to happen...we all know that a storm is coming on Sept. 30th when the Farm Bill expires."

    Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) said: "[Farming is] a risky business, and this year with this drought situation we are certainly seeing that... that's why a Farm Bill is so important, that's why we need the certainty that it brings, and that's why we need to get this Farm bill done now.... We need to continue to work together...the best day that I've had here in Washington, D.C. was the day we marked up the Ag. bill in the House Agriculture committee and it was because it was bipartisan.... Let's get some work done and let's get a Farm Bill now."

    Senator Stabenow asks, "Why won't House leadership take up a bill so widely praised by members on both sides of the aisle?" The release includes a number of quotes from senators from both parties at the time the Farm Bill was overwhelmingly passing the Senate.

    On September 13, the National Farmers Union (NFU) sent a letter today urging Congressional representatives to sign a meeting request to discuss scheduling floor time for a vote on the farm bill, which is set to expire on Sept. 30. NFU President Roger Johnson noted in the letter, "The Senate and the House Committee on Agriculture have already passed their own versions of the farm bill and the full House must act soon. As such, I urge you to sign the letter to request a meeting with Leader Cantor in order to move the farm bill process forward."

    American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman emceed the "Farm Bill Now!" rally on Capitol Hill and said, "Perhaps never in the history of farm legislation have so many diverse farmer and rancher voices joined together for such a common call for action on a farm bill. We gather here under a banner adorned with three words. FARM. BILL. NOW. And we are here to raise our voices toward Capitol Hill…for a shared purpose." Stallman indicated that the farm bill isn't just a bill for farmers. The USDA says, 1 in every 12 American jobs is directly related back to the farm.

    On September 13, Representative Bruce Braley (D-IA) issued a release saying that after 65 days, and significant pressure from him, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had finally allowed the House Farm Bill to be reported from Committee.  Immediately, Rep. Braley formally introduced a bipartisan discharge petition and said, "Today, we took a tremendous step forward toward forcing a vote on the Farm Bill. After 65 days of dithering and distraction, Speaker Boehner has finally allowed the bill to be released from Committee. Today, I've filed my bipartisan discharge petition to force this bill to the Floor. I urge my colleagues to sign the petition immediately. Now that we, a group of Democrats and Republicans, have filed this discharge petition, and it's available for signatures, we'll see who really supports the Farm Bill Now."   

    A New York Times (NYT) article on the current situation indicates that House leaders, "are not eager to force their members to take a vote that would be difficult for some of them, nor would they wish to pass a measure largely with Democrats' votes right before an election. . . Some conservatives in each chamber dislike the farm bill generally and would like to see it cut back much further than House or Senate committee members propose. Many Democrats dislike the $16 billion in cuts to nutrition programs in the House bill, and some Southern members who represent rice and peanut growers do not like other proposed changes."

    Access the release from Sen. Stabenow (click here). Access a release from NFU and link to the letter and signers (click here). Access a release from the AFBF (click here). Access a release from Rep. Braley (click here). Access the NYT article with further details (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.6083 (click here). Access the legislative details for S.3240 (click here). Access the Farm Bill Now website for more information (click here). [#Agriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy]

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

House Passes "No More Solyndras Act" 245-161

Sep 14: The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 6213, the "No More Solyndras Act" [See WIMS 8/2/12, WIMS 7/13/12] sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), by a vote of 245-161. Twenty-two Democrats joined 223 Republicans in passing the measure. In comments on the House Floor, Rep. Upton said:

"I care about America's energy future, and I also care about America's fiscal future.  For these two reasons, I urge all of you to vote yes on the No More Solyndras Act.

"On the energy front, I continue to advocate concrete measures towards achieving North American energy independence. This includes approving Keystone XL, increasing conventional and renewable energy production from federal lands, and eliminating unnecessary EPA red tape on coal and other fossil fuels. These and other pro-energy measures are part of the all-of-the-above agenda that has been championed by my Committee and the full House.

"But support for this agenda also requires us to pull the plug on existing programs that are not working. And the Department of Energy's Title 17 loan guarantee program is simply not advancing the ball on our all-of-the-above goals. The No More Solyndras Act phases out this costly, ineffective, and mismanaged program.

"Our extensive investigation of Solyndra has uncovered a story worse than anyone could have ever imagined. It is amazing to me that the administration gave a half-billion dollar loan guarantee to a company its own experts predicted would fail, a company so dysfunctional that it burned through this giant handout and went bankrupt in just two years. Even worse, when it became clear to the administration that Solyndra was in trouble, it chose to double down on the risky bet, gambling even more taxpayer dollars with a desperate loan restructuring instead of trying to cut its losses and move on. 

"Solyndra is the most visible but far from the only example of Title 17 failures.  In fact, it is hard to point to a single loan guarantee success story under this program. Developing new energy sources and technologies is an important part of our all-of-the-above approach, but it is clear that this loan guarantee program is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.

"Further, I am stunned by the cavalier manner in which the administration squandered all these tax dollars yet says that it has no regrets about its handling of the program and continues to declare it an "enormous success." If the administration can't learn anything about irresponsible spending from Solyndra, is it any wonder we are running trillion dollar annual deficits and just saw the national debt eclipse $16 trillion dollars? Burning money is one source of energy that the country doesn't need. That is why this bill prevents any costly repeats of Solyndra by prohibiting any new loan guarantees and subjecting pending ones to very stringent safeguards.   

"What is most disturbing about this unprecedented spending is that it is not necessary to secure a brighter energy future. The private sector is more than willing to step in and provide more energy, if only we would let them. What we need is a Keystone economy, not a Solyndra economy. What we need is privately-funded investment, not taxpayer-funded boondoggles. The goal of North American energy independence is within reach, as well as millions of new jobs that would go with it. But we aren't going to get there through Title 17 DOE loan guarantees. Our investigation uncovered a problem, and now we have a thoughtful bill to fix it. The next step is for the House to pass the No More Solyndras Act."

    Several amendments and a proposal to return the bill to Committee were soundly defeated along party-lines. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee issued a release saying, "House Republicans today passed a bill to end a loan guarantee program, but not before $88.4 billion in loans are handed out to coal and nuclear interests, while voting to allow the bill to go forward even if taxes are raised on the wind industry by up to $4 billion, threatening 40,000 jobs in the next year alone." Rep. Markey decried the bill as a "sham that protects imperiled nuclear projects while revealing House Republicans' true agenda to undercut innovative wind, solar and other clean energy projects."

 

    Markey said the bill "purports to end a loan guarantee program for energy projects, but will still allow tens of billions of dollars to be ferreted out to projects like the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which has been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy for months, and just received another $100 million in taxpayer money in yesterday's bill to fund the government for the next few months." Rep. Markey offered an amendment that would have prevented the act from staying in effect if a $4 billion tax hike on the wind sector was allowed to occur which was rejected.

    Rep. Markey said, "Republicans say they want no more Solyndras, but what they really want is no more clean energy solutions. They don't want the newest clean energy technologies to compete with coal, nuclear, oil and other fossil fuels. This bill is like saying a concert is sold out, but not before the friends of the band still get the best seats in the house. That's why Republicans are handing out tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to risky nuclear and coal projects, while cutting off funding for innovative wind, solar and other clean energy projects."

    Access the statement and video from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the roll call vote on H.R. 6213 (click here). Access the legislative details for H.R.6213 (click here). [#Energy/Renewable]

 

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

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