House Hearing On EPA's Study Of Hydraulic Fracturing Impacts

Jul 24: The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Energy and Environment Subcommittees held a joint hearing to examine the EPA's scientific processes and how the agency conducts its investigation into the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: U.S. EPA; EPA Science Advisory Board, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel; Utah Department of Natural Resources; and New York State Water Resources Institute, Cornell University.

    In its FY2010 Appropriations Committee Conference Report, Congress requested that the EPA study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, and to use the best available science and independent sources of information. The EPA is undertaking the study using a transparent, peer-reviewed process. The Agency has engaged experts in developing an approach and continues to consult with experts and stakeholders throughout the study. In 2011, EPA began research under its Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. The scope of the proposed research includes the full hydraulic fracturing water cycle, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and injection of fluids, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal. In December, 2012, the EPA released the Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report to provide the public with the latest information on the work being undertaken as part of the research study [See WIMS 12/21/12, WIMS 7/12/12]. On April 30, 2013, EPA announced in the Federal Register [78 FR 25267-25268] that it was extending the deadline for the public to submit data and scientific literature to inform the Agency's research from April 30, 2013, until November 15, 2013. EPA said it is extending the deadline in order to provide the public with more of an opportunity to provide feedback [See WIMS 4/30/13]. The draft EPA report that synthesizes the results of these studies is expected to be released for peer review and public comment in late 2014.

    Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, "It seems that each week there is more good news about the incredible benefits of the fracking energy revolution that is underway across America. However, some choose to ignore these benefits and instead focus on finding ways to restrain, if not stifle, the new development. The EPA has too often been complicit in this effort.  They have attempted to link fracking to water contamination in at least three cases, only to be forced to retract their statements after further scrutiny proved them to be unfounded."

    Environment Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart (R-UT) said, "Given EPA's rush to judgment in Wyoming, Texas, and Pennsylvania, we should question whether the agency's ongoing study is a genuine, fact-finding, scientific exercise, or a witch-hunt to find a pretext to regulate. EPA's recent announcement that it is walking away from its attempt to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater issues in Pavillion, Wyoming [See WIMS 6/21/13] is the most recent example of the agency employing a 'shoot first, ask questions later' policy toward unconventional oil and gas production.  This marks the third case in which EPA has made sweeping allegations of fracking-caused contamination, only to have to recant these claims later due to errors, omissions and breaches of protocol. At a time when so many Americans are learning to distrust our federal government, this is another blow for the credibility of our federal agencies."

    Energy Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) said, "In this manner, the agency appears headed toward developing conclusions completely divorced from any useful context. It is akin to a weatherman warning citizens to take shelter based on the possibility that a storm will occur, without including any indication of when the storm might occur, where it might hit and how likely it is to actually take place.  I am not alone in this concern, as several of the panelists on the EPA's Science Advisory Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory have similarly expressed apprehension over the lack of context the agency is providing and its neglect of risk assessment."

    Full Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her opening remarks, "Concerns about contamination of groundwater and drinking water have troubled us since the shale gas boom started over a decade ago. We must be careful not to sacrifice the quality of our natural water resources for the sake of cheaper gas.  We need clean water as much as we need affordable energy options.  Our water resources are already stretched to support our industrial and agricultural sectors, and residential and commercial development. We cannot afford to contaminate the limited drinking water supplies that we have.  It is in the best interest of everyone, especially the fracking industry, to resolve questions surrounding the fracking water cycle and the impact to groundwater and drinking water. Americans have a right to clean water and a healthier environment. The gas will be there, and it is up to the industry to make sure it can be produced in an environmentally sound manner."

    Subcommittee on Environment Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said, "Our surface and groundwater resources are under tremendous strain throughout the country. Population expansion, residential and industrial development, droughts, and limited precipitation not seen before in some areas of the country have all contributed to this strain.  These circumstances make access to clean water and the EPA's study even more important.  If we want to enjoy the advantages and economic benefits of shale gas development, we must do so with the highest regard for safety and the protection of our precious water resources. State, federal, and tribal leaders, in addition to Americans all over the country are alarmed about whether their drinking water is at risk, and they deserve answers to their questions." 

    Subcommittee on Energy Ranking Member Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stated, "We have to be careful that we extract this resource safely, without unintended, serious consequences to either our health or the environment. It would be very short-sighted to produce energy via fracking only to find out later that it caused damage. There is simply no place for politics when it comes to making sure that the water that our families rely on is safe, and the homes that we live in are not at risk of a man-made disaster."

    EPA testified that its "integrated approach of openness and scientific rigor is ensuring that the EPA study will provide the full range of policymakers with high quality, policy-relevant science that will inform their decision making. . . the President believes the prudent development of our oil and natural gas resources can make a critical contribution to meeting our nation's energy needs. . . We are pursuing this work with the best available science and the highest level of transparency. This study will continue to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process in consultation with other federal agencies, appropriate State and inter-state regulatory agencies, and with input from industry, non-governmental organizations, tribal governments, and other stakeholders. As you have heard today, we will continue to collaborate with our federal partners and work with our stakeholders to address the highest priority challenges to safely and prudently develop unconventional gas and oil resources.

    Access the Republican hearing website for testimony, statements and video (click here). Access the Democratic hearing website for testimony, statements and video (click here). Access the complete FR announcement (click here). Access EPA's Progress Report (click here). Access EPA's docket for more information and to submit and review comments (click here). Access more information on the SAB panel (click here). Access more information on the EPA hydraulic fracturing study (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Drink]

House Hearing On DOE Management Problems & Structure

Jul 24: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Chaired by Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA), held a hearing entitled, Department of Energy Oversight: What is Necessary to Improve Project Management and Mission Performance? Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from the: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); DOE Inspector General; and Government Accountability Office.

 

    In an opening statement, Full Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Today we take a look at plans for a new management structure and other changes at the Department of Energy announced last week by Secretary Moniz. Our question is, will these reforms help transform DOE for the innovation era? DOE has recently experienced a number of management challenges, particularly with regard to its stewardship of the nuclear weapons programs and nuclear cleanup. These challenges -- and the tremendous risks to the public from failure to address them -- are not new. . . The big lesson is that the agency's safety, security, and contract management problems span administrations and Congresses. From my experience, and as our witnesses will explain, improving DOE's performance requires long, sustained attention to ensure lasting improvement in agency

performance. . .

 

    "We need to start discussing whether the agency is structured and able to adapt to the realities of this nation's very bright energy picture. DOE has significant responsibilities that will not and should not go away; the agency must be poised to take on new responsibilities that best serve the energy, environmental, and security needs of the nation. But we also must acknowledge that if we were to start from a clean slate, there is no question an Energy Department for this new era of abundance would hardly resemble the Department of today."

 

     Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) also issued an opening statement indicating, "The energy subject at the top of my priority list is climate change. Secretary Moniz understands the challenges posed by rising levels of carbon pollution. He will play a key role in the implementation of the President's National Climate Action Plan. His efforts to identify the threats our energy sector faces due to climate change and to improve energy efficiency are important. I am also impressed at the quick action he has taken to address the subject of this hearing: long-standing DOE problems with cost management, environmental compliance, and physical security at the nation's nuclear complex. . .

 

    "As one of his first acts, Secretary Moniz announced a reorganization that will create a new Under Secretary for Management and Performance. The President has nominated Beth Robinson, currently NASA's Chief Financial Officer, to fill the position. This restructuring will put one official in charge of strengthening environmental cleanup, contracting oversight, human capital, and other important functions. . . Most recently, we held a hearing in March on the alarming incident involving an 83-year-old breaking into the highly secure DOE Y-12 facility in Tennessee. . . We know that the long-standing problems at DOE will not be easy to solve. But the Department of Energy's vital missions to develop new clean energy technologies and protect our nuclear stockpile are too important to the nation for us to ignore. . ."

 

    DOE's testimony focused on the July 12, Secretary-approved top-level reorganization of the Department that reallocates the responsibilities of the Department's three Offices of Under Secretary. This reorganization has three primary objectives: (1) To improve integration of the science and applied energy R&D programs of the Department by establishing an Under Secretary for Science and Energy; (2) To improve project management and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our mission support functions across the Department by establishing an Under Secretary for Management and Performance; and (3) To establish an enterprise-wide vision and coordination of major cross-cutting programs.

 

    Access the GOP hearing website for links to testimony, statements and video (click here). Access the Dems hearing website for links to testimony, statements and video (click here). [#Energy]

GOP Leaders Threaten To Cut Funding For CFATS Program

Jul 22: House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Carter (R-TX) wrote to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano regarding the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program. The House Republican leaders expressed "serious reservations" about extending funding for the program unless significant progress is made. The committee leaders are requesting a series of reports from the Department of Homeland Security to assist with oversight, specifically examining how the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) plans to improve implementation of the program.

    They wrote, "The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General, and the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection itself have all recognized that, over the past five years, DHS's ineffectual management and implementation of the CFATS program has frustrated the Department's critical mission to secure America's facilities containing chemicals of interest. As the authorizers and appropriators of this program, we write to you to express serious reservations about continuing to extend CFATS funding without evidence of substantial programmatic improvement. The basic programmatic building blocks of CFATS are missing, and we are running short on both patience and confidence with regard to the Department's ability to correct its deficiencies."

    The lawmakers pointed to flaws in the program's risk evaluation system, compliance hurdles, implementation delays, and the failure of the program to identify vulnerable facilities as highlighted by the West, Texas fertilizer plant explosion. The letter continued, "Unfortunately, problems with the Department's efforts to implement these programs are not limited to those discussed here. As the Chairmen responsible for authorizing and funding CFATS, we are convinced the program should not continue in its present condition. While the need to secure American facilities with chemicals of concern is a critical one, the CFATS program is simply not getting the job done. … Over the course of this fiscal year, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee will continue the rigorous oversight and strict guidance needed to get CFATS on track. We intend to identify specific milestones the program must achieve in order to establish its viability. Ultimately, we would like to consider a multi-year reauthorization of CFATS -- but only if it is the right program for the job."

    Also in their letter the GOP members point out that despite the "flawed risk methodology, thousands of facilities across the country have attempted to comply with CFATS requirements by submitting their initial risk assessment information (the top screen), and have been assigned a final tier. These facilities have invested time and resources into the development of their site security plans. Yet, GAO estimates it could take up to nine years for the Department to review these plans and certify each facility's security. Within that time, technology changes, plans become outdated, and facilities remain vulnerable to attack. The scope and pace of this backlog is simply unacceptable. Perhaps the most basic step toward achieving the security of facilities with chemicals of concern is identifying those facilities that are at risk. Yet, even here, the Department has failed to implement an effective process. As the tragic explosion of the West Fertilizer Plant in April brought to light, DHS is unaware of the existence of thousands of small facilities across the country that are potentially covered under the statute. The identification of facilities at risk of terrorist infiltration is the very foundation of the CFATS program."

    Concern about the program extends across party lines. In March at an Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee hearing to provide and update on CFATS, Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "Since 2001, federal officials, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and outside experts have warned that the nation's drinking water utilities and chemical facilities remain vulnerable to terrorist attack.

    "Unfortunately, the CFATS program is a grave disappointment. At the end of 2011, we learned the program was in disarray. No facilities had approved site security plans. Homeland Security officials felt their enforcement authority was insufficient and ineffective. There were no procedures in place to document important programmatic decisions. No one on staff was even qualified to conduct a compliance inspection. . ."

    Rep. Waxman said, "CFATS was created in the sloppiest legislative fashion possible. It was established in 2006 by a provision tucked into an appropriations bill without the benefit of hearings or markups by the Committee." But, he continued, "The problems with the program are not all Congress' fault. Both the current and previous administrations have failed to implement the program effectively. The Department issued an interim final rule within six months of the law's passage. This rule determined what chemicals might be targets, how risk would be assessed, and what security standards would be applied. Given the quick action and limited statutory guidance, the rule was flawed. But now – six years later – it still hasn't been updated and improved." 

    Access a release from the Republican leaders and link to the complete letter (click here). Access DHS CFATS website for more information including facilities covered and a list of chemicals of interest (click here). Access a March 14 GOP E&C hearing on CFATS Update with video and links to testimony (click here). Access a March 14 Democrats E&C hearing on CFATS Update with video and links to testimony (click here). [#Toxics, #Haz]

DOI Announces Virginia OCS Wind Energy Lease Sale

Jul 22: Department of  Interior (DOI) Secretary Sally Jewell and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy Beaudreau announced that BOEM will hold its second competitive lease sale for renewable energy on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The auction, scheduled to take place on September 4, will offer nearly 112,800 acres offshore Virginia for commercial wind energy leasing. In June, Secretary Jewell and Director Beaudreau announced the nation's first wind energy lease sale for an area offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which will be held on July 31. 

    Secretary Jewell said, "The competitive lease sale offshore Virginia will mark an important transition from planning to action when it comes to capturing the enormous clean energy potential offered by Atlantic wind. Responsible commercial wind energy development has the potential to create jobs, increase our energy security, and strengthen our nation's competitiveness."

    Under the terms of the Final Sale Notice, the wind energy area offshore Virginia will be auctioned as a single lease. The area is located 23.5 nautical miles from the Virginia Beach coastline and has the potential to support more than 2,000 megawatts of wind generation -- enough electricity to power approximately 700,000 homes. A release from DOI indicates that as part of President Obama's comprehensive Climate Action Plan [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13], he challenged DOI to re-double efforts on the renewable energy program by approving an additional 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy production on public lands and waters by 2020.

    The area, composed of 19 full OCS blocks and 13 sub-blocks, was selected after intensive work with the Commonwealth and stakeholders to avoid existing uses of the OCS offshore Virginia, including sensitive ecological habitat and shoals along the coast north of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, military training areas, marine vessel traffic, a dredge disposal site, and areas of concern specified by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility. The area available for auction is identical to the one announced in the Proposed Sale Notice that was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2012, for a 60-day public comment period. BOEM carefully considered public comments before developing the Final Sale Notice. The Final Sale Notice will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow (July 23).

 

    The following companies are eligible to participate: Apex Virginia Offshore Wind, LLC; Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Virginia Power); Energy Management, Inc.; EDF Renewable Development, Inc.; Fisherman's Energy, LLC; IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc.; Sea Breeze Energy, LLC; and Orisol Energy U.S., Inc. Beaudreau said, "After careful review, BOEM has determined that these companies are legally, technically and financially qualified to participate in the upcoming lease sale. We applaud their leadership and look forward to overseeing a fair and competitive leasing process."

 

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee responded indicating that "Interior has already granted one other lease, without competitive bidding. As the Administration moves forward with more offshore wind energy off the east coast, the ban on oil and gas leasing, which started when President Obama took office, continues in the same region." He said, "Energy sources that can work to be sustainable and affordable are something we can all support, but the Administration has a bad habit of picking energy industry winners and losers. According to the Interior's own analysis, the government assistance the wind industry receives in leasing and special tax credits exceeds the money they can generate for the Treasury in offshore production. Alternative energy has potential for our 'all of the above' energy future, but the Administration needs to quit ignoring the economic benefits of traditional energy."

 

    Senator Vitter indicated in a release that in November 2012, Senators Vitter and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) wrote a letter to former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, noting that the agency will not allow offshore oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and requested data on the economics of the wind lease sale to compare with "the value of a similar lease for oil and gas on equivalent acreage." Seven months later on June 5, 2013, the Senators finally received a response from Interior which they indicate "provides limited analysis that further undermines justification for offshore wind." Sen. Vitter indicated, "As part of Interior's response, they explain that a minimum bid for oil and gas offshore lease sales are $100 per acre for deepwater leases, compared to $1 or $2 per acre for the upcoming wind lease sales. In addition, there is strong indication that the royalty rate is a fraction of the tax credit, thus meaning federal subsidies more than cover what these projects are expected to pay in royalties."

 

    Access a lengthy release from DOI with additional details and links to more information (click here). Access a map of the Virginia wind energy area (click here). Access the Proposed Sale Notice, public comments and responses on BOEM's website (click here). Access a release from Sen. Vitter with links to the letter, response and analysis by the Heritage Foundation (click here). [#Energy/Wind]

Next EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Confirmed 59-40

Jul 18: Four Republicans, joined 53 Democrats and 2 Independents to confirm Regina (Gina) McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be the next Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The four Republicans were Ayotte (R-NH), Corker (R-TN), Flake (R-AZ), and McCain (R-AZ). One lone Democrat, Manchin (D-WV), voted with 39 Republicans against the nomination.

    President Obama issued a statement saying, "I am pleased that today the Senate took bipartisan action to confirm Gina McCarthy as the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.  With years of experience at the state and local level, Gina is a proven leader who knows how to build bipartisan support for commonsense environmental solutions that protect the health and safety of our kids while promoting economic growth. Over the past four years, I have valued Gina's counsel and I look forward to having her in my Cabinet as we work to slow the effects of climate change and leave a cleaner environment for future generations."

    Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "We are very gratified the Senate has finally voted to confirm Gina McCarthy as America's new EPA Administrator. McCarthy has always been an ideal candidate for this crucially important job. She has exceptional qualifications and experience, and she has a well-earned reputation for bipartisanship. She has a history of working with both environmental advocates and industry stakeholders, and for pursuing a regulatory approach that is flexible, cost-effective and environmentally effective. It's time to put politics behind us and get to work on the many important issues facing EPA, including implementing key parts of the President's Climate Action Plan. I look forward to working with Gina McCarthy and her staff at EPA to ensure that Americans have a cleaner, healthier environment."

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement saying, "We commend the Senate for confirming Gina McCarthy to head EPA. ACC and its members look forward to working with her to ensure that regulations protect health and the environment while at the same time encouraging innovation, competitiveness and job creation. Stakeholder engagement and reliance on sound science will be essential to the development of balanced environmental rules that, combined with sensible energy policies, will ensure the United States remains an attractive place for manufacturers to invest."

    U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (EPW), delivered a highly critical speech on the Senate Floor during the debate on the nomination and urged his colleagues to vote no on the confirmation of Gina McCarthy.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the EPW Committee issued a statement saying, "I am so pleased that the full Senate has confirmed Gina McCarthy to be EPA Administrator, because she is the right person for the job. With more than three decades of public service experience, Gina has a deep understanding that public health and a growing economy depend on clean air and clean water. Gina McCarthy has worked for five Republican Governors and a Democratic President, and she will lead EPA in a way that protects the health and safety of the American people."

    Access the roll call vote on the confirmation (click here). Access a statement from the President (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). Access the statement from ACC (click here). Access a video of the Senator Vitter Floor statement (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). [#All]

Hearing: "Climate Change: It's Happening Now"

Jul 18: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), with Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA), held a hearing entitled, "Climate Change: It's Happening Now."

 

    The hearing included testimony from number of climate experts including: Dr. Heidi Cullen, Chief Climatologist Climate Central; Mr. Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of America; Mr. KC Golden, Policy Director, Climate Solutions; Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; Dr. Robert P. Murphy, Senior Economist, Institute for Energy Research; Dr. Jennifer Francis, Research Professor, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University; Dr. Scott Doney, Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; Dr. Margaret Leinin, Executive Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University; Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist IV, University of Alabama, Huntsville. Senator Boxer opened the hearing stating:

"Today's hearing will focus on climate change and the serious threat it poses to our nation. The body of evidence is overwhelming, the world's leading scientists agree, and predictions of the impact of climate change are coming true before our eyes. This issue has been a priority for me since I became Chairman of this Committee, because climate change puts our environment and public health at great risk. Scientists and other experts have testified before this Committee in the past, and they spoke many times about the severe impact of climate change. Let me share just a few of these experts' predictions with you:

• "It is very likely that hot extremes [and] heat waves . . . will continue to become more frequent." (Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth in 2008)
• "It is likely that tropical storms and hurricanes will become more intense and with much heavier rainfalls, and thus risk of flooding." (Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth in 2008)
• "With climate change, an increase in the severity, duration, and frequency of extreme heat waves is expected in the United States." (Dr. Howard Frumkin in 2009)
• "On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a frequency far beyond those we see today." (Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn in 2009)

"In 2012, Superstorm Sandy resulted in the loss of life, wiped out entire communities, and caused approximately $65 billion of damage. And the impacts of climate change are being felt throughout our nation. The Arctic has lost more than a third of total sea ice volume over the last decade -- making Alaskan native villages increasingly vulnerable to erosion and storms. We have seen large wildfires break out earlier in the season in California, and recently 19 brave firefighters in Arizona tragically lost their lives. In 2012, New Mexico experienced the largest wildfire in state history, Colorado suffered the second largest wildfire in state history, and Oregon had its largest wildfire since the 1860s. According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), over the past two years there have been 25 weather and climate disasters - each one costing more than $1 billion. Climate change is real, human activities are the primary cause, and the warming planet poses a significant risk to people and the environment. . ."

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the outspoken critic of climate change science, said in a statement that he was disappointed that because he was looking forward to hearing from Administration officials about the President's global warming proposal. He said, "Around the same time the President gave his speech on global warming last month [See WIMS 6/25/13 & See WIMS 6/26/13], his campaign team developed a secret talking points memo that was crafted to provide alarmists around the country with specific instructions about how they should talk about global warming."

    Senator Inhofe said, "Most meteorologists agree.  A recent study by George Mason University reported that 63% of weathercasters believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of 'natural variation' and not 'human activities.'  That is a significant two-to-one majority. . . And just this past week, Harvard and the Forest Service came out with a study that shows trees are growing faster and using less water with higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2.  This is the opposite of what scientists expected before, but the alarmists can't talk about it because they've received their instructions from the President.

    Senator Inhofe cited Richard Lindzen, "the world renowned atmospheric physicist at MIT" who said that regulating carbon is a "bureaucrat's dream," because "if you control carbon, you control life."  Sen. Inhofe said, "When you zoom out and consider this from a distance, it is the core tenant of liberalism and the President political philosophy.  He believes that government can make better decisions than the people, and regulating carbon dioxide will give him all he needs to make nearly every decision for the American people."

 

    Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University said, "As the oceans continue to absorb additional heat trapped by ever-accumulating greenhouse gases, as sea ice continues to disappear, and as the Arctic continues to warm faster than the rest of the globe, we can only expect to see more weather-related adverse impacts. The details of those impacts are still emerging from ongoing research, but the overall picture of the future is clear."

 

    Dr. Scott Doney of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said, "Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in dramatic and well documented increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and acidification of the upper ocean. Today the surface ocean is almost 30% more acidic than it was in pre-industrial times, and over the next few decades, the level of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Increasingly this will cause major problems for many marine organisms like shellfish and corals."

 

    Dr. Heidi Cullen of the University of Pennsylvania said, "Climate change was for a long time thought to be an issue for the distant future. But I am here today to testify that it has, in many respects, moved into the present. The impacts of human -- caused climate change are being observed right here and right now in our own backyards and neighborhoods."

 

    Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado provided a counter point of view and said, "It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases." He said, "Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP. . . Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. . . Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. . . Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. . .some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research. . ."

 

--- Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama also offered a counter point of view saying, "My overall view of the influence of humans on climate is that we probably are having some influence, but it is impossible to know with any level of certainty how much influence. The difficulty in determining the human influence on climate arises from several sources: (1) weather and climate vary naturally, and by amounts that are not currently being exceeded; (2) global warming theory is just that -- based upon theory; and (3) there is no unique fingerprint of human caused global warming. . ."

 

    Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a video (click here). Access the opening statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the complete statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). [#Climate]

12 GOP AGs File Lawsuit Related To "Sue & Settle"

Jul 16: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, joined by 11 other attorneys general from AL, AZ, GA, KS, MI, NE, ND, SC, UT, WY, TX, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Federal court requesting access to documents related to the U.S. EPA's so-called "sue and settle" strategy with environmental groups. Pruitt said, "The EPA is picking winners and losers, exhibiting favoritism, at the expense of due process and transparency. They are manipulating our legal system to achieve what they cannot through our representative democracy. The outcomes of their actions affect every one of us by sticking states with the bill and unnecessarily raising utility rates by as much as 20 percent."

    The lawsuit, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and comes after the states filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking documents related to the "sue and settle" strategy. According to a release from AG Pruitt, the agency employs the tactic as a way to settle lawsuits with environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, WildEarth Guardians and the Sierra Club, without allowing state involvement. In some instances, the EPA entered a consent decree the same day a lawsuit was filed by the special interest group, suggesting prior knowledge. The agreements between the EPA and environmental groups have led to new rules and regulations for states without allowing attorneys general to enter the process to defend the interest of states, businesses and consumers. 

     Pruitt said, "This appears to be a blatant strategy by the EPA to go around the process and bend the rules to create environmental regulations that have failed in Congress. As part of our investigation into the pervasiveness of this tactic, we requested documents that the EPA has refused to produce. If the EPA is making backdoor deals with environmental groups to push their agenda on the American people while bypassing the states and Congress, we need to know." According to the release, out of the 45 settlements made public, the EPA has paid nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees to the environmental groups, while also committing to develop sweeping new regulations. One EPA consent decree led to the EPA's costliest regulation ever -- the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

    The 12 states led by Oklahoma, filed a FOIA request in February, seeking communications between EPA officials and specific special interest groups concerning consent decrees that dictate how EPA is to implement the Clean Air Act's Regional Haze program in various states. Under the Clean Air Act, the states -- not the EPA -- design and implement plans for compliance with the Regional Haze program. States' also requested a fee waiver. According to the complaint, "Ninety-two percent of the time EPA grants fee waiver requests from noncommercial requesters who are supportive of EPA's policies and agendas, but denies a majority of fee waiver requests from noncommercial requesters who are critical of EPA." States properly asked for specific records ... (and) EPA violated FOIA's mandate."

    The release indicates that once the documents are received, the requesting states will analyze the data and evaluate the prevalence of EPA's "sue and settle" strategy to determine further action. A report on the states' findings will be disseminated to each state as well as to the news media and Congress as a component of the AGs' active involvement in state efforts to address environmental issues.

 

    U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, commended the 12 Attorneys General (AG) lawsuit saying, "Looking at FOIA fee waivers, it's clear that EPA favors far-left environmentalist groups over conservative think tanks, but today's lawsuit is just another example demonstrating EPA's discrimination extends toward States, as well. We recently got the EPA to agree to completely retrain their staff on FOIA practices and issue new agency-wide guidance on FOIA practices following completion of the Inspector General investigation. However, their obstructionist tactics while trying to bend FOIA laws remains a problem, especially when they seek to block Attorneys General who clearly are acting to advance the public interest."

 

    On May 22, in a lengthy blog posting [See WIMS 5/22/13] the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) provided a detailed response to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report entitled, Sue and Settle: Regulating Behind Closed Doors [See WIMS 5/21/13] and various Republican charges. In general sue & settle agreements (i.e. settlements) result when environmental and citizen groups exercise the citizen suit provisions in various environmental laws passed by Congress to force EPA to meet "not discretionary" deadlines or set new deadlines when the Agency has already missed a deadline.

 

    In a July 16, article EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson told The Hill publication that, "EPA has no input or control over what parties sue the agency or what issues they focus on. Furthermore, an outside entity cannot compel EPA to take an action that it was not already required to take by law."

 

    Access a release from the OK AG (click here). Access the FOIA legal complaint (click here). Access the FOIA request (click here). Access a release from Sen. Vitter (click here). Access the NRDC blog posting with multiple links to referenced information (click here). Access The Hill article (click here).  [#All, #MIAll]

Friends Of The Earth Sues State Department Re: KXL Conflicts

Jul 16: Friends of the Earth (FoE) sued the State Department in Federal court for failure to turn over records detailing the contacts between lobbyists for the Keystone XL (KXL) tar sands pipeline and the Obama administration. On April 15, Friends of the Earth filed an extensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding the expedited release of all communications since October 2011 between the State Department and numerous lobbyists and lobbying firms for TransCanada and the Province of Alberta. The State Department (DOS) denied the group's request for a speedy release of the records, and three months later has yet to release any records or say when they will be released. FoE says the matter is urgent because DOS is in the final stages of an environmental review that is key to whether it recommends that the President approve or reject a permit for the pipeline.

    The lawsuit, filed today in U.S District Court for the District of Columbia by DC law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal says, "The requested information is critical because a number of the lobbyists presently advocating for the project formerly worked for Secretary of State John Kerry, or for former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton. In light of these relationships, the requested records would allow FoE to inform the public about the nature of the State Department's decision-making, and the role any of these lobbyists may be playing in that process."

    After similar FOIA requests by FoE in 2010 and 2011 uncovered records that showed how cozy relationships between State Department officials and Keystone lobbyists tainted the first environmental review of the pipeline, DOS promised to tighten its lobbying rules to assure objectivity in the current round. But FoE's latest FOIA request said it is clear that the permit process remains compromised by conflicts of interest, secrecy and deceit. It identified more than two dozen Washington lobbyists, lawyers and consultants helping to push for pipeline approval who have close ties to Obama, Kerry, Clinton or other elected officials with a stake in the outcome.

    Heading the list is Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director and senior advisor to the President's re-election campaign and the former communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under then-Senator Kerry. Dunn is now a principal with the lobbying firm SDKnickerbocker, which represents TransCanada. According to The New York Times, Dunn has met with top White House officials more than 100 times since leaving the Administration in 2009.

    FoE also says that, "The new environmental review for Keystone XL is being conducted by a contractor with deep financial ties to TransCanada and oil companies who would benefit from the pipeline -- connections the State Department tried to cover up. Last week, FoE released evidence that the contractor, Environmental Resources Management [ERM], lied on its federal conflict-of-interest disclosure form when it said it had not worked for TransCanada or other companies with an interest in the pipeline. ERM's draft of the environmental review contends that the pipeline will cause little environmental harm and absurdly suggests that the pipeline will not spur development of the climate-wrecking tar sands in northern Alberta. Scientists and the EPA alike contend that without the pipeline, tar sands development would be constrained and would therefore produce less climate destroying carbon."

    Ross Hammond, senior campaigner for FoE said, "From the beginning the State Department's handling of the environmental review of the Keystone pipeline has been hopelessly compromised by TransCanada, the Province of Alberta and their army of lobbyists. The Department's refusal to release records of the lobbying effort makes you wonder what they're hiding now." FoE's investigation has yielded a dossier of Keystone lobbyists and their connections to Obama, Kerry and Clinton. Besides Dunn, the list includes:

• Paul Elliott, chief lobbyist for TransCanada, a top Clinton operative in her 2008 presidential campaign and a key figure in the 2011 conflict of interest scandal over the earlier environmental review.
• David Castagnetti of Mehlman, Vogel & Castagnetti, who was director of Congressional relations for Kerry's 2004 campaign for president; and Brandon Pollak of Bryan Cave LLP, who also worked on Kerry's campaign.
• Three former U.S. ambassadors to Canada: David Wilkins of Nelson, Mullins et al, which has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Province of Alberta; Gordon Giffin of Long & Albridge, a top fundraiser in Clinton's presidential campaign; and Jim Blanchard of DLA Piper, also a top Clinton fundraiser.

    Damon Moglen, senior strategic advisor for FoE's climate and energy program said, "Release of these records will shed more light on lobbyists' influence on the State Department's Keystone review, but it is already clear that State can not be trusted to manage the review process objectively. It is clear that Secretary Kerry inherited a flawed review process in which TransCanada and Alberta continue to call the shots. The current draft analysis is fundamentally flawed and invalidated by ERM's clear conflict of interest. Secretary Kerry needs to convene both an investigation by his Inspector General into undue influence and conflict of interest, and order a new, independent analysis of the pipeline."

    Access a release from FoE with links to the legal complaint, the FOIA request, the dossier of Keystone lobbyists and other referenced information (click here). [#Energy/KXL]

Senate Showdown Over Rules & Presidential Nominees

Jul 15: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are leading their members into battle this evening at 6:00 PM at a joint-special caucus for all Senators. The subject will be a proposal by Senate Reid to require a simple majority vote, up or down, for the approval of a Presidential nominee. Currently, Senate rules provide for a filibuster and cloture vote procedure requiring 60 votes for approval. Senator McConnell said the proposal was "one of the most consequential changes to the United States Senate in the history of our nation."

    In a  fact sheet, Senator Reid points out that, "At the current rate, President Obama will face more filibusters on Executive Branch nominees than every other American president combined. Before President Obama took office, there had been a total of 20 filibusters on executive nominations in the entire history of the United States, from George Washington to George W. Bush. Since President Obama took office, there have been 16 filibusters. At this rate, there will be nearly 30 by the end of his second term. Executive nominees who are ready to be confirmed by the Senate have been pending an average of 260 days – more than 8 months – since they were first nominated."

    Senator Reid said, "For centuries, a President's nominees received simple up-or-down votes in the Senate, except in extraordinary circumstances. The change contemplated by Senate Democrats would simply restore the Senate's long tradition of delivering simple up-or-down votes for Executive nominees. Senators would still be free to debate and vote against nominations they oppose." Senator Reid said his proposal only applies to Presidential nominees, not legislation or other matters.
    
    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor last Friday that Democrats were  "concocting a phony crisis over three unlawfully appointed nominees to alter the rules of the Senate."  He said, "Senate Democrats are gearing up today to make one of the most consequential changes to the United States Senate in the history of our nation. And I guarantee you, it is a decision that, if they actually go through with it, they will live to regret. It's an open secret at this point that Big Labor and others on the Left are putting a lot of pressure on Senate Democrats to change the rules of the Senate -- and to do so by breaking the rules. That would violate every protection of minority rights that have defined the United States Senate for as long as anyone can remember.

    "Let me assure you: this Pandora's Box, once opened, will be utilized again and again by future majorities -- and it will make the meaningful consensus-building that has served our nation so well a relic of the past. The short-term issue that's triggered this dangerous and far-reaching proposal is simple enough: the Hard-Left is so convinced that every one of the President's nominees should just sail through the confirmation process, that they're willing to do permanent, irreversible damage to this institution in order to get their way. And they've apparently convinced the Majority Leader to do their bidding as they hijack the Senate. . ."

    Access the fact sheet from Senator Reid (click here). Access Senator McConnell's complete floor statement (click here). [#All]

House Passes "Farm Bill" Without SNAP - What Next?

Jul 11: The U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of a Farm Bill -- H.R.2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act of 2013 -- by a vote of 216-208. The revised bill, introduced July 10, which breaks an historic legislative tradition by eliminating the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, i.e. food stamp program), passed with no Democratic votes in support. Twelve Republicans voted against the bill. An earlier House version H.R.1947, that included a $20.5 billion cut in SNAP funding, was defeated because many House conservatives did not think to SNAP cuts were deep enough [See WIMS 6/21/13]. The Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill -- S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 ) -- by a wide bipartisan margin, 66-27, on June 10 [See WIMS 6/11/13]. 

 

    House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) said, "Today was an important step toward enacting a five-year farm bill this year that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty, provides regulatory relief to small businesses across the country, significantly reduces spending, and makes common-sense, market-oriented reforms to agricultural policy. I look forward to continuing conversations with my House colleagues and starting conversations with my Senate colleagues on a path forward that ultimately gets a farm bill to the President's desk in the coming months."

 

    The Ranking Member on the Agricultural Committee Collin Peterson (D-MN) had a different reaction saying, "The House Majority's decision to ignore the will of the more than 500 organizations with a stake in the farm bill, setting the stage for draconian cuts to nutrition programs and eliminating future farm bills altogether would be laughable if it weren't true. This was not the only option. Following the House failure to pass a comprehensive, bipartisan, five-year farm bill, I repeatedly expressed a willingness to work with the Majority on a path forward. I firmly believed that if we could find a way to remove the partisan amendments adopted during the House farm bill debate we would be able to advance a bipartisan bill, conference with the Senate and see it signed into law this year. Now all that is in question."

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement saying, "Our farm and food stamp programs need reform. The status quo is unacceptable, which is why I voted against most of the farm bills of the past two decades, and supported this one.  I'm pleased the House took a positive first step forward in providing some much-needed reforms to our farm programs today. Reforming our food stamp programs is also essential. Chairman Lucas should be commended for his work on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and our members as we move this process forward."

 

    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a statement saying, "House Republicans have stooped to a new low.  Unable to secure passage of a farm bill the first time around, Republicans decided to conjure up a new version late last night, strip out SNAP, and hastily push their partisan agenda through the House without a single Democratic vote. In turning their back on a long history of bipartisanship on the farm bill, Republicans abandoned the health and economic security of millions of Americans -- from seniors and children to farmers and ranchers.

    "Americans in the districts of every single Member of Congress needed us to work together so they wouldn't have to worry about going to bed hungry. Instead, Republicans decided to jeopardize the certainty and stability of America's rural communities, and risk taking food out of the mouths of those who need it most. It is shameful, disgraceful, and wrong -- wrong for our families, wrong for our communities, and wrong for our country. As Americans, our democracy is only as strong as we are as a people. Our strength depends on the economic security and prosperity of every hardworking American family who aspires to become part of the middle class -- the backbone of our democracy. Today, House Republicans undermined that strength. Now, it's time for them to change course and work with Democrats to protect and promote the prosperity of our children, families, and future generations."

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, issued a statement saying, "The bill passed by the House today is not a real Farm Bill and is an insult to rural America, which is why it's strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups. We will go to conference with the bipartisan, comprehensive Farm Bill that was passed in the Senate that not only reforms programs, supports families in need and creates agriculture jobs, but also saves billions more than the extremely flawed House bill."

    The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) issue a brief statement saying it "looks forward to moving ahead with fundamental farm policy legislation, following House passage today of H.R. 2642. While we don't yet know what the next steps will be, we will be working with both sides of the aisle and both chambers of Congress to ensure passage of a new five-year farm bill. While we were hopeful the farm bill would not be split, nor permanent law repealed, we will now focus our efforts on working with lawmakers to deliver a farm bill to the president's desk for his signature by September."

 

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administrative Policy on H.R.2642 on July 10, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642. . .[and] if the President were presented with H.R.2642, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The OMB Statement indicates further, "Because the 608 page bill was made available only this evening, the Administration has had inadequate time to fully review the text of the bill. It is apparent, though, that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the country. Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the Nation. This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans -- in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our Nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances."

 

    Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Vice President for Government Affairs said, ". . .The 'farm only' farm bill passed today by House Republicans – over the objections of everyone from the American Farm Bureau to the Heritage Foundation – is, simply put, the most fiscally irresponsible piece of farm legislation in history. This bill not only increases unlimited insurance subsidies, but also increases price guarantees for major crops and creates new subsidy programs for farm businesses. This bill locks in these new income subsidies for eternity under the guise of 'reform.' No one who voted for this terrible farm bill can reasonably claim to be fiscally conservative. At a time of record farm profits and record fiscal deficits, lawmakers should reject – not expand – the sort of needless corporate welfare that causes Americans to lose faith in Congress."

 

    Franz Matzner, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) associate director of government affairs said, "Once again, House Republicans are pushing an extreme agenda, this time to gut critically important conservation programs farmers depend on to be good stewards of our land and water and wildlife. Their farm bill also eviscerates oversight of pesticides and in a stunning example of federal overreach, blocks states from adopting food and farm standards. Without a moment's hesitation, this House farm bill should be plowed under, like the fertilizer it is, and never again see the light of day."

 

    There appears to be general confusion about what the next steps will be. The two, drastically different bills, based in wildly different political philosophies, will go to a Conference Committee, where it seems impossible to imagine a "compromise." Whatever emerges, if anything, will likely be rejected by one of the Chambers and a veto is certainly possible if the Administration's position is not preserved. The various scenarios do not look good for the Farm Bill, SNAP, or continuing budget debates that must be resolved before September 30.

    Access a release from Rep. Lucas and link to his Floor speech (click here). Access a release from Rep. Peterson and link to his Floor speech (click here). Access a release from Speaker Boehner that includes an opportunity to comment (click here). Access a release from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access a release from Sen. Stabenow  (click here). Access the statement from AFBF (click here). Access the OMB Statement of Administrative Policy (click here). Access the statement from EWG (click here). Access the roll call vote for H.R.2642 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2642 (click here). Access legislative details for S.954 including amendments and roll call votes (click here). [#Agriculture, #MIAgriculture, #Land, #Water, #Energy] 

NRC 17-Yr. Old Environmental Review Guidance Needs Updating

Jul 10: The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Nuclear Reactor License Renewal: NRC Generally Follows Documented Procedures, but Its Revisions to Environmental Review Guidance Have Not Been Timely (GAO-13-493, May 30, 2013). The report was requested by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman EPW Subcommittee on Oversight; Bernard Sanders (I-VT); and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA).

 

    In background information, GAO indicates that many U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors are reaching the end of their initial 40-year operating period. To continue operating, their owners must renew their licenses with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the independent federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear reactors. NRC evaluates license renewal applications under two parallel reviews for safety and potential environmental impacts. NRC's license renewal process has received increasing public scrutiny due, in part, to the 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

    GAO was asked to review NRC's license renewal process for commercial nuclear power reactors. The report examines: (1) the scope of the license renewal process; (2) the extent to which NRC updates its safety and environmental review guidance; (3) the extent to which NRC follows its documented license renewal procedures; and (4) knowledgeable stakeholders' views on the strengths and weaknesses in the license renewal process and any suggestions for improvements. GAO reviewed documents; visited two nuclear power plants selected based on characteristics such as having gone through the license renewal process; assessed the consistency of NRC reviews with documented procedures; and interviewed NRC officials and stakeholders from industry and public interest groups. GAO did not evaluate the adequacy or substance of NRC reviews or the quality of the agency's license renewal procedures. The plants that GAO visited included: Millstone Power Station in Connecticut and the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts.

    GAO found that the scope of NRC's license renewal process focuses on managing the effects of aging on a reactor and its associated systems, structures, and components (i.e. safety) and assessing certain potential environmental impacts of extending a reactor's operating-life. As a result, reviews done as part of this process are not required to address as many topics as reviews for initial licensing, which include security and emergency planning.

    GAO indicates that NRC has regularly updated the safety review guidance it uses in the license renewal process but has not revised most of its environmental review regulations and guidance since they were first issued. NRC has revised its safety review guidance twice -- in 2005 and 2010 -- and has issued interim updates for selected safety issues between those revisions. In contrast, NRC has not revised most of its environmental review regulations and guidance since they were first issued starting in 1996. NRC regulations state the agency's goal is to review its environmental findings every 10 years and update its license renewal regulations and guidance, if necessary. Consistent with this goal, NRC initiated the revision process in 2003. In December 2012, the NRC Commissioners approved draft regulations, but they directed agency staff to make additional changes. As of March 2013, NRC staff were working on these changes. According to NRC officials, reasons for the lengthy revision process include limited staff resources and competing demands on those resources as well as an unusually large number of technical issues needing evaluation. NRC requires applicants and expects agency staff to consider new and significant environmental information in the license renewal process, but its use of regulations and guidance originally issued 17 years ago has created the impression among some that the agency is using outdated information and has caused uncertainty for some license renewal applicants about what guidance will be used to evaluate their application.

    GAO said that NRC generally followed its procedures when reviewing selected safety and environmental elements in eight license renewal applications GAO examined. NRC's safety reviews were generally consistent with the agency's procedures for evaluating both an applicant's identification of components within the scope of the license renewal process and proposed buried piping and tanks inspection and fire protection programs for aging management. NRC's environmental reviews were also generally consistent with agency procedures for evaluating: (1) new and significant information for two generic environmental issues; (2) applicants' assessments of two site-specific environmental issues; and (3) applicants' analyses of alternatives for mitigating severe reactor accidents.

    Knowledgeable stakeholders interviewed by GAO identified various perceived strengths and weaknesses and potential improvements to the license renewal process. Stakeholders most often identified NRC staff's technical knowledge and the thoroughness of the agency's reviews as perceived strengths of the process. Stakeholders also identified a range of perceived weaknesses in the license renewal process, including claims that its scope is too narrow and that its public hearing process is flawed and inhibits meaningful public participation. Accordingly, some stakeholders suggested potential changes to improve the license renewal process, including broadening the scope of NRC's reviews and modifying aspects of the public hearing process.

    Access the complete 60-page GAO report (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

Alaska Submits Plan For 3-D Seismic Exploration In ANWR

Jul 9: Alaska Governor Sean Parnell announced that the State of Alaska is officially submitting a plan for seismic exploration activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area, pursuant to Section 1002(e) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Governor Parnell said, "The 1002 Area of ANWR holds enormous promise for Alaska and for our nation. Federal law provides clear direction and mandates a number of actions that the Interior Secretary must take upon the submission of a 1002 Area exploration plan. We look forward to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell's prompt review and approval of this exploration plan."

    On May 18, with support from North Slope Borough Mayor Charlotte Brower and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Rex Rock, the State of Alaska submitted a detailed 1002 Area exploration proposal and offered to help finance seismic studies in the 1002 Area. In late June, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell completely rejected the State's proposal and offer of funding support. Therefore, the State is submitting a formal exploration plan and special use permit application for the 1002 Area.

    Natural Resource Commissioner Dan Sullivan, noting that the U.S. Department of Interior approved 1002 Area exploration plans in the 1980s and that the law does not contain a sunset provision and therefore is still on the books, said, "ANILCA requires the Secretary to take formal action on this exploration plan. This 240-page, world-class document meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements for a 1002 Area exploration plan contained within the Code of Federal Regulations and in ANILCA. If an exploration plan meets all of these requirements, the Secretary is required by law to approve it."

    The exploration plan and accompanying special permit application builds upon the detailed proposal the State submitted in May. The plan will take advantage of current technology, which will have significantly less environmental impacts than the exploration activities approved and conducted in the 1002 Area during the 1980s. The 1002 Area is thought to be one of the most prolific regions for undiscovered oil in America. The State seeks to conduct low-impact, three-dimensional surveys across the 1002 Area from 2014 to 2017. This work will only be done during the winter, with very limited impact to tundra, fish and wildlife. The Governor said, "I am renewing my pledge to seek support from the Alaska Legislature during its 2014 session to fund a 3-D seismic program for the 1002 Area. If this plan and permit application is promptly reviewed and approved as required by ANILCA, I will request a minimum of $50 million to execute this plan."

    U..S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, voiced her continued support for the state of Alaska's plan to fully assess the potential oil and natural gas resources in ANWR coastal plain. She said, "The coastal plain holds valuable oil and natural gas resources, which is why Congress reserved it for oil production more than 30 years ago. Any effort to change the way the area is managed must only be considered with the best available information. Gov. Parnell's offer to help pay for a full resource assessment of the coastal plain using 3-D seismic is generous, sensible and legally allowed under the 1980 lands act."

    She indicated in a release that the ANWR coastal plain offers the United States' best chance of a major onshore, domestic oil and natural gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the coastal plain has a 50 percent chance of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, resources worth more than $1 trillion at current market prices. Those estimates are based on old two-dimensional seismic studies done in 1982-1983. Sen. Murkowski said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is drafting a new management plan for the refuge, which is expected to include new wilderness designation recommendations for the coastal plain. Such a recommendation without knowing the full potential of the coastal plain is "irresponsible." She said, "The problem with Fish and Wildlife Service's work on a new management plan is that it fails to consider the potential economic benefits of oil and gas production. They claim that's because development would require an act of Congress, but, of course, so would a wilderness designation -- their argument doesn't hold up. Instead of trying to lock up our resources, we should develop them as part of a balanced energy plan that creates jobs, invests in research and technology, and bolsters our economy."

    Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director for The Wilderness Society said, "The Arctic Refuge was established for the conservation of the landscape's extraordinary values, including fish and wildlife populations, and habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, other predators, musk oxen, Dall sheep, and migratory birds and fish, among others. Drilling on the coastal plain of the refuge would not lower gasoline prices, but it would permanently diminish one of the last great wilderness landscapes in the world. Instead, this portion of our nation's heritage should be protected for future generations."

    The Wilderness Society indicated in a release, "Like other supporters of the oil industry, Alaska's governor looks at the wilderness landscape of the Arctic Refuge and sees only dollar signs. But the refuge is worth far more than the value of the oil that may lie beneath it. Parnell's assault on the refuge – like all the attacks that came before it – must be stopped. The refuge must be protected for the creatures that call it home, for the Alaska Native communities that depend on its wildlife for cultural traditions and as a source of food, and for future generations of Americans who deserve to inherit an intact, spectacular, wilderness."

    Access a release from the Governor and link to the letter to Secretary Jewell (click here). Access the 240-page ANILCA Section 1002(e) Exploration Plan and Special Use Permit Application and Supporting Materials (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from The Wilderness Society (click here). [#Energy/ANWR]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Beekeeping Organizations Appeal Sulfoxaflor Registration

Jul 8: National Beekeeping organizations along with the National Honey Bee Advisory Board have come together in an attempt to protect the bee industry by an appeal against EPA for its approval of the pesticide Sulfoxaflor, which they indicate has been shown to be "highly toxic" to honey bees, and other insect pollinators. Sulfoxaflor is a new chemistry, and the first of a newly assigned sub-class of pesticides in the "neonicotinoid" class of pesticides, which scientists across the globe have linked as a potential factor to widespread and massive bee colony collapse. The case is filed as the beekeeping industry across the country struggles for survival, and faces the costly effects of pesticides upon their businesses. The groups are being represented by the public interest law organization Earthjustice. The appeal process through the courts is the only mechanism open to challenge EPA's decision; it is commonly used by commodity groups to rectify inadequate pesticide labeling.

 

    The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith have filed the appeal against U.S. EPA in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes needed in the Sulfoxaflor label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA's Risk Assessment Process. According to a release, the changes would acknowledge pollinator's critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws.

    Sulfoxaflor was granted a full registration by EPA for most crops, many of which require pollinators. Many other registered crops are utilized by pollinators, including honey bees, as forage. Based on the approved registration, pollinators, especially honey bees, may potentially be exposed numerous times by labeled Sulfoxaflor applications as honey bees are moved across the country to pollinate crops, produce the nation's supply of honey, and recuperate from the rigors of pollination.

    On May 6, 2013, EPA granted unconditional registrations for the new active ingredient sulfoxaflor, formulated as a manufacturing use product and two end-use products for use in production agriculture. EPA is granted the use of sulfoxaflor on barley, bulb vegetables, canola, citrus, cotton, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, low-growing berries, okra, ornamentals (herbaceous and woody), pistachio, pome fruits, root and tuber vegetables, small vine climbing fruit (except fuzzy kiwifruit), soybean, stone fruit, succulent, edible podded and dry beans, tree nuts, triticale, turfgrass, watercress and wheat. The registrant is Dow AgroSciences LLC.

    Attorney Janette Brimmer of Earthjustice said, "Our country is facing widespread bee colony collapse, and scientists are pointing to pesticides like Sulfoxaflar as the cause. The effects will be devastating to our nation's food supply and also to the beekeeping industry, which is struggling because of toxic pesticides. This lawsuit against the EPA is attempt by the beekeepers to save their suffering industry. The EPA has failed them. And the EPA's failure to adequately consider impacts to pollinators from these new pesticides is wreaking havoc on an important agricultural industry and gives short shrift to the requirements of the law."

    According to an Earthjustice release, EPA is required by FIFRA to determine that a pesticide does not pose an unreasonable risk to the environment or to economic interests such as that of the bee industry. Earthjustice indicates that "EPA's testing did not adequately examine the impact of acute and sub-lethal poisoning of adult honey bees, brood, bee life span, in light the dynamics of the colony organism. The EPA's reviewed research and analysis of bee foraging behavior and habits is being questioned based on long accepted publications; the Agency lacked the necessary data on how Sulfoxaflor remains systemically absorbed in the crop tissue, and how that may harm bees and bee colonies long term subjected to levels below the lethal toxicity level to adult bees; and the EPA failed entirely to look at how differing amounts of pesticides affect pollinators over time."

    On May 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health. The report states that there are multiple factors playing a role in honey bee colony declines, including parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure. The agencies said, "the report represents the consensus of the scientific community studying honey bees." [See WIMS 5/2/13].

    Access a lengthy release from Earthjustice with additional quotes from various parties to the case, additional facts on Sulfoxaflar and links to related information (click here). Access EPA's statement of registration approval and link to the EPA docket for background information (click here). Access the complete 72-page report on honey bee health (click here). [#Agriculture, #Wildlife, #Toxics]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals