Senate EPW Votes 10-8 To Nominate McCarthy As EPA Head

May 16: Following last week's boycott by Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee [See WIMS 5/9/13], the GOP Members attended today's meeting and unanimously voted against the nomination of Gina McCarthy to be the next Administrator of the U.S. EPA. The 10 Democrats also attended and voted to move the nomination forward for consideration by the full Senate.

 

    Senator David Vitter (R-LA), the Ranking Member of the EPW Committee issued a statement saying that Republicans would attend the meeting. He said that at his meeting yesterday with acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe, EPA committed to take additional steps forward in fulfilling the transparency requests of the Senate EPW Committee Republicans. Vitter responded this morning in a letter saying, "Because these steps forward are significant, we want to thank you and acknowledge progress, including by moving forward with the Committee mark-up of Gina's nomination. Because these steps forward are limited, and do not include everything required under the law, we want to request additional progress, and the EPA's follow through will determine how this nomination process goes forwards. We'll absolutely be holding the EPA to it."

 

    Sen. Vitter specifically said in his letter, "Should major additional progress be made in all of the five categories over the next two weeks, I will strongly support handling the McCarthy nomination on the Senate floor without a cloture vote or any 60 vote threshold. Should all of our requests in the five categories be granted, I will support the McCarthy nomination." The five categories identified and outlined in the letter include: Email and FOIA Policy; Unredacted Emails; Underlying Research Data; Economic Analysis; and "Sue-and-Settle." The letter summarizes the specific "agreed to" actions under each category.

   

    In a related matter,  the American Petroleum Institute (API) Downstream Group Director Bob Greco sent a letter to Sen. Vitter refuting what he called, "inaccurate and misleading statements" about the research being conducted by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) made by EPA administrator nominee Gina McCarthy in a recent letter.  Greco indicated that McCarthy said EPA and DOE were "denied" a role in the extensive testing on E15 -- a mixture of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline -- by the CRC that found the fuel could be dangerous for millions of cars on the road today.

 

   Greco said, "The record shows that before and during the CRC mid-level ethanol blends research program, EPA and DOE played significant roles either directly or through the U.S. national laboratories. . . CRC is a research organization that has been conducting research on fuels, engines and vehicles for more than 70 years. The CRC tests are developed and managed by the same company automotive engineers who design and build cars. We have great confidence in the ability of the automotive and fuels experts who sit on CRC committees to conduct well-conceived and thorough technical investigations of consumer acceptance and vehicle safety-related issues associated with the use of mid-level ethanol blends in vehicles operated by our mutual customers. . . The key objective for the oil and the auto industries in undertaking the comprehensive CRC mid-level ethanol blends research program was to ensure that the safety and performance of our mutual customers' vehicles are not compromised or otherwise adversely affected by E15. CRC met those goals -- EPA and DOE did not."

 

    Access a webcast of today's nomination meeting (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Vitter and the letter to Perciasepe (click here). Access a release from API with links to related information including the letters (click here). [#All]

 

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

GAO On Adapting To Climate Change Impacts On Local Infrastructure

May 14: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers (GAO-13-242, Apr 12, 2013). The report was requested by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Max Baucus (D-MT) Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, both of the Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).

    GAO indicates that the Federal government invests billions of dollars annually in infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, facing increasing risks from climate change. Adaptation -- defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change -- can help manage these risks by making infrastructure more resilient. GAO was asked to examine issues related to infrastructure decision making and climate change. This report examines: (1) the impacts of climate change on roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and NASA centers; (2) the extent to which climate change is incorporated into infrastructure planning; (3) factors that enabled some decision makers to implement adaptive measures; and (4) Federal efforts to address local adaptation needs, as well as potential opportunities for improvement. GAO reviewed climate change assessments; analyzed relevant reports; interviewed stakeholders from professional associations and Federal agencies; and visited infrastructure projects and interviewed local decision makers at seven sites where adaptive measures have been implemented.

    GAO found that according to the National Research Council (NRC) and others, infrastructure such as roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers are vulnerable to changes in the climate. Changes in precipitation and sea levels, as well as increased intensity and frequency of extreme events, are projected by NRC and others to impact infrastructure in a variety of ways. When the climate changes, infrastructure-- typically designed to operate within past climate conditions -- may not operate as well or for as long as planned, leading to economic, environmental, and social impacts. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that, within 15 years, segments of Louisiana State Highway 1 -- providing the only road access to a port servicing 18 percent of the nation's oil supply -- will be inundated by tides an average of 30 times annually due to relative sea level rise. Flooding of this road effectively closes the port.

    GAO indicated that decision makers have not systematically considered climate change in infrastructure planning for various reasons, according to representatives of professional associations and agency officials who work with these decision makers. For example, more immediate priorities -- such as managing aging infrastructure -- consume time and resources, limiting decision makers' ability to consider and implement climate adaptation measures. Difficulties in obtaining and using information needed to understand vulnerabilities and inform adaptation decisions pose additional challenges.

    Key factors enabled some local decision makers to integrate climate change into infrastructure planning. As illustrated by GAO's site visits and relevant studies, these factors included: (1) having local circumstances such as weather-related crises that spurred action; (2) learning how to use available information; (3) having access to local expertise; and (4) considering climate impacts within existing planning processes. As one example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District managed risks associated with more frequent extreme rainfall events by enhancing its natural systems' ability to absorb runoff by, for instance, preserving wetlands. This effort simultaneously expanded the sewer system's capacity while providing other community and environmental benefits. District leaders enabled these changes by prioritizing adaptation, using available local level climate projections, and utilizing local experts for assistance.

    The GAO report identifies several emerging Federal efforts under way to facilitate more informed adaptation decisions, but these efforts could better support the needs of local infrastructure decision makers in the future, according to studies, local decision makers at the sites GAO visited, and other stakeholders. For example, among its key efforts, the Federal government plays a critical role in producing the information needed to facilitate more informed local infrastructure adaptation decisions. However, as noted by NRC studies, this information exists in an uncoordinated confederation of networks and institutions, and the end result of it not being easily accessible is that people may make decisions -- or choose not to act -- without it. Accordingly, a range of studies and local decision makers GAO interviewed cited the need for the Federal government to improve local decision makers' access to the best available information to use in infrastructure planning.

    GAO recommends, among other things, that a Federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) work with agencies to identify for local infrastructure decision makers the best available climate-related information for planning, and also to update this information over time. Additionally, GAO recommended the Federal agencies: clarify sources of local assistance for incorporating climate-related information and analysis into infrastructure planning, and communicate how such assistance will be provided over time; finalize guidance on how federal agencies can consider the effects of climate change in their evaluations of proposed federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act; and work with relevant professional associations to incorporate climate change information into design standards.

    Access the complete 99-page GAO report with links to referenced information (click here). [#Climate, #Water, #Transportation]

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

170 Countries Adopt Stricter Chemical & Waste Protections

May 13: The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced that representatives from 170 countries have adopted a series of measures to strengthen protections against hazardous chemicals and waste during a United Nations conference in Geneva. The conference brought together three UN conventions -- the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm treaties -- that together regulate chemicals and hazardous waste, and sought to promote synergies among them. The United States is a signatory to the three Conventions, but has not ratified any of them.

    The three autonomous Conventions convened the joint meeting to strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the Parties to the treaties, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of their activities on the ground. Each Convention then continued individually over the two-week period to deal with its own specific topics of the global chemicals and waste agenda before returning in a joint session at the end of the week to finalize their outcomes. In a press conference, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said the meeting was "a unique historic event coming at a time of unprecedented change and progress in the arena of global environmental governance. The strengthening of UNEP and the synergies process of chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements are complementary parts of the ongoing reform to fortify the environmental dimension of sustainable development."

    FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva noted that countries need to find more sustainable ways to produce food while using chemical pesticides responsibly. He said, "Around 70 per cent of the chemicals addressed by the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions are pesticides, and many are used in agriculture. It is in the best interest of all countries to ensure that the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions can work together, effectively and efficiently, to address various aspects of the chemical life-cycle."

    Steiner and Graziano da Silva, along with Global Environment Facility CEO Naoko Ishii also pledged to deepen cooperation and collaboration as part of a broader effort to raise the profile of chemicals and waste issues, promote green growth and alleviate poverty. On Friday (May 10) the conference hailed the "Geneva Statement on the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste" which welcomed the UNEP-led consultative process on financing options for chemicals and waste. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions said, "The Parties have agreed to strengthen capacity building and technical assistance for countries by investing the savings realized over the past two years into an enhanced technical assistance programme that better meets the needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition. In an era of financial austerity, we have learned through synergies how to deliver more to parties while living within the economic limits faced by governments today."

    The Parties also adopted a framework for the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes, and agreed, over the next two years, to develop technical guidelines on movements across borders of electronic and electrical wastes. The Basel Convention regulates the export and import of hazardous waste and waste containing hazardous chemicals. It was adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1992. It currently has 180 Parties. The Rotterdam Convention regulates information about the export and import of 47 hazardous chemicals listed in the Convention's Annex III, 33 of which are pesticides and 14 of which are industrial chemicals. It was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2004. It currently has 152 Parties. Adopted in 2001, the Stockholm Convention regulates 23 toxic substances that are persistent, travel long distances, accumulate in organisms and are toxic. The treaty entered into force in 2004. It currently has 179 Parties.

    Access an overview release from the UN (click here). Access a more detailed release from the Conventions (click here). Access complete information, details and background from the UN Synergies website including links to the three separate Convention websites (click here). [# Toxics, #Haz]

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

CO2 Levels Surpass 400 PPM At Benchmark Monitoring Site

May 9: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that on May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958. Independent measurements made by both NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have been approaching this level during the past week. It marks an important milestone because Mauna Loa, as the oldest continuous carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement station in the world, is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the increase of this potent heat-trapping gas.

    NOAA indicated in a release that carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and other human activities is the most significant greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change. Its concentration has increased every year since scientists started making measurements on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano more than five decades ago. The rate of increase has accelerated since the measurements started, from about 0.7 ppm per year in the late 1950s to 2.1 ppm per year during the last 10 years. NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans, with the Global Monitoring Division of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, CO said, "That increase is not a surprise to scientists. The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global CO2 emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration." 

    NOAA indicated that before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today's rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.

    Researcher Charles David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, began measuring carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in 1958, initiating now what is known as the "Keeling Curve." His son, Ralph Keeling, also a geochemist at Scripps, has continued the Scripps measurement record since his father's death in 2005. Ralph Keeling said, "There's no stopping CO2 from reaching 400 ppm. That's now a done deal. But what happens from here on still matters to climate, and it's still under our control. It mainly comes down to how much we continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy." NOAA scientists with the Global Monitoring Division have made around-the-clock measurements there since 1974. Having two programs independently measure the greenhouse gas provides confidence that the measurements are correct.

    Moreover, similar increases of CO2 are seen all over the world by many international scientists. NOAA, for example, which runs a global, cooperative air sampling network, reported last year that all Arctic sites in its network reached 400 ppm for the first time. These high values were a prelude to what is now being observed at Mauna Loa, a site in the subtropics, this year. Sites in the Southern Hemisphere will follow during the next few years. The increase in the Northern Hemisphere is always a little ahead of the Southern Hemisphere because most of the emissions driving the CO2 increase take place in the north. Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to avoid further substantial climate change.  

    The Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres called for a greatly stepped-up response to climate change by all parts of society. She said, "With 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, we have crossed an historic threshold and entered a new danger zone. The world must wake up and take note of what this means for human security, human welfare and economic development. In the face of clear and present danger, we need a policy response which truly rises to the challenge. We still have a chance to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but this will require a greatly stepped-up response across all three central pillars of action: action by the international community, by government at all levels, and by business and finance." UNFCCC indicated that governments will be meeting June 3 - 14, in Bonn for the next round of climate change talks under the umbrella of the UNFCCC. A central focus of the talks will be negotiations to build a new global climate agreement and to drive greater immediate climate action.

    350.org, named after 350 PPM -- one of the recognized safe levels of CO2 in the atmosphere announced that, "Globally, we're not yet at annual averages above 400, but this is indeed an important milestone. We've created 400.350.org to reflect on what this means, and talk about what we're doing to cool the planet." 350.org indicated that the concentrations above 400 parts per million are the highest levels found on earth in over 5 million years. 350.org founder Bill McKibben released a statement saying, "We're in new territory for human beings -- it's been millions of years since there's been this much carbon in the atmosphere. The only question now is whether the relentless rise in carbon can be matched by a relentless rise in the activism necessary to stop it."

 

   Greenpeace issued a release indicating, "The last time levels were this high global average temperatures eventually reached 3 or 4C° higher than now, the polar regions were up to 10C°  warmer than today the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller and Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today." Greenpeace said, "The planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions continue to rise at their present level whereas an increase of just 10 parts per million might have taken 1,000 years or more during ancient climate change events. We are altering the conditions within which civilization developed, at a rate that will seriously challenge our capacity to adapt and change.

    "The people with their foot on the gas pedal are the dirty fuel and logging industries, with the coal industry alone responsible for two thirds of recent frantic emission growth. And they have no intention of slowing down. Massive coal expansions are planned in Australia, China and the U.S., that would lock in increasing emissions for decades. Stopping or scaling back these projects is absolutely necessary to keep global warming from accelerating further out of control."

    Access a release from NOAA with links to monitoring data, the Maua Loa Observatory, animation and images (click here). Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access the 400.350.org (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). [#Climate]

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

GAO Evaluates NPL Superfund Alternative Cleanup Options

May 9: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Superfund: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management of Alternatives to Placing Sites on the National Priorities List (GAO-13-252, Apr 9, 2013). The report was requested by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives and John Dingell (D-MI).

 

    GAO indicates that under the Superfund program, EPA may address the long-term cleanup of certain hazardous waste sites by placing them on the National Priorities List (NPL)and overseeing the cleanup. To be eligible for the NPL, a site must be sufficiently contaminated, among other things. EPA regions have discretion to choose among several other approaches to address sites eligible for the NPL. For example, under the Superfund program, EPA regions may enter into agreements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs), using the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach. EPA may also defer the oversight of cleanup at eligible sites to approaches outside of the Superfund program.

 

    GAO was asked to review EPA's implementation of the SA approach and how it compares with the NPL approach. The report examines: (1) how EPA addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the NPL; (2) how the processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches compare; and (3) how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites in completing the cleanup process. GAO reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed program data as of December 2012; interviewed EPA officials; and compared SA agreement sites with 74 NPL sites selected based on their similarity to SA agreement sites.

 

    GAO found that EPA most commonly addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the National Priorities List (NPL) by deferring oversight of the cleanup to approaches outside of the Superfund program. As of December 2012, of the 3,402 sites EPA identified as potentially eligible, EPA has deferred oversight of 1,984 sites to approaches outside the Superfund program, including 1,766 Other Cleanup Activity (OCA) deferrals to states and other entities. However, EPA has not issued guidance for OCA deferrals as it has for the other cleanup approaches. Moreover, EPA's program guidance does not clearly define each type of OCA deferral or specify in detail the documentation EPA regions should have to support their decisions on OCA deferrals. Without clearer guidance on OCA deferrals, EPA cannot be reasonably assured that its regions are consistently tracking these sites or that their documentation will be appropriate or sufficient to verify that these sites have been deferred or have completed cleanup. Under the Superfund program, EPA oversees the cleanup of 1,313 sites on the NPL, 67 sites under the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach, and at least 38 sites under another "undefined approach."

    GAO indicated that the processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches, while similar in many ways, have several differences. EPA has accounted for some of these differences in its SA guidance by listing specific provisions for SA agreements with potentially responsible parties (PRP), such as owners and operators of a site. One such provision helps ensure cleanups are not delayed by a loss of funding if the PRP stops cleaning up the site. However, some EPA regions have entered into agreements with PRPs at sites that officials said were likely eligible for the SA approach without following the SA guidance. Such agreements may not benefit from EPA's provisions for SA agreements. EPA headquarters officials said the agency prefers regions to use the SA approach at such sites, but EPA has not stated this preference explicitly in its guidance. In addition, EPA's tracking and reporting of certain aspects of the process under the SA approach differs from that under the NPL approach. As a result, EPA's tracking of SA agreement sites in its Superfund database is incomplete; the standards for documenting the NPL eligibility of SA agreement sites are less clear than those for NPL sites; and EPA is not publicly reporting a full picture of SA agreement sites. Unless EPA makes improvements in these areas, its management of the process at SA agreement sites may be hampered.

    The SA agreement sites showed mixed results in completing the cleanup process when compared with 74 similar NPL sites GAO analyzed. Specifically, SA agreement and NPL sites in GAO's analysis showed mixed results in the average time to complete negotiations with PRPs and for specific cleanup activities, such as remedial investigation and feasibility studies, remedial designs, and remedial actions. In addition, a lower proportion of SA agreement sites have completed cleanup compared with similar NPL sites. SA agreement sites tend to be in earlier phases of the cleanup process because the SA approach began more recently than the NPL approach. Given the limited number of activities for both NPL and SA agreement sites in GAO's analysis, these differences cannot be attributed entirely to the type of approach used at each site. Among other things, GAO recommends:

• the Administrator should provide guidance to EPA regions that defines each type of OCA deferral and what constitutes adequate documentation for OCA deferral and completion of cleanup; 
• the Administrator should develop a method for EPA headquarters to identify and track other sites with long-term cleanups under the Superfund program (i.e., those that are outside of the NPL and SA approaches);
• the Administrator should update EPA's written policies on SA agreement sites, including taking steps such as clarifying whether the SA approach is EPA's preferred approach for long-term cleanup of sites under the Superfund program and outside of the NPL, specifying what documentation is sufficient to support the Hazard Ranking System score at SA agreement sites, and defining when the database code that identifies sites with SA agreements should remain in place; and
• the Administrator should report performance information on the progress of cleanup at SA agreement sites in a manner that is equivalent to such reporting for NPL sites.

    Access the complete 59-page report (click here). [#Remed]

 

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

Republicans Boycott EPA Administrator Nomination Vote

May 9: The eight Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee issued a release and letter indicating that they would not attend the nomination vote of Gina McCarthy to head the U.S. EPA. On April 25, 2013 the Committee Republicans asked Chairman Barbara Boxer to postpone the nomination vote because they had not received answers to their questions. That request was denied. On May 2, EPW Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that McCarthy had responded to all of the questions submitted by members of the EPW Committee, including over 1,000 questions submitted by Republicans on the Committee. On May 6, EPW Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA) released 123-page of questions and McCarthy responses, but he said, "the unresponsive answers received are unacceptable. . ." [See WIMS 5/7/13]. Today, the Senators made the following statement today:

    "For too long EPA has failed to deliver on the promises of transparency espoused by President Barack Obama, former Administrator Lisa Jackson, and by Gina McCarthy. Accordingly, the Republicans on the EPW Committee have asked EPA to honor five very reasonable and basic requests in conjunction with the nomination of Gina McCarthy, which focus on openness and transparency.  While Chairman Boxer has allowed EPA adequate time to fully respond before any mark-up on the nomination, EPA has stonewalled on four of the five categories.  We ask and expect that Chairman Barbara Boxer will follow the rules of the Committee and the full U.S. Senate."

    The Republicans cited: (1) Rule 2(a) of the EPW Committee rules that require at least two members of the minority party to be present to constitute a quorum, which is necessary for the Committee to take action; and (2) Rule XXVI 7(a)(1) of the Senate rules require that a majority of any Committee be physically present to take action. This is a requirement enforceable on the Senate floor, a fact confirmed by the Senate Parliamentarian's office.

    On April 10, the EPW Republicans released five transparency concerns (four of which remain unresolved) they have with the U.S. EPA -- FOIA Failures; Inconsistent E-mail Practices and Policies; Transparency through Data Access; Snapshot Approach Toward Economic Analysis Doesn't Work; Share 'Intent to Sue' Notices with the Public. The Republican claim that McCarthy did not  address their concerns. In their letter to Chairman Boxer, the GOP Members indicate, ". . .there is clear Committee precedent regarding this.  In 2003, Democratic members of the EPW Committee chose not to attend the scheduled mark-up of Michael Leavitt as President Bush's nominee to head the EPA, pending the EPA's responding more fully to their requests.  Then-Chairman Inhofe followed the rules cited above and scheduled an official mark-up for two weeks later.  We ask and expect that you do the same."

    The eight minority members on the EPW include: Vitter, David (LA); Inhofe, James M. (OK); Barrasso, John (WY); Sessions, Jeff (AL); Crapo, Mike (ID); Wicker, Roger F. (MS) Boozman, John (AR); and Fischer, Deb (NE).

    Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a statement saying, "I'm disappointed that the vote has been delayed. The EPA has important work to do and needs a leader at the helm. Americans have made it clear they'd like to see Congress working together. I hope the committee reschedules the vote quickly. From a science perspective, Gina McCarthy is a very strong choice. That's why past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science sent a letter to Committee Chair Barbara Boxer and Ranking Minority Member David Vitter endorsing her nomination. Ms. McCarthy has repeatedly demonstrated her commitment to science. She also has shown she is willing to address valid concerns raised by industry.  She is the kind of nominee -- a person of rigor and integrity -- that Americans will be proud to have heading up one of our most important agencies."   

    Access a release including links to details on their transparency concerns and the letter from the Republicans (click here). Access the 123-pages of questions and responses (click here). Access a release and links to further information from UCS (click here). [#All]

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

EPA Approves Insecticide That's "Highly Toxic" To Honey Bees

May 8: Despite the release on May 2, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. EPA comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health [See WIMS 5/2/13] and stated intentions to protect pollinators and find solutions to the current pollinator crisis, U.S. EPA approved the unconditional registration of the new insecticide sulfoxaflor, which the Agency classifies as highly toxic to honey bees. Despite warnings and concerns raised by beekeepers and environmental groups, the organization Beyond Pesticides indicates that "sulfoxaflor will further endanger bees and beekeeping." The group said EPA continues to put industry interests first to exacerbate an already dire pollinator crisis.

 

    Beyond Pesticides indicates in a release that in January, the agency proposed to impose conditional registration on sulfoxaflor due to inconclusive and outstanding data on long-term honey bee brood impacts. At that time, the agency requested two additional studies -- a study on residue impacts, and a field test to assess impacts to honey bee colonies and brood development. This week, EPA granted full unconditional registration to sulfoxaflor stating that there were no outstanding data, and that even though sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees it does not demonstrate substantial residual toxicity to exposed bees, nor are "catastrophic effects" on bees expected from its use. While sulfoxaflor exhibited behavioral and navigational abnormalities in honey bees, EPA downplays these effects as "short-lived." The agency says it has reviewed 400 studies in collaboration with its counterparts in Australia and Canada to support its decision. However, these studies do not seem to be currently available in the public scientific literature.

    Beyond Pesticides said, "Instead of denying or suspending registration in the face of dire pollinator losses, EPA instead has chosen to mitigate sulfoxaflor impacts to bees by approving a reduced application rate from that initially requested by the registrant, Dow AgroSciences LLC, as well as increasing the time interval between successive applications. EPA also approved new pollinator label language it believes to be 'robust' to protect pollinators."

    In announcing the approval on May 6, EPA said, "The EPA has 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. The EPA is granting 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.

    "Occupational worker and food safety data confirm these uses are safe when sulfoxaflor is used in accordance with the labeling terms and restrictions. Also, the ecological effects profile for sulfoxaflor supports the registration finding. One area of focus in the review involved pollinator health, and the final label includes robust terms for protecting pollinators. The EPA performed its data evaluation and assessments in collaboration with its counterpart agencies in Canada and Australia. Scientists from the three authorities reviewed over 400 studies and peer reviewed each other's work. The registration will provide growers with a new pest management tool for use on piercing/sucking insects. Sulfoxaflor has been used under an emergency clearance on cotton in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana to control the tarnished plant bug, an insect that has developed resistance to alternative registered pesticides. Sulfoxaflor belongs to its own new insecticide subclass in terms of its mode of action, so it is expected to be used by producers faced with pests that have developed resistance to other alternatives."

    A release from Dow Chemical Company indicates that, "sulfoxaflor belongs to a novel chemical class called sulfoximines invented by Dow AgroSciences and offers extremely effective control of many important sap-feeding insect pests. It can be used in a large number of major crops, including cotton, soybean, citrus, pome/stone fruit, nuts, grapes, potatoes, vegetables and strawberries. Sulfoxaflor has unique attributes compared with other sap-feeding insecticides providing a significant new tool for growers for many years to come." Daniel Kittle, vice president, Research and Development, Dow AgroSciences said, "Sulfoxaflor is an ideal addition to Integrated Pest Management programs. Its unique mode of action provides fast-acting control of harmful pests. Moreover, research data on sulfoxaflor continues to demonstrate lack of cross-resistance with other insecticides. This innovative new option fits conveniently into growers' existing programs to help them protect yields in a wide variety of foods and fiber around the globe."

    Beyond Pesticides indicates that before the approval, several comments were submitted by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would only exacerbate the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations. However, they said, "EPA outrightly dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies. EPA also noted that none of the objections to sulfoxaflor registrations pointed to any data 'to support the opinion that registration of sulfoxaflor will pose a grave risks to bees,' even though the agency itself acknowledges that sulfoxaflor is highly toxic to bees. Instead, the agency says, 'Comments suggested that pesticides can pose risks to bees and that the agency should not allow yet another pesticide to threaten bees.'"

    Access a release from Beyond Pesticides (click here). Access the 51-page EPA response to public comments (click here). Access an announcement from EPA (click here). Access a release from Dow Chemical Co. (click here). Access the recent EPA-USDA report on bees (click here). [#Toxics]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Republicans Not Happy With McCarthy's Nomination Responses

May 6: U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, released Gina McCarthy's responses to questions he submitted for the record following her April 11 nomination hearing [See WIMS 4/12/13]. McCarthy who is nominated to head U.S. EPA faces the Committee vote, the next step in her confirmation process, on Thursday, May 9. On May 3, Senator Barbara  Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the EPW Committee, reported that McCarthy, who currently serves as the Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, had responded to all of the questions submitted by members of the EPW Committee, including over 1,000 questions submitted by Republicans on the Committee.

    Senator Vitter said, "With days left before her confirmation hearing, McCarthy has not shown any greater commitment to a higher standard of transparency, one that the Agency desperately needs -- if we are to judge from her responses to the Committee Republicans' requests. So far, we have generously allowed her the time to respond to our questions and five specific transparency requests. However, the unresponsive answers received are unacceptable, and I do hope the nominee provides more detailed and adequate information before this Thursday."

    Sen. Vitter indicated in a release that during the nomination process, he and Committee Republicans "have repeatedly emphasized the importance of transparency within the EPA and the federal government." They reiterated the five transparency requests in addition to their questions for the record.  They said a recent poll shows that the vast majority of Americans are in support of transparency when it comes to federal data funded by taxpayers and utilized for Agency actions. The following are a few examples of the questions posed by Republicans and McCarthy's responses:

- Can you identify language in Section 109 of the Clean Air Act that specifically prohibits the consideration of costs in the setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) that in setting national ambient air quality standards that are requisite to protect public health and welfare, as provided in section 109(b) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA may not consider the costs of implementing the standards. The Court's reasoning is found at 531 U.S. 464-472.

- What do you think the social cost of a ton of carbon is?

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an estimate of the net present value of the flow of monetized damages from an incremental increase in carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon reported central estimates in 2020 of 6.8 to 41.7 dollars per metric ton in 2007 dollars, depending upon the discount rate, and up to 80.7 for extreme damages.

- Where are the most cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases likely to be?

EPA analysis has shown that there are numerous cost-effective reduction opportunities across the economy. As indicated in my testimony before the Committee, EPA's regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions from light- and heavy-duty vehicles are projected to achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time substantially reducing oil consumption and saving consumers billions of dollars at the pump. EPA economy-wide and electric power sector models show that electric power supply and use represents the largest source of emissions abatement potential. Additionally, the EPA report, Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases (EPA 430-R-06-005, 2006) demonstrates that non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation can play an important role in climate strategies, and that methane mitigation from the energy, waste, and agriculture sectors can provide a substantial quantity of cost effective reduction opportunities. Finally, energy efficiency also offers a low cost energy resource with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. For example, consumers, home owners, building owners and operators, and industrial partners have saved more than 1.8 billion metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent over the past twenty years of the ENERGY STAR program.

- How many electricity reliability experts are on EPA's staff in the Office of Air and Radiation? In the Agency as a whole?

EPA has significant expertise with regard to analysis of the effects of environmental regulation on the power sector, and has examined the impact of agency rules on resource adequacy and the reliable operation of the sector. In addition, EPA has worked closely with a range of entities directly charged with reliability responsibilities, including DOE and FERC as well as state regulatory authorities and grid planning authorities, to help ensure that EPA rules are developed and implemented in a manner consistent with maintaining electric reliability.

In March 28, 2013 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published updated emissions standards for power plants under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The MATS rule imposes sweeping new emissions requirements for power plants, and EPA expects that the MATS rule will entail upwards of $10 billion in compliance costs, making it the most expensive rule in EPA's history. In promulgating the MATS rules, EPA relied heavily on the claim that the rule will benefit public health through decreases in particulate matter pollution (PM). However, regulation of PM is primarily accomplished through National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are required to be set at levels that provide adequate protection for the public health or welfare. Accordingly, it appears that the agency has set a NAAQS standard for particulate matter at a level insufficiently protective of public health and welfare. Can you share your thoughts on this?

Even after several decades of pollution control laws, until MATS there were no national limits on emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants. Power plants emit mercury, other metals, acid gases, and other air toxics – as well as particulate matter – all of which harm people's health. The rule regulates mercury and other air toxics, but the control technologies installed to reduce these air pollutants also yield significant reductions in particulate matter.

    Access a release from Sen. Vitter (click here). Access the 123-pages of questions and responses (click here). Access the 4/11/13 hearing website for links to Gina McCarthy's testimony and a webcast of the hearing (click here). [#All]

Small Biz Benefits Of Natural Gas Production And Exports

May 2: The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) published a new report entitled, The Benefits of Natural Gas Production and Exports for U.S. Small Businesses. The report highlights the significant growth in the number of employer firms and jobs in the energy sector between 2005-2010. According to the report, the job growth is most striking among small businesses. During this same period, total U.S. employment and firms experienced a decline. The findings of the report underscore the need for policies that encourage and enable this positive development for the U.S. economy.

    Raymond Keating, chief economist for SBE Council and author of the report said, "The tremendous increase in domestic natural gas production has been a boon for small business and job growth in the energy sector in recent years.  Looking ahead, growth opportunities for small businesses and employment in the U.S. energy sector look bright due to increased natural gas demand, including in international markets. The opportunity exists for exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG). Expanded demand for U.S. natural gas internationally will be a net positive, resulting in greater U.S. natural gas production, increased investment, enhanced GDP growth, rising incomes, and more jobs."

    On the jobs front, according to the report, while total U.S. employment declined by 3.7 percent from 2005 to 2010, jobs grew by 27.6 percent in the oil and gas extraction sector; by 15.1 percent in the drilling oil and gas wells sector; by 38.5 percent in the support sector for oil and gas operations; by 47 percent in the oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction sector; and by 62 percent in the oil and gas field machinery and equipment manufacturing sector.

    As for business growth, while total U.S. employer firms declined from 2005 to 2010, the number of employer firms grew by 3.1 percent among oil and gas extraction businesses (including 2.5 percent among firms with less than 20 workers); by 7.2 percent among drilling oil and gas wells businesses (including 4.7 percent among firms with less than 20 workers); by 24.5 percent among oil and gas operations businesses (including 24.5 percent among firms with less than 20 workers); by 5.1 percent among oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction businesses (including 3.5 percent among firms with less than 500 workers); and by 61 percent among oil and gas field machinery and equipment manufacturing businesses (including 59.0 percent among firms with less than 20 workers).

    The overall case of energy industries adding jobs and small businesses held in the 10 states -- Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming -- examined in the report where natural gas production was up markedly. The study also showed that each energy sector is overwhelmingly populated by small businesses. Keating noted, "The expectation that nearly two-thirds of LNG exports would be met via new production speaks to further strong growth for small and midsize businesses, and for employment." He said, "Policymakers -- at the federal level and in the states -- must make sure that policies support enhanced domestic energy production, and therefore increased opportunity for small businesses and workers. It is critical that they resist regulatory and tax measures that would undercut domestic energy production, including policies that would in any way limit natural gas exports."

    The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power will explore the benefits of increased LNG exports at a hearing on Tuesday, May 7. The hearing is entitled, "U.S. Energy Abundance: Exports and the Changing Global Energy Landscape." In a release from the Republicans on the Committee, Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX) said, "The dramatic growth in natural gas production over the last decade has completely transformed our energy landscape and our economy. In the midst of a recession, Texas actually experienced employment growth thanks to this energy renaissance. Increasing natural gas exports and expanding the market for America's abundant energy resources will allow our economy to continue to thrive and bring more jobs and businesses to America."

    Witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include: Johnston & Associates; World Resources Institute; Columbiana County Board of Commissioners; Bipartisan Policy Center; Truman National Security Project; and UC Davis Graduate School of Management. Testimony has already been posted and may be accessed from the link below.

    Access a release from SBE Council and link to a summary of each state examined and a U.S. summary (click here). Access the 49-page report (click here). Access House hearing website for links to testimony and background information (click here). [#Energy/LNG]

WMO Issues Annual Statement On The Status Of The Global Climate

May 2: The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued its Annual Statement on the Status of the Global Climate which indicates that 2012 joined the ten previous years as one of the warmest -- at ninth place -- on record despite the cooling influence of a La Niña episode early in the year. The statement indicates that the 2012 global land and ocean surface temperature during January–December 2012 is estimated to be 0.45°C (±0.11°C) above the 1961–1990 average of 14.0°C. This is the ninth warmest year since records began in 1850 and the 27th consecutive year that the global land and ocean temperatures were above the 1961–1990 average. The years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record. The Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), adopted by the Extraordinary World Meteorological Congress in 2012, now provides the necessary global platform to inform decision-making for climate adaptation through enhanced climate information.

    WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said, "Although the rate of warming varies from year to year due to natural variability caused by the El Niño cycle, volcanic eruptions and other phenomena, the sustained warming of the lower atmosphere is a worrisome sign. The continued upward trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the consequent increased radiative forcing of the Earth's atmosphere confirm that the warming will continue. The record loss of Arctic sea ice in August-September -- 18% less than the previous record low of 2007 of 4.17 million km2 -- was also a disturbing sign of climate change. The year 2012 saw many other extremes as well, such as droughts and tropical cyclones. Natural climate variability has always resulted in such extremes, but the physical characteristics of extreme weather and climate events are being increasingly shaped by climate change. For example, because global sea levels are now about 20 cm higher than they were in 1880, storms such as Hurricane Sandy are bringing more coastal flooding than they would have otherwise."

    WMO's annual statements gather the key climate events of each year. The series stands today as an internationally rec­ognized authoritative source of information about temperatures, precipitation, extreme events, tropical cyclones, and sea ice extent. The newly released statement provided in-depth analysis of regional trends as part of a WMO drive to provide more information at regional and national levels to support adaptation to climate variability and change.

    The 2012 climate assessment, the most detailed to date, will inform discussion at WMO's Executive Council meeting (May 15-23, 2013). Above-average temperatures were observed during 2012 across most of the globe's land surface areas, most notably North America, southern Europe, western Russia, parts of northern Africa and southern South America. Nonetheless, cooler-than-average conditions were observed across Alaska, parts of northern and eastern Australia, and central Asia. Precipitation across the globe was slightly above the 1961-1990 long-term average. There were drier-than-average conditions across much of the central United States, northern Mexico, northeastern Brazil, central Russia, and south-central Australia. Wetter-than-average conditions were present across northern Europe, western Africa, north-central Argentina, western Alaska, and most of northern China.

    Snow cover extent in North America during the 2011/2012 winter was below average, resulting in the fourth smallest winter snow cover extent on record, according to data from the Global Snow Laboratory. This was in marked contrast to the previous two winters (2009/2010 and 2010/2011), which had the largest and third largest snow cover extent, respectively, since records began in 1966.

    Meanwhile, the Eurasian continent snow cover extent during the winter was above average, resulting in the fourth largest snow cover extent on record. Overall, the northern hemisphere snow cover extent was above average -- 590,000 km2 above the average of 45.2 million km2 -- and was the fourteenth largest snow cover extent on record.
Greenland ice sheet: In early July, Greenland's surface ice cover melted dramatically, with an estimated 97 per cent of the ice sheet surface having thawed in mid-July. This was the largest melt extent since satellite records began 34 years ago. During the summer it is typical to observe nearly half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet melt naturally, particularly across the lower elevations. However, in 2012 a high-pressure system brought warmer-than-average conditions to Greenland, which are associated with the rapid melting.

 

    Arctic sea ice extent reached its record lowest level in its annual cycle on 16 September at 3.41 million km2. This value broke the previous record low set on September 18, 2007, by 18 per cent. It was 49 percent or nearly 3.3 million km2 below the 1979–2000 average minimum. The difference between the maximum Arctic sea-ice extent on March 20, and the lowest minimum extent on September 16, was 11.83 million km2 -- the largest seasonal sea-ice extent loss in the 34-year satellite record.

    Antarctic sea-ice extent in March was the fourth largest on record at 5.0 million km2 or 16.0 per cent above the 1979–2000 average. During its growth season, the Antarctic sea-ice extent reached its maximum extent since records began in 1979 on September 26, at 19.4 million km2. This value surpassed the previous maximum sea-ice extent record of 19.36 million km2 set on September 21, 2006.

    WMO highlights Extreme Events as follows: Hurricane Sandy killed close to 100 people and caused major destruction in the Caribbean and tens of billions of US dollars in damage and around 130 deaths in the eastern United States of America. Typhoon Bopha, the deadliest tropical cyclone of the year, hit the Philippines -- twice -- in December. During the year, the United States and south-eastern Europe experienced extreme drought conditions, while West Africa was severely hit by extreme flooding. The populations of Europe, northern Africa and Asia were acutely affected by extreme cold and snow conditions. Severe flooding occurred in Pakistan for a third consecutive year.

    Jarraud said, "Climate change is aggravating naturally occurring climate variability and has become a source of uncertainty for climate-sensitive economic sectors like agriculture and energy. It is vital that we continue to invest in the observations and research that will improve our knowledge about climate variability and climate change. We need to understand how much of the extra heat captured by greenhouse gases is being stored in the oceans and the consequences this brings in terms of ocean acidification and other impacts. We need to know more about the temporary cooling effects of pollution and other aerosols emitted into the atmosphere. We also need a better understanding of the changing behavior of extreme weather and climate events as a consequence of global warming, as well as the need to assist countries in the most affected areas to better manage climate-related risks with improved climate early warning and climate watch systems."

 

    Access a release on the WMO Annual Statement (click here). Access the complete 36-page statement report (click here). [Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

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

EPA-USDA Scientific Report On Honey Bee Health

May 2: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. 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."

 

    Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan said, "There is an important link between the health of American agriculture and the health of our honeybees for our country's long term agricultural productivity. The forces impacting honeybee health are complex and USDA, our research partners, and key stakeholders will be engaged in addressing this challenge." Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe said, "The decline in honey bee health is a complex problem caused by a combination of stressors, and at EPA we are committed to continuing our work with USDA, researchers, beekeepers, growers and the public to address this challenge. The report we've released today is the product of unprecedented collaboration, and our work in concert must continue. As the report makes clear, we've made significant progress, but there is still much work to be done to protect the honey bee population."

    In October 2012, a National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, led by Federal researchers and managers, along with Pennsylvania State University, was convened to synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding the primary factors that scientists believe have the greatest impact on managed bee health. Key findings include:

• Parasites and Disease Present Risks to Honey Bees: The parasitic Varroa mite is recognized as the major factor underlying colony loss in the U.S. and other countries. There is widespread resistance to the chemicals beekeepers use to control mites within the hive. New virus species have been found in the U.S. and several of these have been associated with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).
• Increased Genetic Diversity is Needed: (1) U.S. honeybee colonies need increased genetic diversity. Genetic variation improves bees thermoregulation (the ability to keep body temperature steady even if the surrounding environment is different), disease resistance and worker productivity. (2) Honey bee breeding should emphasize traits such as hygienic behavior that confer improved resistance to Varroa mites and diseases (such as American foulbrood).
• Poor Nutrition Among Honey Bee Colonies: (1) Nutrition has a major impact on individual bee and colony longevity. A nutrition-poor diet can make bees more susceptible to harm from disease and parasites. Bees need better forage and a variety of plants to support colony health. (2) Federal and state partners should consider actions affecting land management to maximize available nutritional forage to promote and enhance good bee health and to protect bees by keeping them away from pesticide-treated fields.
• There is a Need for Improved Collaboration and Information Sharing: (1) Best Management Practices associated with bees and pesticide use, exist, but are not widely or systematically followed by members of the crop-producing industry. There is a need for informed and coordinated communication between growers and beekeepers and effective collaboration between stakeholders on practices to protect bees from pesticides. (2) Beekeepers emphasized the need for accurate and timely bee kill incident reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.
• Additional Research is Needed to Determine Risks Presented by Pesticides: The most pressing pesticide research questions relate to determining actual pesticide exposures and effects of pesticides to bees in the field and the potential for impacts on bee health and productivity of whole honey bee colonies.

    Those involved in developing the report include USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Agricultural Research Services (ARS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), National Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) as well as the EPA and Pennsylvania State University. The agencies indicated that the report will provide important input to the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) Steering Committee, led by the USDA, EPA and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

    The agencies indicated in a release that an estimated one-third of all food and beverages are made possible by pollination, mainly by honey bees. In the United States, pollination contributes to crop production worth $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually. A decline in managed bee colonies puts great pressure on the sectors of agriculture reliant on commercial pollination services. This is evident from reports of shortages of bees available for the pollination of many crops. The Colony Collapse Steering Committee was formed in response to a sudden and widespread disappearance of adult honey bees from beehives, which first occurred in 2006. The Committee will consider the report's recommendations and update the CCD Action Plan which will outline major priorities to be addressed in the next 5-10 years and serve as a reference document for policy makers, legislators and the public and will help coordinate the Federal strategy in response to honey bee losses.

 

    Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau  (AFB) issued a statement on the report saying, "The Agriculture Department/Environmental Protection Agency report issued today concludes what farmers and scientists have known for some time -- that there isn't just one cause to the decline in honey bee numbers. It's a multitude of factors, which makes it even more important that we continue work on a solution through collaborative efforts among farmers, beekeepers, researchers, the federal government and the public. The good health of the honey bee is extremely important to American agriculture. Many farmers and ranchers require honey bees and other pollinators to produce a healthy, bountiful crop. Farm Bureau supports funding for research to find real answers to the Colony Collapse Disorder, as well as practical, effective methods to remedy the situation."

 

    In a blog posting, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the report, ". . . finds that pesticides may be part of the problem, including both the pyrethroid and neonicotinoid classes of pesticides. Both of these classes of pesticides were developed and promoted as reduced-risk replacements for the war-era organophosphate pesticides that were not only deadly to bees and other wildlife, but also highly toxic to people. However, emerging science is proving that these replacement chemicals pose significant risks of harm to bees and beneficial insects, and therefore ultimately to agriculture and our ability to grow our own food. Unfortunately, the USDA/EPA report recommendations are mainly limited to recommendations about best management practices and technical advancements for applying pesticides to reduce dust, etc. The report is conspicuously silent on reducing the overall use of bee-killing pesticides, that is, on recommendations that would reduce the overall sales and profits for chemical makers."

 

    On March 21, 2013, a coalition of four beekeepers and five environmental and consumer groups filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against U.S. EPA for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The pesticides involved -- clothianidin and thiamethoxam -- are "neonicotinoids," a newer class of systemic insecticides that are absorbed by plants and transported throughout the plant's vascular tissue, making the plant potentially toxic to insects. The coalition, represented by attorneys for the Center for Food Safety (CFS), is seeking suspension of the registrations of insecticides which they say "have repeatedly been identified as highly toxic to honey bees, clear causes of major bee kills and significant contributors to the devastating ongoing mortality of bees known as colony collapse disorder (CCD)" [See WIMS 4/4/07]. The suit challenges EPA's ongoing handling of the pesticides as well as the agency's practice of "conditional registration" and labeling deficiencies [See WIMS 3/21/13].

 

    On the issue of neonicotinoids, the EPA-USDA report indicates, "Pesticide exposure to pollinators continues to be an area of research and concern, particularly the systemic pesticides such as neonicotinoids. Despite concerns regarding the potential hazard that systemic pesticides may represent to honey bee colonies, when pesticides are viewed in the aggregate at the national level, the frequency and quantity of residues of pyrethroids coupled with the toxicity of these insecticides to bees could pose a 3-fold greater hazard to the colony than the systemic neonicotinoids." 

 

    Access a release from the agencies (click here). Access the complete 72-page report (click here). Access the AFB statement (click here). Access the NRDC blog posting (click here). [#Agriculture, #Wildlife, #Toxics] 

Extending Energy Policies Will Reduce Use & CO2

Apr 30: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released, as part of EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013), the so-called "Extended Policies case" which shows that extending certain Federal energy efficiency and renewable energy laws and regulations could reduce annual energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States in 2040 by roughly 6% relative to a "Reference case" projection that generally assumes current laws and policies. Between 2013 and 2040, this reduction adds up to a cumulative emission savings approaching five billion metric tons. A release of an additional "Impact of natural gas liquids growth" analysis is scheduled for May 2. The natural gas analysis release will complete the full AE02013 analysis which will also be available on May 2. The full analysis includes sections on: Oil price and production trends in AEO2013; U.S. reliance on imported liquid fuels in alternative scenarios; Competition between coal and natural gas in the electric power sector; Nuclear power in AEO2013; Updated no sunset and extended policy cases; and Impact of natural gas liquids growth. The AEO2013 also includes additional chapters on: Market Trends; Legislation & Regulations;and  Comparisons.

    Projected emissions reductions result from decreased energy consumption as well as additional energy production from low-carbon resources. In 2040, the Extended Policies case projects four quadrillion Btu lower annual U.S. energy consumption than the Reference case. The cumulative amount of energy use is 55 quadrillion Btu lower between 2013 and 2040.

    The Extended Policies case differs from the Reference case, which generally reflects policies as they exist in spring 2013, including the assumption that any sunset dates (for example, scheduled expirations for tax credits) or other scheduled milestones occur as specified in law. In the Extended Policies case, EIA explores the possible effects of the indefinite continuation of certain provisions that have expiration dates and the expansion of certain energy laws and regulations. The Extended Policies case includes key assumptions affecting: Electric power; Residential and commercial buildings; Transportation; and Industry. The continuation of the production tax credit for wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable resources, and the investment tax credit for solar generation technologies exemplify the policy extensions included in this case.

    The Extended Policies case includes several add-on assumptions to the "No Sunset case," e.g. additional updates to Federal equipment efficiency standards; residential and commercial end-use technologies eligible for incentives would not be subject to new standards. The assumptions of the No Sunset case include:

• The PTC of 2.2 cents per kilowatthour and the 30-percent investment tax credit (ITC) available for wind, geothermal, biomass, hydroelectric, and landfill gas resources, assumed in the Reference case to expire at the end of 2012 for wind and 2013 for the other eligible resources, are extended indefinitely.
• For solar power investments, a 30-percent ITC that is scheduled to revert to a 10-percent credit in 2016 is, instead, assumed to be extended indefinitely at 30 percent.
• In the buildings sector, personal tax credits for the purchase of renewable equipment, including photovoltaics (PV), are assumed to be extended indefinitely, as opposed to ending in 2016 as prescribed by current law. The business ITCs for commercial-sector generation technologies and geothermal heat pumps are assumed to be extended indefinitely, as opposed to expiring in 2016; and the business ITC for solar systems is assumed to remain at 30 percent instead of reverting to 10 percent. 
• In the industrial sector, the 10-percent ITC for combined heat and power (CHP) that ends in 2016  is assumed to be preserved through 2040.

     In addition to the above, the Extended Policies case adds the following assumptions:

• Federal equipment efficiency standards are assumed to be updated at periodic intervals, consistent with the provisions in existing law, at levels based on ENERGY STAR specifications or on the Federal Energy Management Program purchasing guidelines for federal agencies, as applicable. Standards are also introduced for products that currently are not subject to federal efficiency standards.
• Updated Federal energy codes for residential and commercial buildings increase by 30 percent in 2020.
• Modifies the assumption in the Reference and No Sunset cases and assumes continued increases in CAFE standards after MY 2025. CAFE standards for new LDVs are assumed to increase by an annual average rate of 1.4 percent.
• In the industrial sector, the ITC for CHP is extended to cover all properties with CHP, no matter what the system size (instead of being limited to properties with systems smaller than 50 megawatts.  Also, the ITC is modified to increase the eligible CHP unit cap to 25 megawatts from 15 megawatts.

    EIA also analyzes other cases including: the "Reference" case; "Low Oil Price" case; and the "High Oil Price" case. Additionally, the "Low Oil and Gas Resource" case only reflects the uncertainty around tight oil and shale gas resources; while the "High Oil and Gas Resource" case reflects a broad-based increase in crude oil and natural gas resources.

Also a "Low Coal Cost" case, assumes higher mining productivity and lower costs for labor, mine equipment, and coal transportation, leading to lower coal prices for electric power plants. A "High Coal Cost" case assumes coal-fired plants are used less, and more coal-fired capacity is retired than in the Reference case.

 

    Nuclear power is also projected. In 2011, approximately 19 percent of the nation's electricity was generated by 104 operating commercial nuclear reactors, totaling 101 gigawatts of capacity. In the AEO2013 Reference case, annual generation from nuclear power grows by 14.3 percent from the 2011 total to 903 gigawatt hours in 2040. However, the nuclear share of the overall generation mix declines to 17 percent as growth in nuclear generation is outpaced by the increases in generation from natural gas and renewables. The Reference case projects the addition of 19 gigawatts of nuclear capacity from 2011 to 2040, in comparison with the addition of 215 gigawatts of natural gas capacity and 104 gigawatts of renewable capacity. There are also "Low Nuclear" and "High Nuclear" cases.

 

    EIA indicates, "A key contributing factor to the recent decline in net import dependence has been the rapid growth of U.S. oil production from tight onshore formations, which has followed closely after the rapid growth of natural gas production from similar types of resources. Projections of future production trends inevitably reflect many uncertainties regarding the actual level of resources available, the difficulty in extracting them, and the evolution of the technologies (and associated costs) used to recover them. To represent these uncertainties, the assumptions used in the High and Low Oil and Gas Resource cases represent significant deviations from the Reference case."

 

    Also, EIA notes that, "Liquid fuels play a vital role in the U.S. energy system and economy, and access to affordable liquid fuels has contributed to the nation's economic prosperity. However, the extent of U.S. reliance on imported oil has often been raised as a matter of concern over the past 40 years. U.S. net imports of petroleum and other liquid fuels as a share of consumption have been one of the most watched indicators in national and global energy analyses. After rising steadily from 1950 to 1977, when it reached 47 percent by the most comprehensive measure, U.S. net import dependence declined to 27 percent in 1985. Between 1985 and 2005, net imports of liquid fuels as a share of consumption again rose, reaching 60 percent in 2005. Since that time, however, the trend toward growing U.S. dependence on liquid fuels imports has again reversed, with the net import share falling to an estimated 41 percent in 2012, and with EIA projecting further significant declines in 2013 and 2014."

 

    Access an overview of the Extended Policies case (click here). Access the extensive EIA analysis with numerous links to referenced information, data, appendices, additional chapters and more (click here). [#Energy, #Energy/Renewable, #Climate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

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