Monday, December 11, 2006
Gulf Of Mexico Energy Bill Passes
Dec 8: In last minute actions of the Republican-controlled Congress, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act [aka OCS legislation, See WIMS 12/6/06], was added to H.R. 6111, an unrelated vehicle bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The bill pass the House by a vote of 367-45. Later, at 1:49 AM Saturday, the Senate approved the measure by a vote of 79-9.
The bill would open two areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for oil and gas development. The bill passed the Senate on August 1, 2006 by a bipartisan vote of 71-25. S. 3711 would open 8.3 million acres in Lease Sale 181 and Lease Sale 181 South for oil and gas exploration. The government estimates that the region contains 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- enough to heat six million homes for 15 years. The bill would also share production revenues with Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
In remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist characterized the legislation as “one of the most significant accomplishments of the 109th Congress which will have a lasting impact on American consumers and our economy.” Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee and one of the chief sponsors of the bill said, “The OCS legislation is very important and should be something that everybody in this chamber is proud of. It is particularly fitting that the Senate pass the bill just as the cold winter was setting in and as families start seeing a sharp rise in their natural gas bills. The price of natural gas has more than doubled since October. We aim to ease the gas price volatility by increasing supply.”
Also, referring to the fact that the legislation was part of a larger package that included several energy tax provisions to encourage more renewable energy, more clean energy and the increased conservation of energy, Domenici said, “I think it’s fitting that we passed legislation that develops more oil and gas in tandem with a tax package that will increase the production of electricity from wind and solar power and help government, businesses and homeowners conserve energy and use it more efficiently.”
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who crafted a compromise bill with Domenici said, "Today the Senate confirmed its strong support for Louisiana and the entire Gulf Coast by passing the Domenici-Landrieu fair-share bill, which after nearly 60 years, provides for Louisiana a significant share of oil and gas revenues produced off our shores. In August, 71 Senators agreed to the bill because they recognized that a dedicated stream of revenue is necessary for Louisiana to protect itself from future storms. Katrina and Rita showed us what devastation can ensue if our communities remain vulnerable."
Under the legislation, 37.5 percent of offshore revenues will go to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama. The funds are specifically dedicated to coastal wetlands restoration, hurricane protection, levee and flood control projects in the four energy-producing states. An additional 12.5 percent is dedicated to the state side of the Land and Conservation Fund, which funds the acquisition of parks and green spaces across the country.
Senator Landrieu thanked many interest groups who helped in the passage of the bill including: America's WETLAND Campaign to Save Coastal Louisiana; Parishes Against Coastal Erosion; Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Women of the Storm; Levees.org; Coast Guardians; National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); the American Chemistry Council (acc); the Consumer Alliance for Energy Security; the Agriculture Energy Alliance and "countless others."
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying that the lame-duck Congress was sneaking "in a measure endangering this fragile coast by opening up 8.3 million previously protected acres to oil and gas drilling." They said, "Rather than permanently redirecting oil royalties from off-shore drilling to the coffers of just four states, Congress should commit the necessary funds for restoration but should also make oil and gas companies pay their fair share for repairing wetlands and pay their full share of royalties to the American people for drilling both on- and off-shore. And Congress should now turn its attention to ending our addiction to oil." Sierra Club also opposed the bill.
Access legislative details for the vehicle bill, H.R. 6111 (click here). Access the legislative details for the original S. 3711 (click here). Access a lengthy statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a statement from Senator Landrieu (click here). Access a statement from ACC (click here). Access a statement from NAM (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the latest media reporting on the voting activity (click here). [*Energy]
The bill would open two areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for oil and gas development. The bill passed the Senate on August 1, 2006 by a bipartisan vote of 71-25. S. 3711 would open 8.3 million acres in Lease Sale 181 and Lease Sale 181 South for oil and gas exploration. The government estimates that the region contains 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- enough to heat six million homes for 15 years. The bill would also share production revenues with Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
In remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist characterized the legislation as “one of the most significant accomplishments of the 109th Congress which will have a lasting impact on American consumers and our economy.” Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee and one of the chief sponsors of the bill said, “The OCS legislation is very important and should be something that everybody in this chamber is proud of. It is particularly fitting that the Senate pass the bill just as the cold winter was setting in and as families start seeing a sharp rise in their natural gas bills. The price of natural gas has more than doubled since October. We aim to ease the gas price volatility by increasing supply.”
Also, referring to the fact that the legislation was part of a larger package that included several energy tax provisions to encourage more renewable energy, more clean energy and the increased conservation of energy, Domenici said, “I think it’s fitting that we passed legislation that develops more oil and gas in tandem with a tax package that will increase the production of electricity from wind and solar power and help government, businesses and homeowners conserve energy and use it more efficiently.”
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who crafted a compromise bill with Domenici said, "Today the Senate confirmed its strong support for Louisiana and the entire Gulf Coast by passing the Domenici-Landrieu fair-share bill, which after nearly 60 years, provides for Louisiana a significant share of oil and gas revenues produced off our shores. In August, 71 Senators agreed to the bill because they recognized that a dedicated stream of revenue is necessary for Louisiana to protect itself from future storms. Katrina and Rita showed us what devastation can ensue if our communities remain vulnerable."
Under the legislation, 37.5 percent of offshore revenues will go to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama. The funds are specifically dedicated to coastal wetlands restoration, hurricane protection, levee and flood control projects in the four energy-producing states. An additional 12.5 percent is dedicated to the state side of the Land and Conservation Fund, which funds the acquisition of parks and green spaces across the country.
Senator Landrieu thanked many interest groups who helped in the passage of the bill including: America's WETLAND Campaign to Save Coastal Louisiana; Parishes Against Coastal Erosion; Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Women of the Storm; Levees.org; Coast Guardians; National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); the American Chemistry Council (acc); the Consumer Alliance for Energy Security; the Agriculture Energy Alliance and "countless others."
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying that the lame-duck Congress was sneaking "in a measure endangering this fragile coast by opening up 8.3 million previously protected acres to oil and gas drilling." They said, "Rather than permanently redirecting oil royalties from off-shore drilling to the coffers of just four states, Congress should commit the necessary funds for restoration but should also make oil and gas companies pay their fair share for repairing wetlands and pay their full share of royalties to the American people for drilling both on- and off-shore. And Congress should now turn its attention to ending our addiction to oil." Sierra Club also opposed the bill.
Access legislative details for the vehicle bill, H.R. 6111 (click here). Access the legislative details for the original S. 3711 (click here). Access a lengthy statement from Senator Domenici (click here). Access a statement from Senator Landrieu (click here). Access a statement from ACC (click here). Access a statement from NAM (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the latest media reporting on the voting activity (click here). [*Energy]
Labels:
Energy
Friday, December 08, 2006
EPA Announces Revised NAAQS Review Process
Dec 7: U.S. EPA officially announced its updated process for reviewing and setting the Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA said the updates will help improve the efficiency of the NAAQS review process and ensure that the best available science is used in making air quality decisions. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review each standard on a five year schedule. EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock said, "EPA is bringing air rule making into the 21st Century. EPA is committed to a timely and transparent process that uses the most up-to-date science available."
EPA has been examining the NAAQS process for the past year to determine how it can be improved. On June 26, 2006, EPA held a public workshop to receive comments on an April 2006 Agency report on ways to improve the NAAQS review process [The so-called "Top-To-Bottom" NAAQS Review Report, See WIMS 4/4/06]. EPA also met with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to get input on recommendations for revising the process. At the time, CASAC's called the proposed process more costly and time consuming [See WIMS 5/18/06 & 6/13/06].
After considering comments, EPA said it will move forward with the following structure for reviewing the NAAQS:
Planning: After completion of each NAAQS review, EPA will prepare a science and policy plan that outlines the schedule, process and expectations for the next review. EPA will consult with the CASAC on the draft integrated plan.
Integrated Science Assessment: EPA will develop a more concise evaluation, integration and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science, including key science judgments that will be used in conducting the risk and exposure assessments. CASAC and the public will have an opportunity to evaluate and comment on drafts of the Integrated Science Assessment.
Risk/Exposure Assessment: EPA will more clearly link the Integrated Science Assessment and the Risk/Exposure Assessment to ensure that the characterization of risk and exposure are based on the clearest possible understanding of the available scientific information.
Policy Assessment/Rulemaking: The staff paper will be replaced with a more narrowly focused policy assessment that will connect the agency's scientific assessment and the judgments the administrator must make in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards. This policy assessment will reflect the agency's views and will be published in the Federal Register as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM will provide both CASAC and the public the opportunity to review the policy options under consideration.
In a December 7, 2006, Memo from Peacock to Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development and Bill Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation he says, "Based on your advice to me following these public meetings and additional discussions with the internal working group, I have decided to institute a number of changes to the NAAQS review process. These changes reflect many of the recommendations contained in the working group's April report . Specifically, I direct your offices to proceed with the general structure recommended in your April 3, 2006 memo, as discussed below, which involves four major components: planning, science assessment, risk/exposure assessment, and policy assessment/rulemaking" [as summarized above and detailed further in the Memo].
The Memo continues, "In moving forward, I urge you to apply these revisions to the NAAQS review process to all upcoming NAAQS reviews and to any ongoing reviews . As to the latter, I would like these revisions to apply to the review of lead, which is currently underway. The last formal draft Staff Paper for lead, adhering to the previous standard setting process, has been transmitted to CASAC, and therefore the relevant changes noted above should apply to the remainder of the lead review."
Consistent with that request, EPA announced on December 5, that to date, the lead NAAQS review has followed its "historic approach" to reviewing NAAQS, including issuance of a criteria document and a first draft staff paper. The Agency said, however, that it is now moving forward to implement a "new, more efficient process for conducting NAAQS reviews." EPA said it intends to transition to the new process during the course of the lead NAAQS review [See WIMS 12/5/06].
Access an announcement of the new process (click here). Access the December 7, 3-page Memo which contains further details on the process (click here). Access the NAAQS website for background information including CASAC correspondence and other key documents (click here, scroll down). [*Air]
EPA has been examining the NAAQS process for the past year to determine how it can be improved. On June 26, 2006, EPA held a public workshop to receive comments on an April 2006 Agency report on ways to improve the NAAQS review process [The so-called "Top-To-Bottom" NAAQS Review Report, See WIMS 4/4/06]. EPA also met with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to get input on recommendations for revising the process. At the time, CASAC's called the proposed process more costly and time consuming [See WIMS 5/18/06 & 6/13/06].
After considering comments, EPA said it will move forward with the following structure for reviewing the NAAQS:
Planning: After completion of each NAAQS review, EPA will prepare a science and policy plan that outlines the schedule, process and expectations for the next review. EPA will consult with the CASAC on the draft integrated plan.
Integrated Science Assessment: EPA will develop a more concise evaluation, integration and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science, including key science judgments that will be used in conducting the risk and exposure assessments. CASAC and the public will have an opportunity to evaluate and comment on drafts of the Integrated Science Assessment.
Risk/Exposure Assessment: EPA will more clearly link the Integrated Science Assessment and the Risk/Exposure Assessment to ensure that the characterization of risk and exposure are based on the clearest possible understanding of the available scientific information.
Policy Assessment/Rulemaking: The staff paper will be replaced with a more narrowly focused policy assessment that will connect the agency's scientific assessment and the judgments the administrator must make in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards. This policy assessment will reflect the agency's views and will be published in the Federal Register as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM will provide both CASAC and the public the opportunity to review the policy options under consideration.
In a December 7, 2006, Memo from Peacock to Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development and Bill Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation he says, "Based on your advice to me following these public meetings and additional discussions with the internal working group, I have decided to institute a number of changes to the NAAQS review process. These changes reflect many of the recommendations contained in the working group's April report . Specifically, I direct your offices to proceed with the general structure recommended in your April 3, 2006 memo, as discussed below, which involves four major components: planning, science assessment, risk/exposure assessment, and policy assessment/rulemaking" [as summarized above and detailed further in the Memo].
The Memo continues, "In moving forward, I urge you to apply these revisions to the NAAQS review process to all upcoming NAAQS reviews and to any ongoing reviews . As to the latter, I would like these revisions to apply to the review of lead, which is currently underway. The last formal draft Staff Paper for lead, adhering to the previous standard setting process, has been transmitted to CASAC, and therefore the relevant changes noted above should apply to the remainder of the lead review."
Consistent with that request, EPA announced on December 5, that to date, the lead NAAQS review has followed its "historic approach" to reviewing NAAQS, including issuance of a criteria document and a first draft staff paper. The Agency said, however, that it is now moving forward to implement a "new, more efficient process for conducting NAAQS reviews." EPA said it intends to transition to the new process during the course of the lead NAAQS review [See WIMS 12/5/06].
Access an announcement of the new process (click here). Access the December 7, 3-page Memo which contains further details on the process (click here). Access the NAAQS website for background information including CASAC correspondence and other key documents (click here, scroll down). [*Air]
Labels:
Air
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Getting A Handle On The Scrap Tire Problem
Dec 5: A detailed report by the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) says that nearly 87 percent of disposed tires each year are put to a new use. RMA’s report -- Scrap Tire Markets In The United States -- which is based upon a comprehensive survey of state scrap tire and solid waste officials and industry participants, indicates that 259 million of 299 million scrap tires generated in 2005 went to an end use market. By comparison, in 1990, only 11 percent of scrap tires was consumed by a market. State cleanup laws and growing markets are helping to alleviate serious environmental issue. Additionally, the number of tires sitting in stockpiles has been reduced to 188 million -- down from 275 million in 2003; and more than 1 billion scrap tires were stockpiled in 1990. RMA, which represents tire manufacturers, ranked states by their overall performance in dealing with scrap tire issues and how states improved since the previous scrap tire report in 2003.
According to the report, South Carolina, North Carolina and Maine lead the nation in a performance ranking of dealing with scrap tires. Rankings are based on percent of tires going to end use markets, number of stockpiled tires, stockpiled tires per capita, number of tires land-disposed and the percent of the number of tires/per capita land-disposed in 2005. Texas, Alabama, Michigan and Ohio were tops in improving the scrap tire situation in 2005 as compared to 2003. Michael Blumenthal, RMA senior technical director said, “Tire manufacturers have been working hard for 16 years to promote environmentally and economically sound solutions to reduce scrap tire waste. Additionally, states’ scrap tire cleanup laws and regulations and market development efforts have substantially reduced the nation’s scrap tire piles.”
The largest market for scrap tires is tire-derived-fuel (TDF) -- especially as a supplemental fuel for cement kilns, electric utilities and pulp and paper mills. TDF accounted for some 155 million scrap tires in 2005; an increase of 20% since 2003. Other major uses are ground rubber and construction applications. Ground rubber use, e.g athletic and recreational surfaces, rubber-modified asphalt, carpet underlay, flooring material, dock bumpers and railroad crossing blocks; accounted for more than 30 million tires in 2005. Road and landfill construction, septic tank leach fields and other construction applications consumed nearly 50 million tires in 2005.
The report also indicates that since 1990, the number of scrap tires in stockpiles has been reduced by 81 percent. Of the remaining stockpiles, 85 percent are concentrated in 7 states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Access a release from RMA (click here). Access the complete 93-page report (click here). Access RMA's Scrap Tire Management website for extensive information (click here). Access U.S. EPA's Scrap Tire Management website for additional information (click here). [*Solid]
According to the report, South Carolina, North Carolina and Maine lead the nation in a performance ranking of dealing with scrap tires. Rankings are based on percent of tires going to end use markets, number of stockpiled tires, stockpiled tires per capita, number of tires land-disposed and the percent of the number of tires/per capita land-disposed in 2005. Texas, Alabama, Michigan and Ohio were tops in improving the scrap tire situation in 2005 as compared to 2003. Michael Blumenthal, RMA senior technical director said, “Tire manufacturers have been working hard for 16 years to promote environmentally and economically sound solutions to reduce scrap tire waste. Additionally, states’ scrap tire cleanup laws and regulations and market development efforts have substantially reduced the nation’s scrap tire piles.”
The largest market for scrap tires is tire-derived-fuel (TDF) -- especially as a supplemental fuel for cement kilns, electric utilities and pulp and paper mills. TDF accounted for some 155 million scrap tires in 2005; an increase of 20% since 2003. Other major uses are ground rubber and construction applications. Ground rubber use, e.g athletic and recreational surfaces, rubber-modified asphalt, carpet underlay, flooring material, dock bumpers and railroad crossing blocks; accounted for more than 30 million tires in 2005. Road and landfill construction, septic tank leach fields and other construction applications consumed nearly 50 million tires in 2005.
The report also indicates that since 1990, the number of scrap tires in stockpiles has been reduced by 81 percent. Of the remaining stockpiles, 85 percent are concentrated in 7 states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Access a release from RMA (click here). Access the complete 93-page report (click here). Access RMA's Scrap Tire Management website for extensive information (click here). Access U.S. EPA's Scrap Tire Management website for additional information (click here). [*Solid]
Labels:
Solid Waste
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Can A Lake Be Filled & Fish Killed Under CWA?
Dec 4: Environmental lawyers at Earthjustice are challenging a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that lets Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation dump toxic waste into a lake, killing all fish for at least the 10-year life of the permit. According to a release, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the permit after "redefining language in the law so that toxic wastewater could be considered legally permitted fill." If allowed to go forward, the Kensington gold mine would be the first mine to kill a U.S. lake using the new, weakened dumping standard. Earthjustice expressed concern that if allowed to proceed, this mining operation would set a precedent, potentially spurring growth of such operations elsewhere in Alaska or the lower-48 states.
The Army Corps' new interpretation contradicts what the law actually says, argued Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo, assisted by Eric Jorgensen, managing attorney in Juneau for Earthjustice. Waldo said, "The plain language of the Clean Water Act simply prohibits the discharge authorized by the Corps of Engineers." The argument revolves around a gold extraction process that creates 210,000 gallons per day of a toxic waste slurry. Kensington chose lake dumping despite the availability of disposal methods less damaging to the environment. Attorneys representing mine developers and the federal government said the slurry is legal fill in their view of the law. On August 24, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary injunction halting activities and the dumping of "fill" into Lower Slate Lake at the site of the proposed Kensington Gold Mine (Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Coeur Alaska, Case No. 06-35679).
Access an Earthjustice release with links to additional information (click here). Access a background document with further details (click here). Access the 8/24/06 injunction (click here). Access the original 8/4/06 Federal District Court decision (click here). Access additional background from the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council website (click here). [*Water]
The Army Corps' new interpretation contradicts what the law actually says, argued Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo, assisted by Eric Jorgensen, managing attorney in Juneau for Earthjustice. Waldo said, "The plain language of the Clean Water Act simply prohibits the discharge authorized by the Corps of Engineers." The argument revolves around a gold extraction process that creates 210,000 gallons per day of a toxic waste slurry. Kensington chose lake dumping despite the availability of disposal methods less damaging to the environment. Attorneys representing mine developers and the federal government said the slurry is legal fill in their view of the law. On August 24, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary injunction halting activities and the dumping of "fill" into Lower Slate Lake at the site of the proposed Kensington Gold Mine (Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Coeur Alaska, Case No. 06-35679).
Access an Earthjustice release with links to additional information (click here). Access a background document with further details (click here). Access the 8/24/06 injunction (click here). Access the original 8/4/06 Federal District Court decision (click here). Access additional background from the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council website (click here). [*Water]
Labels:
Water
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Ecosystem Challenges And Business Implications
Nov 21: A new publication -- Ecosystem Challenges and Business Implications -- produced by Earthwatch Institute (Europe), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the World Resources Institute (WRI), is based on global scientific facts and projections from the UN's multi-year Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and interviews with a range of business leaders to assess the implications and strategies needed to respond to environmental challenges. The publication warns that companies must transform business models and operations if they are to avoid major economic losses caused by the current degradation of ecosystems and the vital services they provide.
The research indicates that many companies recognize the risks associated with degrading ecosystems and are trying to adapt accordingly, but most fail to associate healthy ecosystems with their business interests. According to a release from WBCSD a collective business response is therefore needed to address the scale of environmental change currently taking place. WBCSD President Björn Stigson says, “Business simply cannot function if ecosystems and the services they deliver -- like water, biodiversity, food, fiber and climate regulation -- are degraded or out of balance. There must be a value attached to natural resources, and businesses need to start understanding this value.”
The publication offers a detailed examination of the implications that water scarcity, climate change, nutrient overloading, biodiversity loss, habitat change and the overexploitation of oceans will have for the future of business. These include scarcity of raw materials, higher operating costs, government restrictions and reduced flexibility. It further cautions companies to prepare for these risks by measuring their impact and dependence on ecosystem services, taking advantage of emerging business opportunities and reducing their operational footprints.
The publication partners urge companies to pursue solutions that will help to conserve ecosystems, such as new energy efficient technologies and products, new businesses to undertake habitat restoration, and new markets, such as nutrient trading. The publication is the first of three to be produced by the four partners. The second will focus upon how new business models, markets and entrepreneurs can profit from responding to ecosystem challenges and the third will help business executives identify their dependences on ecosystem services and ways to retain them for the long term.
Access the WBCSD release (click here). Access the 20-page document (click here). Access information from Earthwatch Institute (click here). Access information from IUCN (click here). Access information from WRI (click here). [*Sustainability]
The research indicates that many companies recognize the risks associated with degrading ecosystems and are trying to adapt accordingly, but most fail to associate healthy ecosystems with their business interests. According to a release from WBCSD a collective business response is therefore needed to address the scale of environmental change currently taking place. WBCSD President Björn Stigson says, “Business simply cannot function if ecosystems and the services they deliver -- like water, biodiversity, food, fiber and climate regulation -- are degraded or out of balance. There must be a value attached to natural resources, and businesses need to start understanding this value.”
The publication offers a detailed examination of the implications that water scarcity, climate change, nutrient overloading, biodiversity loss, habitat change and the overexploitation of oceans will have for the future of business. These include scarcity of raw materials, higher operating costs, government restrictions and reduced flexibility. It further cautions companies to prepare for these risks by measuring their impact and dependence on ecosystem services, taking advantage of emerging business opportunities and reducing their operational footprints.
The publication partners urge companies to pursue solutions that will help to conserve ecosystems, such as new energy efficient technologies and products, new businesses to undertake habitat restoration, and new markets, such as nutrient trading. The publication is the first of three to be produced by the four partners. The second will focus upon how new business models, markets and entrepreneurs can profit from responding to ecosystem challenges and the third will help business executives identify their dependences on ecosystem services and ways to retain them for the long term.
Access the WBCSD release (click here). Access the 20-page document (click here). Access information from Earthwatch Institute (click here). Access information from IUCN (click here). Access information from WRI (click here). [*Sustainability]
Labels:
P2,
Sustainability
Monday, December 04, 2006
Backyard Burn Barrels Are Largest Source Of Dioxin Emissions
Dec 1: U.S. EPA announced in the Federal Register [71 FR 69564-69565] an Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000 (EPA/600/P-03/002F, November 2006). The document is a peer-reviewed and final report representing EPA’s assessment of dioxin sources and their emissions to the environment. To the extent practical, the inventory is a comprehensive analysis of dioxin sources. Over 800 references were reviewed and cited in the preparation of the report. The citations generally reflect publications up to and including the year 2003. The final document reflects a consideration of all comments received on an External Review Draft dated March 2005 (EPA600/P-03/002A) provided by an expert panel at a peer-review workshop held September 13–15, 2005, and comments received during a 60-day public review and comment period (May 6–July 5, 2005).
The major identified sources of environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds are grouped into six broad categories: combustion sources, metals smelting, refining and process sources, chemical manufacturing sources, natural sources, and environmental reservoirs. Estimates of annual releases to land, air, and water are presented for each source category and summarized for reference years 1987, 1995, and 2000. The quantitative results are expressed in terms of the toxicity equivalent (TEQ) of the mixture of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) compounds present in environmental releases using a procedure sanctioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1998. Using this WHO procedure, the annual releases of TEQDF-WHO98 to the U.S. environment over the three reference years are 13,965 g in 1987, 3,444 g in 1995, and 1,422 g in 2000.
The analysis indicates that between reference years 1987 and 2000, there was approximately a 90% reduction in the releases of dioxin-like compounds to the circulating environment of the United States from all known sources combined. In 1987 and 1995, the leading source of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment was municipal waste combustion; however, because of reductions in dioxin emissions from municipal waste combustors, it dropped to the 4th ranked source in 2000. The inventory also identifies bleached chlorine pulp and paper mills as a significant source of dioxin to the aquatic environment in 1987, but a minor source in 1995 and 2000. Burning of domestic refuse in backyard burn barrels remained fairly constant over the years, but in 2000, it emerged as the largest source of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment.
Access an overview and links to the complete 677-page report and related information (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). [*Toxics]
The major identified sources of environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds are grouped into six broad categories: combustion sources, metals smelting, refining and process sources, chemical manufacturing sources, natural sources, and environmental reservoirs. Estimates of annual releases to land, air, and water are presented for each source category and summarized for reference years 1987, 1995, and 2000. The quantitative results are expressed in terms of the toxicity equivalent (TEQ) of the mixture of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) compounds present in environmental releases using a procedure sanctioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1998. Using this WHO procedure, the annual releases of TEQDF-WHO98 to the U.S. environment over the three reference years are 13,965 g in 1987, 3,444 g in 1995, and 1,422 g in 2000.
The analysis indicates that between reference years 1987 and 2000, there was approximately a 90% reduction in the releases of dioxin-like compounds to the circulating environment of the United States from all known sources combined. In 1987 and 1995, the leading source of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment was municipal waste combustion; however, because of reductions in dioxin emissions from municipal waste combustors, it dropped to the 4th ranked source in 2000. The inventory also identifies bleached chlorine pulp and paper mills as a significant source of dioxin to the aquatic environment in 1987, but a minor source in 1995 and 2000. Burning of domestic refuse in backyard burn barrels remained fairly constant over the years, but in 2000, it emerged as the largest source of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment.
Access an overview and links to the complete 677-page report and related information (click here). Access the FR announcement (click here). [*Toxics]
Labels:
Toxics
Friday, December 01, 2006
European Parliament & Council Seal Deal On REACH
Dec 1: Delegations from the European Parliament and the Council hammered out a deal on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of CHemicals (REACH), the draft regulation on chemical products, at their sixth set of informal negotiations, which ended at around 11:00 PM on Thursday (November 30) [See WIMS 10/12/06 & 11/30/06]. The compromise will be put to the vote by the full Parliament at the plenary session scheduled for December 13 – if approved, the proposal would become law at this, second reading, stage. Parliament’s rapporteur, Guido Sacconi (PES, IT) confirmed at a press conference on Friday that agreement had been reached with the Finnish Presidency on the whole of the REACH package. The agreement must now be confirmed by the Member States’ representatives and by the full Parliament during the next plenary session in Strasbourg. Sacconi said, “I call on all the Parliament’s political groups to support me at the plenary.” If approved the deal would mark the end of a three-year long battle that has pitted industry and environmentalists debating the costs and benefits of the new chemicals control regime.
According to a release, the main points of the package agreed are as follows: (1) Agency: Parliament will appoint two members of the Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency and the Executive Director will take part in a hearing with MEPs before his/her appointment is confirmed. (2) Authorization: for dangerous substances, there will be an obligation to submit a substitution plan to replace them with safer alternatives. Where no alternative exists, producers will have to present a research and development plan. (3) Endocrine disrupters: a clause was agreed, to review after six years, on the basis of the latest scientific data, the inclusion of substances with endocrine disrupter properties among those which can only be authorized if the socio-economic benefits of their use is higher than the risk to human health or the environment, and if no safer alternative exists. (4) Intellectual property provisions have been strengthened with data protection extended from 3 to 6 years. (5) Duty of Care: this principle is enshrined in the regulation in a recital which recalls that the manufacturing, importing or placing on the market of substances should, under reasonable foreseeable circumstances, not adversely affect human health or the environment. (6) Animal welfare: changes have been agreed with the aim of avoiding duplication of animal testing and at promoting alternative test methods.
A coalition of European environmental organizations reacted immediately to what they said was a "deal struck behind closed doors" saying, "If adopted at the plenary vote, the deal will allow many chemicals of very high concern - including many that cause cancer, birth defects and other serious illnesses - to stay on the market and be used in consumer products even when safer alternatives are available. The groups call on Parliamentarians to strengthen REACH when they vote on the proposal in mid-December." They said negotiators accepted the deal based on "cosmetic changes" to the Council’s "flawed approach of ‘adequate control’" which they said is being championed by the chemicals industry and is founded on the claim that exposure to hazardous chemicals can be controlled so as to pose no danger to human health and the environment.
Access a release from the European Parliament (click here). Access the EurActive website for the latest reports and links to background and documents (click here). Access the European Commission REACH website for additional information (click here). Access the European Chemical Industry Council's REACH website (click here). Access a release from European environmental groups (click here). Access the Greenpeace European Unit REACH website (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]
According to a release, the main points of the package agreed are as follows: (1) Agency: Parliament will appoint two members of the Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency and the Executive Director will take part in a hearing with MEPs before his/her appointment is confirmed. (2) Authorization: for dangerous substances, there will be an obligation to submit a substitution plan to replace them with safer alternatives. Where no alternative exists, producers will have to present a research and development plan. (3) Endocrine disrupters: a clause was agreed, to review after six years, on the basis of the latest scientific data, the inclusion of substances with endocrine disrupter properties among those which can only be authorized if the socio-economic benefits of their use is higher than the risk to human health or the environment, and if no safer alternative exists. (4) Intellectual property provisions have been strengthened with data protection extended from 3 to 6 years. (5) Duty of Care: this principle is enshrined in the regulation in a recital which recalls that the manufacturing, importing or placing on the market of substances should, under reasonable foreseeable circumstances, not adversely affect human health or the environment. (6) Animal welfare: changes have been agreed with the aim of avoiding duplication of animal testing and at promoting alternative test methods.
A coalition of European environmental organizations reacted immediately to what they said was a "deal struck behind closed doors" saying, "If adopted at the plenary vote, the deal will allow many chemicals of very high concern - including many that cause cancer, birth defects and other serious illnesses - to stay on the market and be used in consumer products even when safer alternatives are available. The groups call on Parliamentarians to strengthen REACH when they vote on the proposal in mid-December." They said negotiators accepted the deal based on "cosmetic changes" to the Council’s "flawed approach of ‘adequate control’" which they said is being championed by the chemicals industry and is founded on the claim that exposure to hazardous chemicals can be controlled so as to pose no danger to human health and the environment.
Access a release from the European Parliament (click here). Access the EurActive website for the latest reports and links to background and documents (click here). Access the European Commission REACH website for additional information (click here). Access the European Chemical Industry Council's REACH website (click here). Access a release from European environmental groups (click here). Access the Greenpeace European Unit REACH website (click here). Access the WIMS-EcoBizPort REACH links for additional information (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, November 30, 2006
"Appalling" Results Of Great Lakes Sewage Report Card
Nov 29: The Canadian-based, Sierra Legal Defense Fund released its first Great Lakes Sewage Report Card -- an investigative report that analyzes twenty cities in the Great Lakes basin and grades them based on how well they manage their sewage. In a release the organization said, "The results are appalling." Although many cities have made efforts to clean up their act, waters surrounding urban areas throughout the Great Lakes are still commonly unsafe for recreational use and many parts of the vast freshwater ecosystem are in peril. Report author Dr. Elaine MacDonald said, “The Great Lakes basin is one of the most important freshwater ecosystems on the planet -- holding one fifth of the world's freshwater. Yet, the twenty cities we evaluated are dumping the equivalent of more than 100 Olympic swimming pools full of raw sewage directly into the Great Lakes every single day.”
The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card represents the first-ever ecosystem-based survey and analysis of municipal sewage treatment and sewage discharges in the Great Lakes basin. The report grades cities on issues such as collection, treatment and disposal of sewage based on information provided by each municipality. The report documents that many cities in the region have antiquated systems for collecting and treating sewage and regularly release untreated sewage into local waterways. It is estimated that the 20 cities evaluated, representing a third of the region’s 35 million people, dump more than 90 billion liters [approximately 24 billion gallons] of untreated sewage into the Great Lakes each year.
According to a release, the results are disappointing, with cities like Toronto, Syracuse and Hamilton getting below average grades. Detroit (ranked worst), Cleveland and Windsor performed "abysmally and are at the bottom of the class." The cities that fared poorly typically have serious problems related to their combined sewers; antiquated systems that combine storm water and sanitary sewers into a single pipe and are prone to releasing raw sewage during wet weather. Green Bay, Peel Region and Duluth are at the top of the class. All three generally have more sophisticated treatment processes and permit very little sewage to escape into the environment through combined sewer overflows, spills or bypasses.
The 20 cities evaluated in the report include: Cleveland (Ohio), Detroit (Michigan), Duluth (Minnesota), Erie (Pennsylvania), Grand Rapids (Michigan), Green Bay (Wisconsin), Hamilton (Ontario), Kingston (Ontario), London (Ontario), Milwaukee (Wisconsin), Niagara Region (Ontario), Peel Region (Ontario), Rochester (New York), Sarnia (Ontario), Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario), Sudbury, (Ontario) Syracuse (New York), Thunder Bay (Ontario), Toronto (Ontario), Windsor (Ontario).
In addition to grading the cities, the report provides an analysis of the region’s patchwork of sewage treatment laws and policies, and offers several recommendations to ensure the protection of water quality in the Great Lakes for future generations.
Sierra Legal Defense Fund is a non-profit, charitable organization funded by public donations and foundations grants consisting of more than 40 lawyers, scientists and support staff at offices in Vancouver and Toronto. The organization has over 30,000 individual supporters across Canada.
Access a release (click here). Access background information (click here). Access the complete 57-page report (click here). Access the Sierra Legal website for additional information (click here). [*GLakes]
The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card represents the first-ever ecosystem-based survey and analysis of municipal sewage treatment and sewage discharges in the Great Lakes basin. The report grades cities on issues such as collection, treatment and disposal of sewage based on information provided by each municipality. The report documents that many cities in the region have antiquated systems for collecting and treating sewage and regularly release untreated sewage into local waterways. It is estimated that the 20 cities evaluated, representing a third of the region’s 35 million people, dump more than 90 billion liters [approximately 24 billion gallons] of untreated sewage into the Great Lakes each year.
According to a release, the results are disappointing, with cities like Toronto, Syracuse and Hamilton getting below average grades. Detroit (ranked worst), Cleveland and Windsor performed "abysmally and are at the bottom of the class." The cities that fared poorly typically have serious problems related to their combined sewers; antiquated systems that combine storm water and sanitary sewers into a single pipe and are prone to releasing raw sewage during wet weather. Green Bay, Peel Region and Duluth are at the top of the class. All three generally have more sophisticated treatment processes and permit very little sewage to escape into the environment through combined sewer overflows, spills or bypasses.
The 20 cities evaluated in the report include: Cleveland (Ohio), Detroit (Michigan), Duluth (Minnesota), Erie (Pennsylvania), Grand Rapids (Michigan), Green Bay (Wisconsin), Hamilton (Ontario), Kingston (Ontario), London (Ontario), Milwaukee (Wisconsin), Niagara Region (Ontario), Peel Region (Ontario), Rochester (New York), Sarnia (Ontario), Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario), Sudbury, (Ontario) Syracuse (New York), Thunder Bay (Ontario), Toronto (Ontario), Windsor (Ontario).
In addition to grading the cities, the report provides an analysis of the region’s patchwork of sewage treatment laws and policies, and offers several recommendations to ensure the protection of water quality in the Great Lakes for future generations.
Sierra Legal Defense Fund is a non-profit, charitable organization funded by public donations and foundations grants consisting of more than 40 lawyers, scientists and support staff at offices in Vancouver and Toronto. The organization has over 30,000 individual supporters across Canada.
Access a release (click here). Access background information (click here). Access the complete 57-page report (click here). Access the Sierra Legal website for additional information (click here). [*GLakes]
Labels:
Great Lakes,
Water
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Historic Global Warming Case
Nov 29: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what is being called an historic case about global warming (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-1120). The questions presented in the case include: (1.) Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1); and (2.) Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).
On September 8, 2003, EPA denied a group of organizations that petitioned the Agency to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act [68 FR 52922-52933]. In July 2005 [See WIMS 7/15/06], the D.C. Circuit by a 2-1 vote let EPA's ruling stand. Massachusetts and several other parties requested the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case which the Court denied in December 2005 [See WIMS 12/5/05].
Arguments were heard from James Milkey, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General for Petitioners and Gregory Garr, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on behalf of Respondents. Petitioners opened their argument at 10 AM saying, "EPA made a decision based on two grounds, both of which constitute plain errors of law reviewable under any standard... We are not asking the Court to pass judgment on the science of climate change or to order EPA to set emission standards. We simply want EPA to visit the rulemaking petition based upon permissible considerations." Petitioners attempted to establish their basis for "standing" before the Court claiming global warming and sea rise around the world including Massachusetts. Justice Scalia immediately responded saying, "I thought that the standing requires imminent harm. If you haven't been harmed already, you have to show the harm is imminent. Is this harm imminent?... when is the predicted cataclysm?" Other Justices immediately entered the discussion and Milkey's argument was reduced to answering questions (first 25 pages of transcript).
Respondents opened their argument saying, "After carefully considering the issue the nation's expert agency in environmental matters concluded that Congress has not authorized it to embark on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address global climate change. And that even if it has, now is not the time to exercise such authority, in light of the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change and the ongoing studies designed to address those uncertainties. Plaintiffs have provide no reason to override that quintessential administrative judgment." Justice Ginsburg immediately responded asking, "...doesn't the EPA's decision on the first, 'we don't have any authority,' doesn't that infect its subsequent decision, 'well, even if we did, we wouldn't exercise it.' But they've already decided they don't have authority." Questions were then raised by Justice Breyer and followed by Justice Stevens who asked, "I find it interesting that the scientists whose worked on that report said there were a good many omissions that would have indicated that there wasn't nearly the uncertainty that the agency described." Respondents also simply responded to questions of the Justices (second 25 pages of transcript).
Petitioners had a three minute rebuttal and there was considerable back and forth over the idea that EPA "looked at what we don't know without ever looking at what we do know" [about climate change]. Petitioners said, "...they [EPA] did not say there is too much uncertainty for them to form a judgment, which is the key issue. They said they preferred more certainty, but because of the nature of the endangerment standard, which emphasizes the important of regulating in the face of uncertainty, they have to at least explain why the uncertainty matters." At 11:02 AM argument was concluded and the case was submitted.
Access links to the 68-page transcript of oral arguments (click here). Access a preview commentary on the oral arguments posted on the SCOTUS blog (click here). Access the WIMS Special Report on the case for document links and background information (click here). [*Climate]
On September 8, 2003, EPA denied a group of organizations that petitioned the Agency to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act [68 FR 52922-52933]. In July 2005 [See WIMS 7/15/06], the D.C. Circuit by a 2-1 vote let EPA's ruling stand. Massachusetts and several other parties requested the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case which the Court denied in December 2005 [See WIMS 12/5/05].
Arguments were heard from James Milkey, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General for Petitioners and Gregory Garr, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on behalf of Respondents. Petitioners opened their argument at 10 AM saying, "EPA made a decision based on two grounds, both of which constitute plain errors of law reviewable under any standard... We are not asking the Court to pass judgment on the science of climate change or to order EPA to set emission standards. We simply want EPA to visit the rulemaking petition based upon permissible considerations." Petitioners attempted to establish their basis for "standing" before the Court claiming global warming and sea rise around the world including Massachusetts. Justice Scalia immediately responded saying, "I thought that the standing requires imminent harm. If you haven't been harmed already, you have to show the harm is imminent. Is this harm imminent?... when is the predicted cataclysm?" Other Justices immediately entered the discussion and Milkey's argument was reduced to answering questions (first 25 pages of transcript).
Respondents opened their argument saying, "After carefully considering the issue the nation's expert agency in environmental matters concluded that Congress has not authorized it to embark on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address global climate change. And that even if it has, now is not the time to exercise such authority, in light of the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change and the ongoing studies designed to address those uncertainties. Plaintiffs have provide no reason to override that quintessential administrative judgment." Justice Ginsburg immediately responded asking, "...doesn't the EPA's decision on the first, 'we don't have any authority,' doesn't that infect its subsequent decision, 'well, even if we did, we wouldn't exercise it.' But they've already decided they don't have authority." Questions were then raised by Justice Breyer and followed by Justice Stevens who asked, "I find it interesting that the scientists whose worked on that report said there were a good many omissions that would have indicated that there wasn't nearly the uncertainty that the agency described." Respondents also simply responded to questions of the Justices (second 25 pages of transcript).
Petitioners had a three minute rebuttal and there was considerable back and forth over the idea that EPA "looked at what we don't know without ever looking at what we do know" [about climate change]. Petitioners said, "...they [EPA] did not say there is too much uncertainty for them to form a judgment, which is the key issue. They said they preferred more certainty, but because of the nature of the endangerment standard, which emphasizes the important of regulating in the face of uncertainty, they have to at least explain why the uncertainty matters." At 11:02 AM argument was concluded and the case was submitted.
Access links to the 68-page transcript of oral arguments (click here). Access a preview commentary on the oral arguments posted on the SCOTUS blog (click here). Access the WIMS Special Report on the case for document links and background information (click here). [*Climate]
Labels:
Climate
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Can American Farmers Feed The Growing Biofuel Industry?
Nov 21: The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) released a report entitled, Achieving Sustainable Production of Agricultural Biomass for Biorefinery Feedstock, that addresses the question, “Can American farmers feed the growing biofuel industry?” The report details the potential of cellulosic biomass as an energy resource and the promise of no-till cropping for greater residue collection. It also proposes guidelines and incentives to encourage farmers to produce, harvest and deliver sufficient feedstock to the growing biorefinery and biofuels industry in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of BIO said, "...Americans should feel confident that U.S. farmers can produce both abundant supplies of food for people and animals and environmentally responsible biofuels for transportation."
The report examines considerations for sustainable harvesting of agricultural residues – such as corn stover and cereal straws -- expected to be the near-term feedstocks for biorefineries. It also discusses the expected economic benefits for individual farmers who invest in the practices and equipment needed for sustainable harvests of these feedstocks. It further points out the need for infrastructure to deliver feedstocks from farms to biorefineries.
James Hettenhaus of CEA Inc., author of the report stated, “For the biofuel industry to expand, biorefinery operators must be confident that the supply chain for cellulosic feedstocks is robust, and farmers must be assured that they will benefit by adopting sustainable harvesting practices. As the biorefinery industry creates markets for crop residues, farmers will be more motivated to adopt practices that allow them to collect these residues while maintaining soil quality and controlling erosion. Recent successes have spurred an increase in adoption of no-till cultivation, but improved information is needed to convince farmers of the benefits.”
According to the report, ethanol production has more than tripled since 2000, with annual U.S. production expected to exceed 7 billion gallons by 2007. Sales of biobased plastics are also expanding. In order to meet the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) goal of 60 million gallons of ethanol production and 30 percent displacement of petroleum by 2030, new feedstock sources will be required to supplement high-efficiency production from grain. A robust sustainable supply chain for cellulosic biomass from agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops will be needed within a few years.
Nearly 1 billion dry tons of cellulosic biomass could be supplied by U.S. agricultural lands in the form of crop residues and dedicated energy crops. A growing list of companies has announced intentions to begin construction of cellulosic biorefineries. One challenge for the emerging cellulosic biomass industry is how to produce, harvest and deliver this abundant feedstock to biorefineries in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.
The report indicates that corn stover [the stalks that remain after the corn has been harvested] has the largest potential as a near-term biorefinery feedstock, given its high per-acre yields. Current cropping practices require that most or all stover remain on the field to maintain soil health. As biorefinery construction creates markets for crop residues, farmers will be more motivated to adopt practices that lead to economic and sustainable removal. An environmental and economic ‘optimum’ removal will balance sufficient retention of residues to avoid erosion losses and maintain soil quality while using excess residue as biorefinery feedstocks.
Ultimately, growing demand for crop residues will likely prove a strong additional driver for the transition to more widespread no-till cropping. The benefits of converting to no-till cropping may justify the time to learn new methods and the $50,000 to $100,000 investment in new planting equipment. For instance, a 1,000-acre farm could expect to recover the additional costs through revenue from residue sales in as little as two years. With no-till cropping, sustainable collection of 30 percent of current annual corn stover production would yield over 5 billion gallons of ethanol and reduce net U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 90 million to 150 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually if burned as E85 fuel. To realize these benefits, additional infrastructure in collection, storage and transportation is needed to supply biorefineries.
The report concludes with a number of recommendations and says Congress should consider adopting supportive policy measures in the 2007 Farm Bill, including: Funding for accelerated development and production of one-pass harvesting equipment; Development and distribution of simple-to-use soil carbon models to allow farmers to compute how much crop residue can be collected without degrading soil quality; Assistance to farmers to encourage the transition to no-till cropping for biomass production; Incentives for the development and expansion of short line and regional rail networks; Funding for demonstration projects to streamline collection, transport and storage of cellulosic crop residue feedstocks; Development of a system to monetize greenhouse gas credits generated by production of ethanol and other products from agricultural feedstocks; and Funding for programs to help farmers identify and grow the most suitable crops for both food production and cellulosic biomass production.
Access the complete 28-page report (click here). Access an Executive Summary (click here). Access a Fact Sheet (click here). Access a 48 minute press conference video (click here). Access the BIO website for additional information (click here). Access WIMS 8/25/06 article, A Critical Look At The Future Of Bio-fuels, for additional perspective (click here). [*Energy]
The report examines considerations for sustainable harvesting of agricultural residues – such as corn stover and cereal straws -- expected to be the near-term feedstocks for biorefineries. It also discusses the expected economic benefits for individual farmers who invest in the practices and equipment needed for sustainable harvests of these feedstocks. It further points out the need for infrastructure to deliver feedstocks from farms to biorefineries.
James Hettenhaus of CEA Inc., author of the report stated, “For the biofuel industry to expand, biorefinery operators must be confident that the supply chain for cellulosic feedstocks is robust, and farmers must be assured that they will benefit by adopting sustainable harvesting practices. As the biorefinery industry creates markets for crop residues, farmers will be more motivated to adopt practices that allow them to collect these residues while maintaining soil quality and controlling erosion. Recent successes have spurred an increase in adoption of no-till cultivation, but improved information is needed to convince farmers of the benefits.”
According to the report, ethanol production has more than tripled since 2000, with annual U.S. production expected to exceed 7 billion gallons by 2007. Sales of biobased plastics are also expanding. In order to meet the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) goal of 60 million gallons of ethanol production and 30 percent displacement of petroleum by 2030, new feedstock sources will be required to supplement high-efficiency production from grain. A robust sustainable supply chain for cellulosic biomass from agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops will be needed within a few years.
Nearly 1 billion dry tons of cellulosic biomass could be supplied by U.S. agricultural lands in the form of crop residues and dedicated energy crops. A growing list of companies has announced intentions to begin construction of cellulosic biorefineries. One challenge for the emerging cellulosic biomass industry is how to produce, harvest and deliver this abundant feedstock to biorefineries in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.
The report indicates that corn stover [the stalks that remain after the corn has been harvested] has the largest potential as a near-term biorefinery feedstock, given its high per-acre yields. Current cropping practices require that most or all stover remain on the field to maintain soil health. As biorefinery construction creates markets for crop residues, farmers will be more motivated to adopt practices that lead to economic and sustainable removal. An environmental and economic ‘optimum’ removal will balance sufficient retention of residues to avoid erosion losses and maintain soil quality while using excess residue as biorefinery feedstocks.
Ultimately, growing demand for crop residues will likely prove a strong additional driver for the transition to more widespread no-till cropping. The benefits of converting to no-till cropping may justify the time to learn new methods and the $50,000 to $100,000 investment in new planting equipment. For instance, a 1,000-acre farm could expect to recover the additional costs through revenue from residue sales in as little as two years. With no-till cropping, sustainable collection of 30 percent of current annual corn stover production would yield over 5 billion gallons of ethanol and reduce net U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 90 million to 150 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually if burned as E85 fuel. To realize these benefits, additional infrastructure in collection, storage and transportation is needed to supply biorefineries.
The report concludes with a number of recommendations and says Congress should consider adopting supportive policy measures in the 2007 Farm Bill, including: Funding for accelerated development and production of one-pass harvesting equipment; Development and distribution of simple-to-use soil carbon models to allow farmers to compute how much crop residue can be collected without degrading soil quality; Assistance to farmers to encourage the transition to no-till cropping for biomass production; Incentives for the development and expansion of short line and regional rail networks; Funding for demonstration projects to streamline collection, transport and storage of cellulosic crop residue feedstocks; Development of a system to monetize greenhouse gas credits generated by production of ethanol and other products from agricultural feedstocks; and Funding for programs to help farmers identify and grow the most suitable crops for both food production and cellulosic biomass production.
Access the complete 28-page report (click here). Access an Executive Summary (click here). Access a Fact Sheet (click here). Access a 48 minute press conference video (click here). Access the BIO website for additional information (click here). Access WIMS 8/25/06 article, A Critical Look At The Future Of Bio-fuels, for additional perspective (click here). [*Energy]
Monday, November 27, 2006
Basel Convention COP8 Meeting On e-Waste Begins In Nairobi
Nov 27: The eighth meeting of the Basel Convention, Conference of the Parties (COP8) begins at the United Nations Environmental Program's (UNEP’s) Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. The COP8 meeting will run from November 27 to December 1, 2006, and will be hosted by the Government of Kenya, and will be the first time the Convention COP takes place in Africa. Some 120 governments are expected to meet at the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal which was adopted in 1989. The theme of COP8 will be “Creating innovative solutions through the Basel Convention for the environmentally sound management of electronic wastes”. On Thursday, November 30, the Conference will convene a high-level “World Forum on E-Wastes.”
Electronic wastes include, in particular, end-of-life computers, including printers and accessories and television sets. The theme was suggested because individuals and corporations, in many parts of the world, are buying great quantities of computers and television sets, which are often replaced after a short lifespan with new models as technology advances. According to an announcement in the COP8 Bulletin, on the one hand, the problem is how to deal with large new waste streams containing lead, cadmium, mercury and other hazardous materials. On the other, the issue offers an important and focused opportunity for raising awareness about the environmentally sound management of wastes and the integrated life-cycle approach.
Executive Director Achim Steiner of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said, “Like the climate change treaties, the Basel Convention promotes clean technologies and processes that minimize unwanted by-products. It provides the tools and incentives we need to both empower and motivate the producers and consumers of goods that generate hazardous wastes to pursue innovative solutions. In this way the Convention also advances sustainable development and the UN’s Millennium Development Goals.”
According to a UNEP release, some 20 to 50 million metric tonnes of e-waste are generated worldwide every year, comprising more than 5% of all municipal solid waste. When the millions of computers purchased around the world every year (183 million in 2004) become obsolete they leave behind lead, cadmium, mercury and other hazardous wastes. In the US alone, some 14 to 20 million PCs are thrown out every year. In the EU the volume of e-waste is expected to increase by 3 to 5 per cent a year. Developing countries are expected to triple their output of e-waste by 2010. Similarly, the use and disposal of mobile phones – which like PCs barely existed 20 years ago – is increasing dramatically. By 2008 the number of cell phone users around the world is projected to reach some two billion. Leading cell phone manufacturers are collaborating through the Basel Convention’s Mobil Phone Partnership Initiative to find better ways to reduce and manage this growing waste stream.
Governments are working through the Basel Convention to develop partnerships with industry, the public sector and civil society aimed at reducing hazardous wastes at source and promoting recycling and re-use. They are also taking advantage of the Convention’s expanding series of technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of specific kinds of wastes. The Nairobi meeting will consider adopting three new sets of such guidelines for the environmentally sound management of certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Many of these pollutants are amongst the most hazardous substances known to humanity. Guidelines on POPs wastes and on PCBs were finalized in 2004. The new guidelines focus specifically on DDT, on other obsolete pesticides, and on dioxins and furans.
Another agenda item concerns the dismantling of obsolete ships. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), which has launched negotiations on a legally binding agreement that would clarify the legal requirements for scrapping obsolete ships. However, governments recognize that the Basel Convention also has a clear role to play in this issue.
The meeting also comes at the same time the UNEP has called on international financial assistance to be swiftly mobilized to pay for the clean up and rehabilitation of contaminated sites in Côte D’Ivoire as a result of new information indicating that the final costs of a dumping incident in August could reach into the millions of dollars. The Côte D’Ivoire case resulted when a ship sailing from Europe dumped wastes in the West African country. UNEP officials said urgent assistance to meet Côte D’Ivoire’s costs which they said is in the spotlight but emphasized that this was by no means a unique case.
Access a release from UNEP (click here). Access the Basel Convention November 2006 Bulletin (click here). Access the Basel Convention website (click here). Access the COP8 website (click here). Access the COP8 meeting documents (click here). Access daily coverage of the COP8 meeting from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a release and links to further information on the Côte D’Ivoire case (click here). [*Haz, *Toxics]
Electronic wastes include, in particular, end-of-life computers, including printers and accessories and television sets. The theme was suggested because individuals and corporations, in many parts of the world, are buying great quantities of computers and television sets, which are often replaced after a short lifespan with new models as technology advances. According to an announcement in the COP8 Bulletin, on the one hand, the problem is how to deal with large new waste streams containing lead, cadmium, mercury and other hazardous materials. On the other, the issue offers an important and focused opportunity for raising awareness about the environmentally sound management of wastes and the integrated life-cycle approach.
Executive Director Achim Steiner of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said, “Like the climate change treaties, the Basel Convention promotes clean technologies and processes that minimize unwanted by-products. It provides the tools and incentives we need to both empower and motivate the producers and consumers of goods that generate hazardous wastes to pursue innovative solutions. In this way the Convention also advances sustainable development and the UN’s Millennium Development Goals.”
According to a UNEP release, some 20 to 50 million metric tonnes of e-waste are generated worldwide every year, comprising more than 5% of all municipal solid waste. When the millions of computers purchased around the world every year (183 million in 2004) become obsolete they leave behind lead, cadmium, mercury and other hazardous wastes. In the US alone, some 14 to 20 million PCs are thrown out every year. In the EU the volume of e-waste is expected to increase by 3 to 5 per cent a year. Developing countries are expected to triple their output of e-waste by 2010. Similarly, the use and disposal of mobile phones – which like PCs barely existed 20 years ago – is increasing dramatically. By 2008 the number of cell phone users around the world is projected to reach some two billion. Leading cell phone manufacturers are collaborating through the Basel Convention’s Mobil Phone Partnership Initiative to find better ways to reduce and manage this growing waste stream.
Governments are working through the Basel Convention to develop partnerships with industry, the public sector and civil society aimed at reducing hazardous wastes at source and promoting recycling and re-use. They are also taking advantage of the Convention’s expanding series of technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of specific kinds of wastes. The Nairobi meeting will consider adopting three new sets of such guidelines for the environmentally sound management of certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Many of these pollutants are amongst the most hazardous substances known to humanity. Guidelines on POPs wastes and on PCBs were finalized in 2004. The new guidelines focus specifically on DDT, on other obsolete pesticides, and on dioxins and furans.
Another agenda item concerns the dismantling of obsolete ships. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), which has launched negotiations on a legally binding agreement that would clarify the legal requirements for scrapping obsolete ships. However, governments recognize that the Basel Convention also has a clear role to play in this issue.
The meeting also comes at the same time the UNEP has called on international financial assistance to be swiftly mobilized to pay for the clean up and rehabilitation of contaminated sites in Côte D’Ivoire as a result of new information indicating that the final costs of a dumping incident in August could reach into the millions of dollars. The Côte D’Ivoire case resulted when a ship sailing from Europe dumped wastes in the West African country. UNEP officials said urgent assistance to meet Côte D’Ivoire’s costs which they said is in the spotlight but emphasized that this was by no means a unique case.
Access a release from UNEP (click here). Access the Basel Convention November 2006 Bulletin (click here). Access the Basel Convention website (click here). Access the COP8 website (click here). Access the COP8 meeting documents (click here). Access daily coverage of the COP8 meeting from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a release and links to further information on the Côte D’Ivoire case (click here). [*Haz, *Toxics]
Labels:
Hazardous Waste,
Toxics
Friday, November 24, 2006
Week In Review Nov. 20-24, 2006
It was a short Thanksgiving week but these are the other articles, in addition to our top-line blog posts, that we covered this week in our daily WIMS environment report. Unlike other environmental newsletters, we don't leave you hanging for more information -- All of our articles contain links directly to the sources information. Plus, each daily issue also includes a complete summary and links to environmental Federal Register announcements and a U.S. EPA Daily Docket report. For complete information, or to try it at no charge (click here).
- Final Rule On Pesticides & Clean Water Act Exemptions - Nov 20: U.S. EPA signed a final rule clarifying two specific circumstances where a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit is not required to apply pesticides to or around water. [*Water, *Toxics]
- House Republican Moderates Say Drop House OCS Drilling Bill - Nov 20: Eighteen Moderate Republican Members of Congress released a letter today to House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) arguing that no further efforts should be made to promote the House bill on off-shore oil drilling (H.R. 4761). [*Energy, *Water]
- House Science Leaders Say Stop Dallying On Nanotechnology - On Nov 15: Retiring House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and incoming Chairman (now Ranking Democrat) Bart Gordon (D-TN) issued a joint statement in response to a paper published the journal Nature on November 16, laying out a research agenda to understand the environmental, health, and safety implications of nanotechnology. [*All]
- North Carolina Adopts Mercury Emission Regs - Nov 9: North Carolina's power plants must cut their mercury emissions substantially over the next 12 years or face shutting them down, under rules the State Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted. [*Air, *Toxics]
- Industry Groups Urge Supreme Court To Stop “Forum Shopping” - Nov 20: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) joined several other organizations and businesses in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court urging review of a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court that they say would undermine efforts to prevent the Mountain State from being a magnet for asbestos and other mass tort cases. [*All]
- Spitzer's Environment Chief To Be NRDC Executive Director - Nov 20: After nearly eight years in charge of all New York State environmental enforcement for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (Governor-elect), Peter Lehner has accepted a top position at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). [*All]
- Great Lakes Regional Water Body To Meet - Nov 22: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Regional Body announced that its next meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 2:00 PM (EST) in the 21st Floor Conference Room at 35 E. Wacker Drive, Chicago Illinois. [*Glakes]
- Canada Calls For "Truly Global Solution To Combat Climate Change" - Nov 17: Honorable Rona Ambrose, Canada's new Minister of the Environment, outlined Canada’s achievements at the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Nairobi, Kenya. [*Climate]
- World Bank’s Annual Environment Matters Report - Nov 8: The World Bank’s annual publication, Environment Matters, indicates that many developing countries are losing 4 to 8 percent of GDP annually due to environmental degradation. [*All]
- Papers On CAFO Health & Environment Issues - Nov 14: The Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has recently posted articles relating to environmental and health issues associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). [*Water, Air]
- Report Explores Microbial Energy Conversion Technologies - Nov 17: A new report from the American Academy of Microbiology (AAM) explores the details of microbial energy conversion technologies. [*Energy]
- Pew Center Nairobi Summary & Related Reports - Nov 20: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has released a summary of the just-completed United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Nairobi, Kenya and related reports. [*Climate]
- "Building" Solutions To Climate Change - Nov 16: According to a new "In-Brief" by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change entitled, Building Solutions to Climate Change released at the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo in Denver, energy used in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings produces about 43 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, and these emissions are growing as Americans build more buildings and bigger homes. [*Climate]
- Report Calls For EPA & USDA Coordination On Chesapeake Bay Watershed - Nov 21: U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General (USDAOIG), has recently issued a new report entitled, Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources (Report No. 2007-P-0000 11/20/06).[*Water]
- 6th Annual Great Lakes Water Conference - Nov 17: The University of Toledo College of Law and its affiliated Legal Institute of the Great Lakes will hold their 6th Annual Great Lakes Water Conference on December 1, 2006 at the University of Toledo College of Law. [*GLakes]
- International Trade Conference On Great Lakes Compact and Agreement - Nov 21: The Institute for Trade in the Americas at Michigan State University College of Law has announced The Great Lakes Water Basin: International Law and Policy Crossroads Conference. [*GLakes]
- Senator Inhofe Vows To Lead Opposition To Climate Change Legislation - Nov 16: Outspoken critic of human-induced global warming, James Inhofe (R-OK), current Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee held a press conference to "debunk global warming alarmism" and offer comments on the COP12/MOP2 meeting in Kenya [See related article above]. [*Climate]
- Senators Warner & Inhofe Spar Over Environment Committee Position - Nov 17: U.S. Senator John Warner (R-VA), announced that he will seek election as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) in the next Congress, which begins in January. [*All]
- Groups Sue To Force Climate Change Report - Nov 14: A coalition of conservation groups filed suit today against the Bush administration for refusing to complete a National Assessment of the impact of global warming on the environment, economy, human health and human safety of the United States. [*Climate]
- EPA Announces 1,000th Superfund Site Cleanup - Nov 20: U.S. EPA announced that it has reached a major milestone -- the completion of construction at the 1,000th site under Superfund, the Federal government program that cleans up abandoned hazardous waste sites. [*Remed]
- New Brownfield Papers From Northeast-Midwest Institute - Nov 20: The Northeast-Midwest Institute has released three new papers on brownfield cleanup and redevelopment; State Brownfield Tax Incentives; Local Brownfield Financing Tools: Structures and Strategies for Spurring Cleanup and Redevelopment; and State and Local Non-Cash Tools and Strategies for Enhancing a Brownfield Project's Bottom Line. [*Remed]
- Sierra Club Guide To America’s Best New Development - Nov 16: The Sierra Club released its second annual, Guide to America’s Best New Development, featuring ten ground-breaking projects which they say "help keep our drinking water clean." [*Water, *Land]
- Climate Change Concerns Rank High In Large Poll - Nov 16: According to a large, national Zogby Interactive poll that surveyed 19,356 adults and contained a margin of error of less than a percentage point (+/- 0.7 percentage points), half of Americans who voted in the mid-term elections said concern about global warming made a difference in who they voted for on Election Day 2006. [*Climate]
- NRDC & Rock Group Launch "Move America Beyond Oil" Campaign - Nov 17: The rock band Green Day and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) announced a major new campaign, Move America Beyond Oil, to mobilize and empower music fans to demand clean, renewable energy solutions that break the nation's dependence on oil which they say threatens both national security and the environment. [*Energy]
Labels:
Overall
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
EPA Attempts To Clarify "Daily" TMDL Meaning
Nov 15: U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Benjamin Grumbles has issued a memorandum entitled, Establishing TMDL"Daily" Loads in light of the Decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. EPA, et al., No. 05-5015, (April 25, 2006) and Implications for NPDES Permits [See WIMS 5/2/06].
In the case the Appeals Court ruled that the case poses the question whether the word “daily,” as used in the Clean Water Act, is sufficiently pliant to mean a measure of time other than daily. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes the position that Congress, in requiring the establishment of “total maximum daily loads” to cap effluent discharges of “suitable” pollutants into highly polluted waters, left room for EPA to establish seasonal or annual loads for those same pollutants.
The Appeals Court ruled, "The district court found EPA’s contextual and policy arguments sufficiently persuasive to disregard the plain meaning of 'daily,' but we do not. Daily means daily, nothing else. If EPA believes using daily loads for certain types of pollutants has undesirable consequences, then it must either amend its regulation designating all pollutants as “suitable” for daily loads or take its concerns to Congress. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the non-daily 'daily' loads."
EPA's memo explains that its purpose is to clarify the Agency's expectations concerning the appropriate time increment used to express "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) in light of the Appeals Court decision. EPA says it "recommends that all future TMDLs and associated load allocations and wasteload allocations be expressed in terms of daily time increments. However, EPA does not believe that the Friends of the Earth decision requires any changes to EPA's existing policy and guidance describing how a TMDL's wasteload allocations are implemented in NPDES permits."
EPA says that it continues to believe that the use of the word "daily" in the term "total maximum daily load" is not an unambiguous direction from Congress that TMDLs must be stated in the form of a uniformly applicable 24-hour load. However at this time, there is significant legal uncertainty about whether courts across the country will follow the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit decision in Friends of the Earth or that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their decision in NRDC v. Muszynskil. In light of that uncertainty, EPA recommends that all TMDLs and associated load allocations and wasteload allocations be expressed in terms of daily time increments. In addition, TMDL submissions may include alternative, non-daily pollutant load expressions in order to facilitate implementation of the applicable water quality standards. TMDLs must continue to be established at a level necessary to attain and maintain the applicable water quality standards, account for seasonal variations and include a margin of safety.
EPA notes that In NRDC v. Muszynski, 268 F.3d 91 (2nd Cir. 2001) [October 11, 2001], NRDC challenged EPA's approval of nutrient TMDLs with annual loads established by New York for reservoirs. The Second Circuit held that "the term 'total maximum daily load' is susceptible to a broader range of meanings" than loads calculated on a daily basis. The D.C. Circuit decision in Friends of the Earth is controlling legal precedent for cases brought in the District of Columbia Circuit while the Second Circuit decision in Musrynski is controlling legal precedent in cases brought in the Second Circuit, which includes the States of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. EPA encourages the three States within the Second Circuit, to submit TMDLs with "daily" loads in a manner consistent with this memorandum. EPA also recognizes that, while the Second Circuit did not vacate the TMDLs in question merely because they did not contain "daily" loads, it required a reasoned explanation for the choice of any particular "non-daily" load.
EPA said it will issue additional technical guidance providing specific information regarding the establishment of daily loads for specific pollutants that will take into consideration the averaging period of the pollutant, the type of water body, and the type of sources the TMDL needs to address.
In terms of recommendations concerning existing TMDLs and TMDLs in process, EPA indicates that more than 20,000 TMDLs have been established, most of them in the last five or six years. and approximately 65,000 causes of impairment still need to be addressed by TMDLs. EPA said it believes that continued development of TMDLs pursuant to State TMDL development schedules is the highest priority at this time. If already existing TMDLs need to be revised in the future, revision of the TMDLs and allocations should be consistent with the recommendations in the memorandum. For TMDLs under development that have not yet been adopted by States or established by EPA, EPA recommends that such TMDLs and allocations be revised, if feasible, to be consistent with the memorandum.
And with regard to NPDES permits, EPA says it recommends that NPDES permitting authorities continue to establish effluent limits that implement wasteload allocations established in approved TMDLs in accordance with existing regulation, policy and guidance as described above.
Access the 6-page EPA Memo (click here). Access the D.C. Circuit opinion (click here). Access the Second Circuit opinion (click here). Access EPA's TMDL website for further information (click here). [*Water]
In the case the Appeals Court ruled that the case poses the question whether the word “daily,” as used in the Clean Water Act, is sufficiently pliant to mean a measure of time other than daily. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes the position that Congress, in requiring the establishment of “total maximum daily loads” to cap effluent discharges of “suitable” pollutants into highly polluted waters, left room for EPA to establish seasonal or annual loads for those same pollutants.
The Appeals Court ruled, "The district court found EPA’s contextual and policy arguments sufficiently persuasive to disregard the plain meaning of 'daily,' but we do not. Daily means daily, nothing else. If EPA believes using daily loads for certain types of pollutants has undesirable consequences, then it must either amend its regulation designating all pollutants as “suitable” for daily loads or take its concerns to Congress. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the non-daily 'daily' loads."
EPA's memo explains that its purpose is to clarify the Agency's expectations concerning the appropriate time increment used to express "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) in light of the Appeals Court decision. EPA says it "recommends that all future TMDLs and associated load allocations and wasteload allocations be expressed in terms of daily time increments. However, EPA does not believe that the Friends of the Earth decision requires any changes to EPA's existing policy and guidance describing how a TMDL's wasteload allocations are implemented in NPDES permits."
EPA says that it continues to believe that the use of the word "daily" in the term "total maximum daily load" is not an unambiguous direction from Congress that TMDLs must be stated in the form of a uniformly applicable 24-hour load. However at this time, there is significant legal uncertainty about whether courts across the country will follow the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit decision in Friends of the Earth or that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their decision in NRDC v. Muszynskil. In light of that uncertainty, EPA recommends that all TMDLs and associated load allocations and wasteload allocations be expressed in terms of daily time increments. In addition, TMDL submissions may include alternative, non-daily pollutant load expressions in order to facilitate implementation of the applicable water quality standards. TMDLs must continue to be established at a level necessary to attain and maintain the applicable water quality standards, account for seasonal variations and include a margin of safety.
EPA notes that In NRDC v. Muszynski, 268 F.3d 91 (2nd Cir. 2001) [October 11, 2001], NRDC challenged EPA's approval of nutrient TMDLs with annual loads established by New York for reservoirs. The Second Circuit held that "the term 'total maximum daily load' is susceptible to a broader range of meanings" than loads calculated on a daily basis. The D.C. Circuit decision in Friends of the Earth is controlling legal precedent for cases brought in the District of Columbia Circuit while the Second Circuit decision in Musrynski is controlling legal precedent in cases brought in the Second Circuit, which includes the States of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. EPA encourages the three States within the Second Circuit, to submit TMDLs with "daily" loads in a manner consistent with this memorandum. EPA also recognizes that, while the Second Circuit did not vacate the TMDLs in question merely because they did not contain "daily" loads, it required a reasoned explanation for the choice of any particular "non-daily" load.
EPA said it will issue additional technical guidance providing specific information regarding the establishment of daily loads for specific pollutants that will take into consideration the averaging period of the pollutant, the type of water body, and the type of sources the TMDL needs to address.
In terms of recommendations concerning existing TMDLs and TMDLs in process, EPA indicates that more than 20,000 TMDLs have been established, most of them in the last five or six years. and approximately 65,000 causes of impairment still need to be addressed by TMDLs. EPA said it believes that continued development of TMDLs pursuant to State TMDL development schedules is the highest priority at this time. If already existing TMDLs need to be revised in the future, revision of the TMDLs and allocations should be consistent with the recommendations in the memorandum. For TMDLs under development that have not yet been adopted by States or established by EPA, EPA recommends that such TMDLs and allocations be revised, if feasible, to be consistent with the memorandum.
And with regard to NPDES permits, EPA says it recommends that NPDES permitting authorities continue to establish effluent limits that implement wasteload allocations established in approved TMDLs in accordance with existing regulation, policy and guidance as described above.
Access the 6-page EPA Memo (click here). Access the D.C. Circuit opinion (click here). Access the Second Circuit opinion (click here). Access EPA's TMDL website for further information (click here). [*Water]
Labels:
Water
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
IEA Releases Annual World Energy Outlook 2006
Nov 7: At a press event in London, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released the latest edition of its annual flagship publication -- The World Energy Outlook 2006. IEA Executive Director Claude Mandil said, "World political leaders have decided to act with resolution and urgency to change the energy future. The World Energy Outlook 2006 shows how to make that happen. WEO-2006 reveals that the energy future we are facing today, based on projections of current trends, is dirty, insecure and expensive. But it also shows how new government policies can create an alternative energy future which is clean, clever and competitive – the challenge posed to the IEA by the G8 leaders and IEA ministers."
In a Reference Scenario, which provides a baseline vision of how energy markets are likely to evolve without new government measures to alter underlying energy trends, global primary energy demand increases by 53% between now and 2030. Over 70% of this increase comes from developing countries, led by China and India. Imports of oil and gas in the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] and developing Asia grow even faster than demand. World oil demand reaches 116 mb/d in 2030, up from 84 mb/d in 2005. Most of the increase in oil supply is met by a small number of major OPEC producers; non-OPEC conventional crude oil output peaks by the middle of the next decade. Global carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions reach 40 Gt in 2030, a 55% increase over today’s level. China overtakes the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of CO2 before 2010. These trends would accentuate consuming countries’ vulnerability to a severe supply disruption and resulting price shock. They would also amplify the magnitude of global climate change.
According to the report, a strong policy action is needed to move the world onto a more sustainable energy path. An Alternative Policy Scenario demonstrates that the energy future can be substantially improved if governments around the world implement the policies and measures they are currently considering. In this scenario, global energy demand is reduced by 10% in 2030 – equivalent to China’s entire energy consumption today. Global carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by 16% – equivalent to current emissions in the United States and Canada combined – in the same time-frame. In the OECD countries, oil imports and CO2 emissions peak by 2015 and then begin to fall. Improved efficiency of energy use contributes most to the energy savings. Increased use of nuclear power and renewables also help reduce fossil-fuel demand and emissions. Just a dozen specific policies in key countries account for 40% of the reduction in global CO2 emissions. The shifts in energy trends described in this scenario would serve all three of the principal goals of energy policy: greater security, more environmental protection and improved economic efficiency.
The report indicates that these policies are very cost-effective; and, while there are additional upfront costs involved, they are quickly outweighed by savings in fuel expenditures. And the extra investment by consumers is less than the reduction in investment in energy-supply infrastructure. Demand-side investments in more efficient electrical goods are particularly economic; on average, an additional $1 invested in more efficient electrical equipment and appliances avoids more than $2 in investment in power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure.
The energy picture has changed appreciably since the 2004 Outlook report, the last major update of the IEA’s global energy projection. The realities of the energy market have become harsher and the relative competitive position of fuels has changed. Oil and gas prices this year have been between three and four times higher than in 2002 and this is reflected in a new oil price assumption for the projections. But world economic growth has remained robust, as the recessionary effects of higher energy prices have been more than offset by other factors. Coal is now cheaper than natural gas for electricity generation, while nuclear power may, in some cases, be cheaper than both coal and gas -- even where there is no penalty for emitting CO2. Coal has led the recent surge in global energy demand and is on a stronger growth path than in previous WEOs. China and India are the predominant sources of global energy demand growth.
To quench the world’s thirst for energy, the Reference Scenario projections call a cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure of over $20 trillion in real terms over 2005-2030 – substantially more than was previously estimated. Roughly half of all the energy investment needed worldwide is in developing countries. It is far from certain that all this investment will actually occur. There has been an apparent surge in oil and gas investment in recent years, but it is, to a large extent, illusory. Drilling, material and personnel costs in the industry have soared, so that in real terms investment in 2005 was barely higher than that in 2000.
The Outlook demonstrates that nuclear power could make a major contribution to reducing dependence on imported gas and curbing CO2 emissions in a cost-effective way. But this will happen only if the governments of countries where nuclear power is accepted play a stronger role in facilitating private investment, especially in liberalized markets. Mandil said, “Nuclear power remains a potentially attractive option for enhancing the security of electricity supply and mitigating carbon-dioxide emissions – but financing the upfront investment cost may remain a challenge.”
Biofuels can make a significant contribution to meeting future road-transport energy needs, helping to promote energy diversity and reducing emissions. Biofuels reach 4% of road-fuel use in the Reference Scenario in 2030 and 7% in the Alternative Policy Scenario, up from 1% today. The United States, the European Union and Brazil account for the bulk of the global increase and remain the leading producers and consumers of biofuels in both Scenarios. But rising food demand, which competes with biofuels for existing arable and pasture land, and the need for subsidy in many parts of the world, will constrain the long-term potential for biofuels production using current technology. New biofuels technologies being developed today, notably ligno-cellulosic ethanol, could allow biofuels to play a much bigger role – if major technological and commercial challenges can be overcome.
Access a release (click here). Access the Table of Contents (click here). Access information on pricing and how to obtain the 600-page report (click here). [*Energy]
In a Reference Scenario, which provides a baseline vision of how energy markets are likely to evolve without new government measures to alter underlying energy trends, global primary energy demand increases by 53% between now and 2030. Over 70% of this increase comes from developing countries, led by China and India. Imports of oil and gas in the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] and developing Asia grow even faster than demand. World oil demand reaches 116 mb/d in 2030, up from 84 mb/d in 2005. Most of the increase in oil supply is met by a small number of major OPEC producers; non-OPEC conventional crude oil output peaks by the middle of the next decade. Global carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions reach 40 Gt in 2030, a 55% increase over today’s level. China overtakes the United States as the world’s biggest emitter of CO2 before 2010. These trends would accentuate consuming countries’ vulnerability to a severe supply disruption and resulting price shock. They would also amplify the magnitude of global climate change.
According to the report, a strong policy action is needed to move the world onto a more sustainable energy path. An Alternative Policy Scenario demonstrates that the energy future can be substantially improved if governments around the world implement the policies and measures they are currently considering. In this scenario, global energy demand is reduced by 10% in 2030 – equivalent to China’s entire energy consumption today. Global carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by 16% – equivalent to current emissions in the United States and Canada combined – in the same time-frame. In the OECD countries, oil imports and CO2 emissions peak by 2015 and then begin to fall. Improved efficiency of energy use contributes most to the energy savings. Increased use of nuclear power and renewables also help reduce fossil-fuel demand and emissions. Just a dozen specific policies in key countries account for 40% of the reduction in global CO2 emissions. The shifts in energy trends described in this scenario would serve all three of the principal goals of energy policy: greater security, more environmental protection and improved economic efficiency.
The report indicates that these policies are very cost-effective; and, while there are additional upfront costs involved, they are quickly outweighed by savings in fuel expenditures. And the extra investment by consumers is less than the reduction in investment in energy-supply infrastructure. Demand-side investments in more efficient electrical goods are particularly economic; on average, an additional $1 invested in more efficient electrical equipment and appliances avoids more than $2 in investment in power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure.
The energy picture has changed appreciably since the 2004 Outlook report, the last major update of the IEA’s global energy projection. The realities of the energy market have become harsher and the relative competitive position of fuels has changed. Oil and gas prices this year have been between three and four times higher than in 2002 and this is reflected in a new oil price assumption for the projections. But world economic growth has remained robust, as the recessionary effects of higher energy prices have been more than offset by other factors. Coal is now cheaper than natural gas for electricity generation, while nuclear power may, in some cases, be cheaper than both coal and gas -- even where there is no penalty for emitting CO2. Coal has led the recent surge in global energy demand and is on a stronger growth path than in previous WEOs. China and India are the predominant sources of global energy demand growth.
To quench the world’s thirst for energy, the Reference Scenario projections call a cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure of over $20 trillion in real terms over 2005-2030 – substantially more than was previously estimated. Roughly half of all the energy investment needed worldwide is in developing countries. It is far from certain that all this investment will actually occur. There has been an apparent surge in oil and gas investment in recent years, but it is, to a large extent, illusory. Drilling, material and personnel costs in the industry have soared, so that in real terms investment in 2005 was barely higher than that in 2000.
The Outlook demonstrates that nuclear power could make a major contribution to reducing dependence on imported gas and curbing CO2 emissions in a cost-effective way. But this will happen only if the governments of countries where nuclear power is accepted play a stronger role in facilitating private investment, especially in liberalized markets. Mandil said, “Nuclear power remains a potentially attractive option for enhancing the security of electricity supply and mitigating carbon-dioxide emissions – but financing the upfront investment cost may remain a challenge.”
Biofuels can make a significant contribution to meeting future road-transport energy needs, helping to promote energy diversity and reducing emissions. Biofuels reach 4% of road-fuel use in the Reference Scenario in 2030 and 7% in the Alternative Policy Scenario, up from 1% today. The United States, the European Union and Brazil account for the bulk of the global increase and remain the leading producers and consumers of biofuels in both Scenarios. But rising food demand, which competes with biofuels for existing arable and pasture land, and the need for subsidy in many parts of the world, will constrain the long-term potential for biofuels production using current technology. New biofuels technologies being developed today, notably ligno-cellulosic ethanol, could allow biofuels to play a much bigger role – if major technological and commercial challenges can be overcome.
Access a release (click here). Access the Table of Contents (click here). Access information on pricing and how to obtain the 600-page report (click here). [*Energy]
Labels:
Energy
Monday, November 20, 2006
COP12/MOP2 Climate Conference Concludes
Nov 17: The United Nations Climate Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded its two-week long 12th Conference of the Parties (COP12) and second meeting of the Parties (MOP2) Conferences held in Nairobi, Kenya [See WIMS 11/6/06]. According to a release from UNFCCC, the Conference adopted of a wide range of decisions designed to mitigate climate change and help countries adapt to the effects of global warming. The conference was attended by around six thousand participants, among them more than 100 ministers, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and two heads of state.
Conference President, Kenyan Minister for Natural Resources and the Environment Kivutha Kibwana said, "The conference has delivered on its promise to support the needs of developing countries. The positive spirit of the conference has prevailed." At the meeting, activities for the next few years under the "Nairobi Work programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation" were agreed. These activities will help enhance decision-making on adaptation action and improved assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.
UNFCCC also said another important outcome is the agreement on the management of the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol. The Adaptation Fund draws on proceeds generated by the clean development mechanism (CDM) and is designed to support concrete adaptation activities in developing countries. The CDM permits industrialized countries, which have emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol, to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries that reduce greenhouse gas emission, and thereby generate tradable emission credits. The Conference recognized the barriers that stand in the way of increased penetration of CDM projects in many countries, in particular in Africa. Parties welcomed the "Nairobi Framework" announced by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which will provide additional support to developing countries to successfully develop projects for the CDM. Rules were finalized for the Special Climate Change Fund. The fund is designed to finance projects in developing countries relating to adaptation, technology transfer, climate change mitigation and economic diversification for countries highly dependent on income from fossil fuels.
Parties also adopted rules of procedure for the Kyoto Protocol’s Compliance Committee, making it fully operational. The Compliance Committee, with its enforcement and facilitative branches, ensures that the Parties to the Protocol have a clear accountability regime in meeting their emission reductions targets. On one of the most important topics, UNFCCC said that Talks on commitments of industrialized countries for post-2012 under the Kyoto Protocol "advanced well," with Parties reaching agreement on a detailed work plan spelling out the steps needed to reach agreement on a set of new commitments.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "The 166 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol heard in Nairobi that global emissions of greenhouse gases have to be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000, in order to avoid dangerous climate change. The fact that Parties now have a concrete workplan means that they can move ahead with addressing issues fundamental for agreement on future commitments, such as the level of emission reductions that is required and the ways in which they can be achieved."
Parties also held a second round of the Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to enhance implementation of the Convention, open to all 189 Parties to the UNFCCC. Landmark presentations on the latest findings on economic challenges posed by global warming were made, along with economic solutions. de Boer said, "We are seeing a revolutionary shift in the debate on climate change, from looking at climate change policies as a cost factor for development, countries are starting to see them as opportunities to enhance economic growth in a sustainable way. The further development of carbon markets can help mobilize the necessary financial resources needed for a global response to climate change and give us a future agreement that is focused on incentives to act."
The next round of negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol and talks under the United Nations Climate Change Convention will be held in Bonn, Germany in May 2007.
On November 15, Paula Dobriansky, Department of State, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs and Head of the United States Delegation to Nairobi issued a statement on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Dobriansky said, the United States is committed to addressing the serious global challenge of climate change... Second, we believe that the most effective way forward is to place the complex issue of climate change into the broader context of sustainable development... Third, United States climate change policy is guided by the belief that multiple solutions are best when grappling with complicated problems... Fourth, I would underscore the critical role of science and technology in addressing climate change... [and] Finally, we believe in the power of partnerships. Addressing climate change requires a partnership among all nations."
In her release she highlighted that since 2001, the U.S. Government has committed nearly $29 billion for climate change related activities. This year alone, she said the U.S. will spend more than $3.9 billion to advance practical climate change technologies. And, she indicated "the President's 2007 Budget for climate change includes an additional $6.5 billion -- an increase of 12 percent over the current budget." As an example of Partnerships, she discussed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate as an innovative new effort to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. The partnership includes six countries: Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States.
Access a release on the Conference conclusion (click here). Access a release on the “Nairobi Framework” (click here). Access links to specific COP12 and MOP2 decisions and agreements and related background documents (click here). Access the COP12/MOP2 website for all conference materials, documents and information (click here). Access complete and daily reporting from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a 22-page summary of the Conference from IISD (click here). Access the U.S. State Department's COP12 website (click here). Access links to some of the latest media coverage (click here). Access the WIMS Climate Change website for many important links (click here). [*Climate]
Conference President, Kenyan Minister for Natural Resources and the Environment Kivutha Kibwana said, "The conference has delivered on its promise to support the needs of developing countries. The positive spirit of the conference has prevailed." At the meeting, activities for the next few years under the "Nairobi Work programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation" were agreed. These activities will help enhance decision-making on adaptation action and improved assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.
UNFCCC also said another important outcome is the agreement on the management of the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol. The Adaptation Fund draws on proceeds generated by the clean development mechanism (CDM) and is designed to support concrete adaptation activities in developing countries. The CDM permits industrialized countries, which have emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol, to invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries that reduce greenhouse gas emission, and thereby generate tradable emission credits. The Conference recognized the barriers that stand in the way of increased penetration of CDM projects in many countries, in particular in Africa. Parties welcomed the "Nairobi Framework" announced by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which will provide additional support to developing countries to successfully develop projects for the CDM. Rules were finalized for the Special Climate Change Fund. The fund is designed to finance projects in developing countries relating to adaptation, technology transfer, climate change mitigation and economic diversification for countries highly dependent on income from fossil fuels.
Parties also adopted rules of procedure for the Kyoto Protocol’s Compliance Committee, making it fully operational. The Compliance Committee, with its enforcement and facilitative branches, ensures that the Parties to the Protocol have a clear accountability regime in meeting their emission reductions targets. On one of the most important topics, UNFCCC said that Talks on commitments of industrialized countries for post-2012 under the Kyoto Protocol "advanced well," with Parties reaching agreement on a detailed work plan spelling out the steps needed to reach agreement on a set of new commitments.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, "The 166 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol heard in Nairobi that global emissions of greenhouse gases have to be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000, in order to avoid dangerous climate change. The fact that Parties now have a concrete workplan means that they can move ahead with addressing issues fundamental for agreement on future commitments, such as the level of emission reductions that is required and the ways in which they can be achieved."
Parties also held a second round of the Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to enhance implementation of the Convention, open to all 189 Parties to the UNFCCC. Landmark presentations on the latest findings on economic challenges posed by global warming were made, along with economic solutions. de Boer said, "We are seeing a revolutionary shift in the debate on climate change, from looking at climate change policies as a cost factor for development, countries are starting to see them as opportunities to enhance economic growth in a sustainable way. The further development of carbon markets can help mobilize the necessary financial resources needed for a global response to climate change and give us a future agreement that is focused on incentives to act."
The next round of negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol and talks under the United Nations Climate Change Convention will be held in Bonn, Germany in May 2007.
On November 15, Paula Dobriansky, Department of State, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs and Head of the United States Delegation to Nairobi issued a statement on U.S. Climate Change Policy. Dobriansky said, the United States is committed to addressing the serious global challenge of climate change... Second, we believe that the most effective way forward is to place the complex issue of climate change into the broader context of sustainable development... Third, United States climate change policy is guided by the belief that multiple solutions are best when grappling with complicated problems... Fourth, I would underscore the critical role of science and technology in addressing climate change... [and] Finally, we believe in the power of partnerships. Addressing climate change requires a partnership among all nations."
In her release she highlighted that since 2001, the U.S. Government has committed nearly $29 billion for climate change related activities. This year alone, she said the U.S. will spend more than $3.9 billion to advance practical climate change technologies. And, she indicated "the President's 2007 Budget for climate change includes an additional $6.5 billion -- an increase of 12 percent over the current budget." As an example of Partnerships, she discussed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate as an innovative new effort to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. The partnership includes six countries: Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States.
Access a release on the Conference conclusion (click here). Access a release on the “Nairobi Framework” (click here). Access links to specific COP12 and MOP2 decisions and agreements and related background documents (click here). Access the COP12/MOP2 website for all conference materials, documents and information (click here). Access complete and daily reporting from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access a 22-page summary of the Conference from IISD (click here). Access the U.S. State Department's COP12 website (click here). Access links to some of the latest media coverage (click here). Access the WIMS Climate Change website for many important links (click here). [*Climate]
Labels:
Climate
Friday, November 17, 2006
NAM, NSWMA & NTA Enter Supreme Court "Flow Control" Case
Nov 14: - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) joined other business groups in an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a controversial decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which they say could lead to a resumption of local solid waste disposal monopolies – reducing competition and raising prices for consumers. The case, United Haulers Association, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (Case No. 05-1345), was accepted by the Supreme Court on September 26, 2006, and is scheduled for oral argument on January 8, 2007 [See WIMS 11/14/06].
According to NAM's release, prior to 1994, many local government entities sought to control the flow and disposal of solid waste within their jurisdictions, denying trash haulers access to interstate competition, thus requiring them to pay the going local rates which were often set arbitrarily high. Trash haulers sought relief from this monopoly practice in the courts. In 1994 in C&A Carbone v. Clarkstown the Supreme Court ruled that such restrictive practices are a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which forbids state and local governments to interfere with interstate commerce.
The amicus brief filed by the NAM, the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) contends that the pre-Carbone monopolization of solid waste disposal led to predictable escalation of prices “as protected facilities set their rates without fear of competition. Moreover, a snowball effect was rapidly developing, as other localities were forced to respond by enacting their own flow control laws to protect local facilities which previously had depended on out-of-state waste for their financial viability.”
The groups said that if the Supreme Court does not overrule United Haulers, the interstate market in solid waste and recyclables will be seriously disrupted. Their brief indicates that, “Over 60 percent of the nation’s waste facilities currently are owned by public entities. The Second Circuit’s decision, by providing a blueprint for governments to evade Carbone, virtually ensures that flow control laws promptly will be re-enacted with respect to many of those facilities, thereby locking millions of tons of waste out of the interstate market.”
Access a NAM release (click here). Access the complete 35-page brief (click here). Access the NSWMA flow control litigation website for background information on this and other flow control cases (click here). [*Solid]
According to NAM's release, prior to 1994, many local government entities sought to control the flow and disposal of solid waste within their jurisdictions, denying trash haulers access to interstate competition, thus requiring them to pay the going local rates which were often set arbitrarily high. Trash haulers sought relief from this monopoly practice in the courts. In 1994 in C&A Carbone v. Clarkstown the Supreme Court ruled that such restrictive practices are a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which forbids state and local governments to interfere with interstate commerce.
The amicus brief filed by the NAM, the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) contends that the pre-Carbone monopolization of solid waste disposal led to predictable escalation of prices “as protected facilities set their rates without fear of competition. Moreover, a snowball effect was rapidly developing, as other localities were forced to respond by enacting their own flow control laws to protect local facilities which previously had depended on out-of-state waste for their financial viability.”
The groups said that if the Supreme Court does not overrule United Haulers, the interstate market in solid waste and recyclables will be seriously disrupted. Their brief indicates that, “Over 60 percent of the nation’s waste facilities currently are owned by public entities. The Second Circuit’s decision, by providing a blueprint for governments to evade Carbone, virtually ensures that flow control laws promptly will be re-enacted with respect to many of those facilities, thereby locking millions of tons of waste out of the interstate market.”
Access a NAM release (click here). Access the complete 35-page brief (click here). Access the NSWMA flow control litigation website for background information on this and other flow control cases (click here). [*Solid]
Labels:
Solid Waste
Thursday, November 16, 2006
RAND Report On Renewable Energy Potential
Nov 13: A new report -- Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures of Increasing Renewable Energy Use -- from the a RAND Corporation indicates that renewable resources could produce 25 percent of the electricity and motor vehicle fuels used in the United States by 2025 at little or no additional cost if fossil fuel prices remain high enough and the cost of producing renewable energy continues falling in accord with historical trends. Renewable sources currently provide about 6 percent of all the energy used in the U.S.
RAND found that meeting the 25 percent renewable energy target for electricity and motor fuels together would not increase total national energy spending if renewable energy production costs decline by at least 20 percent between now and 2025 (which is consistent with recent experience), unless long-term oil prices fall significantly below the range currently projected by the Energy Information Administration. Wind power, solar power and the burning of agricultural waste are all examples of renewable energy sources that can be used to produce electricity. Biomass resources like stalks from food crops, wood material, and grasses also can be turned into ethanol that can be used to power motor vehicles.
The study evaluates the goal known as 25x'25 which refers to having 25 percent of the energy used for electricity and motor vehicle fuel in the U.S. supplied by renewable energy sources by the year 2025. The Energy Future Coalition, a nonprofit organization, asked RAND to assess the economic and other impacts of meeting the 25x'25 goal. The RAND study considered technological and economic factors that would affect the costs of renewable energy as well as non-renewable fossil fuels.
Significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion also can be achieved by meeting the 25x'25 goal, -- amounting to 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2025, or 15 percent of projected U.S. emissions. In addition, an estimated 2.5 million barrels of oil consumption would be displaced.
Unlike previous studies that have relied on a handful of scenarios to capture uncertainties in projections of future energy prices and changes in the costs of various technologies, the RAND study examined 1,500 cases of varying energy price and technology cost conditions for renewable and nonrenewable resources. The RAND team developed a model based on the National Energy Modeling System created by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
RAND researchers did not assess the impact of renewable energy used directly by industry in buildings currently using natural gas, in off-road vehicles used for construction and recreation, or in railroad and jet fuel. RAND researchers assumed that implementation of increased renewable energy use would be carried out at a national level in the least costly manner, versus a more piecemeal approach. Among the important uncertainties considered is the cost to ramp up use of new renewable energy technologies.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.
Access a release (click here). Access the complete 93-page report which includes web addresses for many referenced sources (click here). Access a summary document (click here). Access the RAND website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
RAND found that meeting the 25 percent renewable energy target for electricity and motor fuels together would not increase total national energy spending if renewable energy production costs decline by at least 20 percent between now and 2025 (which is consistent with recent experience), unless long-term oil prices fall significantly below the range currently projected by the Energy Information Administration. Wind power, solar power and the burning of agricultural waste are all examples of renewable energy sources that can be used to produce electricity. Biomass resources like stalks from food crops, wood material, and grasses also can be turned into ethanol that can be used to power motor vehicles.
The study evaluates the goal known as 25x'25 which refers to having 25 percent of the energy used for electricity and motor vehicle fuel in the U.S. supplied by renewable energy sources by the year 2025. The Energy Future Coalition, a nonprofit organization, asked RAND to assess the economic and other impacts of meeting the 25x'25 goal. The RAND study considered technological and economic factors that would affect the costs of renewable energy as well as non-renewable fossil fuels.
Significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion also can be achieved by meeting the 25x'25 goal, -- amounting to 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2025, or 15 percent of projected U.S. emissions. In addition, an estimated 2.5 million barrels of oil consumption would be displaced.
Unlike previous studies that have relied on a handful of scenarios to capture uncertainties in projections of future energy prices and changes in the costs of various technologies, the RAND study examined 1,500 cases of varying energy price and technology cost conditions for renewable and nonrenewable resources. The RAND team developed a model based on the National Energy Modeling System created by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
RAND researchers did not assess the impact of renewable energy used directly by industry in buildings currently using natural gas, in off-road vehicles used for construction and recreation, or in railroad and jet fuel. RAND researchers assumed that implementation of increased renewable energy use would be carried out at a national level in the least costly manner, versus a more piecemeal approach. Among the important uncertainties considered is the cost to ramp up use of new renewable energy technologies.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.
Access a release (click here). Access the complete 93-page report which includes web addresses for many referenced sources (click here). Access a summary document (click here). Access the RAND website for additional information (click here). [*Energy]
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
EPA Annual Compliance & Enforcement Assessment
Nov 15: U.S. EPA announced that it has obtained commitments from industry, governments and other regulated entities to reduce pollution by nearly 900 million pounds in fiscal year 2006. The Agency released its assessment, Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results - FY2006, which it said reflects "a sustained three-year record of pollution reduction, totaling almost 3 billion pounds, and requiring companies to invest almost $20 billion in pollution control equipment." More than 70 percent of these reductions were achieved by addressing high-priority air and water pollution challenges. Granta Nakayama, EPA's assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said, "Today's results show that we are making significant progress in protecting the environment and public health. EPA is encouraging environmental stewardship and vigorously enforcing our laws in order to deliver current and future generations a cleaner, healthier America."
EPA indicated that as a result of criminal enforcement actions completed this year, defendants will serve 154 years in jail and pay almost $43 million in fines, as well as another $29 million for environmental projects imposed as part of the sentences. EPA's civil enforcement program also demonstrated strong results this year by concluding a total of 173 judicial cases, 4,624 final administrative penalty order settlements, and resolving self-disclosed violations for 1,475 facilities. EPA referred 286 civil cases to the U.S. Department of Justice, the highest total in five years. As a result of EPA's Superfund enforcement actions, parties held responsible for pollution will invest $391 million to clean up 15 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and approximately 1.3 billion cubic yards of contaminated groundwater at waste sites. On top of paying penalties in 2006, regulated entities will also be required to invest $4.9 billion to reduce pollution and achieve compliance with environmental laws.
EPA also highlighted its accomplishments in environmental justice saying, each of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) National Enforcement and Compliance Program Priorities has an environmental justice component in its performance-based implementation strategy. The Agency said, "This will ensure that minority and/or low income groups and communities are not disproportionately placed at risk from environmental and/or human health threats, especially by the activities covered by the National Priorities."
The Agency's assessment differs sharply with a September 18, 2006, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assessment [See WIMS 9/18/06] which prompted some 77 House and Senate members, on October 31, to send a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson calling on him to immediately implement the recommendations of the report. The OIG report revealed that the EPA is failing to conduct environmental justice reviews of their programs, policies and activities. The report found that as a result, EPA "cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities of color and low-income populations." In their letter, the Legislators said, "The failure to assess the impact of its programs, policies, and activities is a clear violation of the Executive Order... This report is part of a disturbing body of material documenting the refusal by the Administration and the Agency to comply with the Executive Order... We strongly encourage the EPA to immediately implement the recommendations of the Inspector General and adhere to the very clear language and intent of Executive Order 12898."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access EPA's Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results - FY2006 website for summaries and tables of the results (click here). Access EPA's Environmental Justice Assessment (click here). Access a release from the Legislators (click here). Access the Legislators' letter to EPA (click here). [*P2]
EPA indicated that as a result of criminal enforcement actions completed this year, defendants will serve 154 years in jail and pay almost $43 million in fines, as well as another $29 million for environmental projects imposed as part of the sentences. EPA's civil enforcement program also demonstrated strong results this year by concluding a total of 173 judicial cases, 4,624 final administrative penalty order settlements, and resolving self-disclosed violations for 1,475 facilities. EPA referred 286 civil cases to the U.S. Department of Justice, the highest total in five years. As a result of EPA's Superfund enforcement actions, parties held responsible for pollution will invest $391 million to clean up 15 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and approximately 1.3 billion cubic yards of contaminated groundwater at waste sites. On top of paying penalties in 2006, regulated entities will also be required to invest $4.9 billion to reduce pollution and achieve compliance with environmental laws.
EPA also highlighted its accomplishments in environmental justice saying, each of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) National Enforcement and Compliance Program Priorities has an environmental justice component in its performance-based implementation strategy. The Agency said, "This will ensure that minority and/or low income groups and communities are not disproportionately placed at risk from environmental and/or human health threats, especially by the activities covered by the National Priorities."
The Agency's assessment differs sharply with a September 18, 2006, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assessment [See WIMS 9/18/06] which prompted some 77 House and Senate members, on October 31, to send a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson calling on him to immediately implement the recommendations of the report. The OIG report revealed that the EPA is failing to conduct environmental justice reviews of their programs, policies and activities. The report found that as a result, EPA "cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities of color and low-income populations." In their letter, the Legislators said, "The failure to assess the impact of its programs, policies, and activities is a clear violation of the Executive Order... This report is part of a disturbing body of material documenting the refusal by the Administration and the Agency to comply with the Executive Order... We strongly encourage the EPA to immediately implement the recommendations of the Inspector General and adhere to the very clear language and intent of Executive Order 12898."
Access an EPA release (click here). Access EPA's Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results - FY2006 website for summaries and tables of the results (click here). Access EPA's Environmental Justice Assessment (click here). Access a release from the Legislators (click here). Access the Legislators' letter to EPA (click here). [*P2]
Labels:
Environmental Justice,
Overall
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)












