Major Report Links Human Climate Change & Severe Weather

Oct 17: A new study by Munich Re, one of the world's leading reinsurance companies, shows that North America has been most affected by weather-related extreme events in recent decades. The publication -- Severe weather in North America: Perils · Risks · Insurance -- analyzes all kinds of weather perils and their trends. It reports and shows that the continent has experienced the largest increases in weather-related loss events.  For the period concerned -- 1980 to 2011 -- the overall loss burden from weather catastrophes was US$ 1,060bn (in 2011 values). The insured losses amounted to US$ 510bn, and some 30,000 people lost their lives due to weather catastrophes in North America during this time frame. With US$ 62.2bn insured losses and overall losses of US$ 125bn (in original values) Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest event ever recorded in the US. Katrina was also the deadliest single storm event, claiming 1,322 lives.

    The study was prepared in order to support underwriters and clients in North America, the world's largest insurance and reinsurance market. Using its NatCatSERVICE -- with more than 30,000 records the most comprehensive loss data base for natural catastrophes -- Munich Re analyzes the frequency and loss trends of different perils from an insurance perspective. The North American continent is exposed to every type of hazardous weather peril -- tropical cyclone, thunderstorm, winter storm, tornado, wildfire, drought and flood. One reason for this is that there is no mountain range running east to west that separates hot from cold air.

    According to a release, nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America. The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe and 1.5 in South America. Anthropogenic climate change is believed to contribute to this trend, though it influences various perils in different ways. Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity. The view that weather extremes are becoming more frequent and intense in various regions due to global warming is in keeping with current scientific findings, as set out in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as in the special report on weather extremes and disasters (SREX). Up to now, however, the increasing losses caused by weather related natural catastrophes have been primarily driven by socio-economic factors, such as population growth, urban sprawl and increasing wealth.

    Among many other risk insights the study now provides new evidence for the emerging impact of climate change. For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation. A detailed analysis of the time series indicates that the observed changes closely match the pattern of change in meteorological conditions necessary for the formation of large thunderstorm cells. Thus it is quite probable that changing climate conditions are the drivers. The climatic changes detected are in line with the modeled changes due to human-made climate change.

    The Head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research unit, Prof. Peter Höppe said, "In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climate-change footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades. Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence. If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible, all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing." Höppe continued that even without changing hazard conditions, increases in population, built-up areas and increasing values, particularly in hazard-prone regions, need to be on Munich Re's risk radar. All stakeholders should collaborate and close ranks to support improved adaptation. In addition, climate change mitigation measures should be supported to limit global warming in the long term to a still manageable level. He said, "As North America is particularly exposed to all kinds of weather risks, it especially would benefit from this." 

    Peter Röder, Board member with responsibility for the US market said, "Climate change-related increases in hazards -- unlike increases in exposure -- are not automatically reflected in the premiums. In order to realize a sustainable model of insurance, it is crucially important for us as risk managers to learn about this risk of change and find improved solutions for adaptation, but also mitigation. We should prepare for the weather risk changes that lie ahead, and nowhere more so than in North America."

    Tony Kuczinski, CEO of Munich Reinsurance America said, "This publication represents another contribution to the global dialogue concerning weather-related activities and their causes. What is clearly evident when the longterm data is reviewed is that losses from weather events are trending upward. To simply say that this trend is a statistical anomaly or part of a long-term cycle of activity misses the point of these efforts -- we must set aside our biases and continue a meaningful dialogue in search of answers to mitigate the losses that we are experiencing."

    Access a lengthy release from Munich Re with further details (click here). Access a 12-page executive summary (click here). Access more details, table of contents and information on obtaining the complete 274 page report (click here, registration required). Access the Munich Re Climate Change website for more information (click here). [#Climate]

 

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

NWF Report Details Major Pipeline Threat to Great Lakes

Oct 18: The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) released a report warning of a pipeline hazard located beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Just west of the 5-mile long Mackinac Bridge, below the water's surface, lie two 20-inch pipelines, called Line 5, that carry a total of 20 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas fluids each day from Superior, Wisconsin east through the Upper Peninsula to the bridge, then south through to Michigan and another Great Lakes crossing at Port Huron, Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario. The pipelines were placed in the Straits of Mackinac in 1953. The aging pipelines are operated by Enbridge Energy -- the Canadian company responsible for the worst inland oil disaster in U.S. history. NWF said the report comes as Enbridge faces increasing scrutiny for safety lapses both in the U.S. and Canada.

    The report, Sunken Hazard: Aging oil pipelines beneath the Straits of Mackinac, an ever-present threat to the Great Lakes, documents how an oil spill from the pipeline -- commonly referred to as Line 5 -- would have devastating consequences for people, fish, wildlife and the economy. Andy Buchsbaum, director of the NWF Great Lakes office in Ann Arbor said, "This is a recipe for disaster. This toxic oil pipeline is 60 years old, runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac, and is operated by a company with a terrible record of spills and ruptures. Now they want to increase pressure and temperature in the line by pumping an additional 50,000 barrels -- 2.1 million gallons -- per day. This is a BP oil spill scale catastrophe waiting to happen."

    Enbridge Energy, according to the report, has been responsible for more than 800 pipeline spills in the United States and Canada from 1999-2010, including the biggest inland oil spill in U.S. history, in which more than 1 million gallons of oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River. NWF indicated, "Despite its shoddy safety record, Enbridge Energy is now trying to expand Line 5. This project is part of a system wide expansion that will have massive impacts throughout the entire Great Lakes region as Enbridge gears up to push incredible amounts of toxic tar sands oil through our waters to refineries that dot the lakes. In addition, that oil is not likely to stay here. Enbridge is also expanding their pipeline network east of Michigan to push tar sands oil to New England and possibly out for export through the Portland-Montreal pipeline.

    Beth Wallace with NWF said, "We are extremely concerned about all of Enbridge's plans to expand and what this will mean for the Great Lakes, but we are especially concerned about Enbridge getting approvals to expand pumping through Line 5. It would be a serious mistake for federal officials to rubber stamp this project based on Enbridge's track record of devastating oil spills that have harmed our communities, economy and environment. There is very little known about the integrity of Line 5 because Enbridge, and agencies charged with pipeline oversight, refuse to provide the pubic maintenance records or inspection history. What we do know is that Enbridge's emergency response plans for this location are abysmal. The overall line is nearly 60 years old and has had its fair share of spills. And there is no margin for error when it comes to preventing oil spills in the Great Lakes: the Lakes provide drinking water for 30 million people in the U.S. and Canada, support a $7 billion fishery, a $16 billion recreational boating economy and are the backbone of one of the world's largest regional economies."

    The report makes the following recommendations to address the sunken hazard of Enbridge's Line 5:

• PHMSA [U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] should deny the proposed 50,000 barrels per day expansion of the Enbridge pumping rate. PHMSA has authority under a federal corrective action agreement to regulate Enbridge activities anywhere along the Lakehead system, which includes Line 5. The higher pressures, and possibly temperatures, in a 60-year old line are too great a risk to the Straits, one of the jewels of Michigan and the Great Lakes.
• Enbridge should be required to install additional response centers on either side of the Straits to speed their response to any spills or ruptures.
• The 60-year old pipeline should be replaced, but only to its current size. Michigan should not have even more oil running through the Great Lakes.
• The federal agency, PHMSA, should declare a moratorium on any new or expanded pipelines that transport a highly toxic form of crude -- tar sands derived oil that contains diluted bitumen -- until after the National Academy of Sciences completes an ongoing study on this type of crude and new regulations are promulgated.
• Passage of the proposed ballot measure to increase clean energy from utilities, Proposal 3, would reduce the diesel gasoline used to transport coal into the state and promote the type of technological innovation that increases fuel economy in vehicles and decreases the demand for gasoline.

    Access a release from NWF (click here). Access the complete 17-page report (click here). [#Energy/Pipeline, #GLakes]

 

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

 

Celebration Of The Clean Water Act 40th Anniversary

Oct 18: Environmental organizations, conservationist and legislators are reminding and celebrating that forty years ago, in a show of bipartisan support, Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1972. Hunters and anglers have supported strong Clean Water Act (CWA) protections, understanding that clean water and healthy wetlands and streams are essential to healthy fish and wildlife. This year, they remind "we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act and the historic results this keystone legislation has achieved: healthier water to drink; cleaner streams, rivers, and lakes in which to swim, fish, and play; and dramatically lower rates of natural wetland loss." They said, "As the Clean Water Act turns 40, America must get back on the path to clean, healthy waters and wetlands. The administration must follow through on its comprehensive efforts to restore Clean Water Act protections to wetlands, lakes, and streams in a science-based manner."

    Representative John Dingell, who represents the 15th district of Michigan said, "On October 18, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. My home state of Michigan is blessed with a vast and marvelous natural resource -- the Great Lakes -- and I am proud to have played an integral role in passing this landmark legislation. As a steadfast conservationist and outdoorsman, I firmly believe that we owe it to future generations to restore and protect national treasures like the Great Lakes and the waterways we recreate in. As my dear Dad taught me, we borrow the resources of today from our citizens of tomorrow."

    A September 2012 poll of hunters and anglers found that regardless of political affiliation, 79% of hunters and anglers favor restoring Clean Water Act protections for wetlands and waterways, including small creeks and streams. Recent polls in Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin found similar results on this issue. In this fractious election year, it is worth noting that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of Americans support strong federal Clean Water Act protections in order to ensure clean water for all. The groups remind, "The Clean Water Act has cleaned up millions of miles of streams, small and large. Families, communities, farmers, and businesses depend on clean, healthy waters for their health, jobs, and prosperity." 

    Jan Goldman-Carter, National Wildlife Federation's senior manager said, "The Clean Water Act is essential to keeping our drinking water safe; providing millions of acres of fish and wildlife habitat across the country; ensuring abundant clean water for irrigating crops; and bolstering the robust fishery, tourism, and outdoor recreation industries. Wetlands and Water Resources. "Clean water is a public right and fundamental in protecting our livelihoods, wildlife, communities, and economy."

    Scott Kovarovics, acting executive director of Izaak Walton League of America said, "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently reported that tens of millions of Americans spend $145 billion annually on hunting, angling, and wildlife watching. These dollars are spent in local restaurants, on guides and outfitters, and on everything from shotguns to fishing rods and boats and decoys. Millions of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity, as well as our hunting and angling traditions, all benefit from Clean Water Act protections for streams, lakes and wetlands."

    Steve Moyer, Vice President of Trout Unlimited said, "America's anglers have seen first hand that the Clean Water Act has been a tremendous boon for their sporting tradition. From the most dedicated anglers to those who might only fish once per year, sportsmen everywhere can thank clean water protections for more miles of fishable water and higher quality fishing trips."

    Steve Kline, director of Center for Agriculture and Private Lands at Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said, "The aims of the Clean Water Act – to ensure drinkable, swimmable, and fishable waters across the country – have largely not been realized. With millions of acres of wetlands and headwaters lost and still more threatened, it is time to recommit ourselves to the original goals of the legislation, which are as relevant today as they were 40 years ago."

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. Growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to sweeping amendments in 1972. As amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 1972 amendments:

• Established the basic structure for regulating pollutants discharges into the waters of the United States.
• Gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.
• Maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.
• Made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions.
• Funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under the construction grants program.
• Recognized the need for planning to address the critical problems posed by nonpoint source pollution.

    Access a release from the organizations with links to related information and a fact sheet (click here). Access U.S. EPA's CWA 40th Anniversary website (click here). Access the Clean Water Network website for more information (click here). [#Water, #MIWater]

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

Energy Becomes Key Point In 2nd Presidential Debate

Oct 16: An intense back and forth between President Obama and Governor Romney on energy issues was a significant part of the second Presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. The following are excerpts related to energy issues.

 

President Obama:

". . .we've got to control our own energy. Now, not only oil and natural gas, which we've been investing in; but also, we've got to make sure we're building the energy source of the future, not just thinking about next year, but ten years from now, 20 years from now. That's why we've invested in solar and wind and biofuels, energy efficient cars.

"The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here's what I've done since I've been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it's been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I've also said is we can't just produce traditional source of energy. We've also got to look to the future. That's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you're going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That's why we doubled clean -- clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels.

"And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We've got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we've also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that's how we're going to reduce demand and that's what's going to keep gas prices lower.

"Now, Governor Romney will say he's got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he's got the oil and gas part, but he doesn't have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we're not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they're making these investments. And I'm not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States."

". . .there's no doubt that world [oil & gas] demand's gone up, but our production is going up, and we're using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my -- the previous president was an oil man. And natural gas isn't just appearing magically. We're encouraging it and working with the industry.

"And when I hear Governor Romney say he's a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when -- Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, 'This plant kills,' and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you're a big champion of coal. So what I've tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology, to make sure that even as we're producing more coal, we're producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil, same thing with natural gas.

"And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. Oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and, most importantly, we're also starting to build cars that are more efficient. And that's creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, 'cause that's the demand around the world, and it also means that it'll save money in your pocketbook. That's the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that's what we're going to do in the next four years. . . "

"And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we've -- we've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire earth once. So, I'm all for pipelines. I'm all for oil production. What I'm not for is us ignoring the other half of the equation. So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says "these are imaginary jobs." When you've got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator in that -- in Iowa is all for it, providing tax breaks (ph) to help this work and Governor Romney says I'm opposed. I'd get rid of it. That's not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win that future. And I intend to win it as President of the United States. . ."

Governor Romney:

". . .the president's right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land [See link to PolitiFact.com analysis of this statement below], and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters. So where'd the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.

 

"Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don't need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, "Please save my job." The head of the EPA said, "You can't build a coal plant. You'll virtually -- it's virtually impossible given our regulations." When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. That's not the right course for America.

 

"Let's take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I'm planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years, you're going to see manufacturing jobs come back. Because our energy is low cost, that are already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy. I'll get America and North America energy independent. I'll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses. We're going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know. This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that's what I'm going to do. . ."

 

"In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half. . . [significant back and forth with the President about this point] . . . Production on government land of oil is down 14 percent [major disagreement from the President] . . .It's absolutely true. Look, there's no question but the people recognize that we have not produced more (inaudible) on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal, coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up. I was just at a coal facility, where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don't think anyone really believes that you're a person who's going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. . .

 

"I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof, the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it's $4.00 a gallon. The price of electricity is up.

"If the president's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country, to get America energy secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it. Those things will get us the energy we need. . .

"I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I'm going to make sure -- we're taking advantage of our energy resources. We'll bring back manufacturing to America. We're going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 31/2 million more jobs in this country. It's critical to our future. . ."

    Access the complete transcript of the October 16, 2012 Presidential debate (click here). Access more information on this debate and all other from the Commission on Presidential Debate website (click here). Access the PolitiFact.com analysis of the oil production statement (click here). [#Energy]

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

GAO Reports On Stimulus Funding For DOE Site Cleanups

Oct 15: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Recovery Act: Most DOE Cleanup Projects Are Complete, but Project Management Guidance Could Be Strengthened (GAO-13-23, Oct 15, 2012). The report was prepared for bipartisan members of a number of Congressional committees.

 

    In background information, GAO indicates that The Recovery Act (i.e. the Stimulus funding) aimed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. DOE received $6 billion in Recovery Act funds that it is using to clean up 17 sites contaminated by radioactive and hazardous wastes from decades of nuclear research and weapons production. The cleanup is primarily carried out by contractors. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requires GAO to periodically report on DOE's Recovery Act-funded EM cleanup projects. In response to this mandate, GAO examined: (1) the number of Recovery Act-funded FTEs [full time equivalent jobs) by quarter; (2) the status and performance of cleanup projects; and (3) project management issues, if any, that arose during project implementation and any lessons learned.

 

    In addition, the Recovery Act requires GAO to comment and report quarterly on estimates of jobs funded and counted as measured by the number of FTEs and to conduct bimonthly reviews on the use of the act's funds. GAO examined Recovery Act FTEs, spending, project performance data, and lessons learned from Recovery Act projects; and interviewed DOE and contractor officials.

 

    GAO found that from October 2009 through March 2012, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and working on Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) cleanup projects peaked at about 11,000 FTEs in the quarter ending September 2010, according to data on the Federal government's Recovery Act website. By the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, as projects were completed, FTEs had decreased to about 1,400 FTEs; 12 of 17 sites reported no Recovery Act FTEs; and about $5.6 billion of a total $6 billion in Recovery Act funds had been spent. According to EM data, as of April 30, 2012, 78 of the 112 Recovery Act-funded cleanup projects were complete, and 72 of the 78 projects met DOE's performance standard of completing project work scope without exceeding the cost target by more than 10 percent.

    According to EM officials, the completed Recovery Act projects have helped accelerate the cleanup at the sites. GAO, however, found several inconsistencies in how EM set and documented projects' scope, cost, and schedule targets. Without clear scope, cost, or schedule targets in performance baselines, it becomes difficult to assess project performance. For example, in some cases, EM set scope targets differently in different documents and claimed project success even if key performance parameters were not achieved. Current guidance on setting performance baselines is more comprehensive for capital asset projects, such as building or demolishing facilities or constructing remediation systems, than for projects known as operation activity projects, such as operating a groundwater treatment plant. In addition, capital asset projects costing under $10 million are classified as operation activity projects.

    Some of EM's long-standing project management problems occurred during its implementation of several Recovery Act projects, primarily insufficient early planning before setting performance baselines. For example, a project to remove wastes from a landfill at one site exceeded its $111 million cost target by $20 million because, after beginning the project, officials determined that the site would need to be excavated to a depth of almost double that planned. In addition, EM's new initiative to reclassify projects as either capital asset or operation activity projects raised concerns about how projects were reclassified. EM does not have a clear policy that sets out under what conditions and how EM should break a capital asset project into smaller, discrete operation activity projects. Project classification is important, however, because some requirements apply only to capital asset projects. EM's guidance for projects classified as operation activity projects under this initiative states that certain approval and reporting requirements will not be applied, and others will be applied as appropriate. Some DOE and other officials expressed concern that projects could be broken into smaller projects to avoid the requirements. For example, a $30 million project, partially funded with Recovery Act funds, was divided into 18 smaller projects, each below the $10 million threshold. The cost for one of these smaller projects eventually doubled -- from $8 million to $16 million -- but was not reclassified as a capital asset project. EM has been gathering information on lessons learned from Recovery Act projects, some of which could be applied as corrective measures to other EM cleanup work.

    GAO recommends, among other things, that DOE: (1) clarify guidance on developing and documenting project performance baselines; and (2) issue a policy that sets out the criteria with greater specificity for reclassifying capital asset projects over $10 million into smaller operation activity projects under $10 million. DOE agreed with GAO's recommendations.

 

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

 

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

How Urban Land Expansion Will Impact Biodiversity & Ecosystems

Oct 15: A new assessment by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).Global indicates that "urbanization will have significant implications for biodiversity and ecosystems if current trends continue, with knock-on effects for human health and development." The assessment -- Cities and Biodiversity Outlook -- which draws on contributions from more than 123 scientists worldwide, states that over 60 percent of the land projected to become urban by 2030 has yet to be built. This presents a major opportunity to greatly improve global sustainability by promoting low-carbon, resource-efficient urban development that can reduce adverse effects on biodiversity and improve quality of life, it says. 

 

    The report is the world's first global analysis of how projected patterns of urban land expansion will impact biodiversity and crucial ecosystems. The world's total urban area is expected to triple between 2000 and 2030, with urban populations set to double to around 4.9 billion in the same period. This urban expansion will draw heavily on water and other natural resources and will consume prime agricultural land.

 

    Braulio Dias, Executive Secretary of the CBD said, "The way our cities are designed, the way people live in them and the policy decisions of local authorities will define, to a large extent, future global sustainability. The innovation lies not so much in developing new infrastructural technologies and approaches but to work with what we already have. The results often require fewer economic resources and are more sustainable."

 

    The report states that urban expansion is occurring fast in areas close to biodiversity 'hotspots' and coastal zones. In rapidly urbanizing regions, such as large and mid-size settlements in sub-Saharan Africa, India and China, resources to implement sustainable urban planning are often lacking. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said, "More than half the global population already resides in cities. This number is projected to increase, with 60 percent of the population living in urban areas by 2030. This report makes a strong argument for greater attention to be paid by urban planners and managers to the nature-based assets within city boundaries. Sustainable urban development that supports valuable ecosystems presents a major opportunity for improving lives and livelihoods, and accelerating the transition to an inclusive green economy."

 

    Cities are also increasingly recognized for their role in supporting plant and animal species and diverse ecosystems. For example, over 50 percent of Belgium's floral species can be found in Brussels, while 65 percent of Poland's bird species occur in Warsaw. Urban green spaces perform important ecosystem services, such as filtering dust, absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and improving air quality. Data from the United Kingdom shows that a 10 percent increase in tree canopy cover in cities may result in a 3-4°C decrease in ambient temperature, thus reducing energy used in air conditioning.

 

    Urban biodiversity also delivers important health benefits. Studies have shown that proximity to trees can reduce the prevalence of childhood asthma and allergies. Sustainable urban planning, which addresses biodiversity issues along with other priorities such as poverty alleviation, employment, and housing, can bring positive effects for health and the environment. Professor Thomas Elmqvist of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Scientific Editor of the report said, "Cities need to learn how to better protect and enhance biodiversity, because rich biodiversity can exist in cities and is extremely critical to people's health and well-being."

 

    The report highlights a wide range of successful initiatives by cities, local authorities and sub-national governments in both developed and developing countries. In Bogotá, Colombia, measures such as closing roads on weekends, improving the bus transit system and creating bicycle paths resulted in increased physical activity among residents, and a reduction in greenhouse gases emissions. 

 

    The report also provides detailed analyses of regional urbanization trends and their impact on biodiversity and ecosystems. It also demonstrates how urban areas can play a central role in achieving 20 key biodiversity goals (known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets) which were agreed upon in 2010 by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. For example, the restoration or 'greening' of ex-industrial sites or brownfield land by city authorities can support efforts to achieve Aichi Target 15, whereby 15 percent of degraded ecosystems are restored by 2020. Cities can also help prevent extinction of known species (Aichi Target 12) through research and investment by zoos, aquaria and museums, many of which are managed by city authorities.

 

    The Cities and Biodiversity Outlook was produced by the Secretariat of the CBD in partnership with the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity operates under the UNEP.

 

    Access a release from UNEP with additional information and links to related items (click here). Access the report website for links to the complete report, a launch video and extensive related information and resources (click here). [#Land, #Sustain]

 

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

New Oil Slick Linked To BP Deepwater Horizon 2010 Spill

Oct 10: The Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in New Orleans issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to BP and Transocean. Coast Guard Capt. Duke Walker issued the NOFI following sample results from an oil sheen located in the vicinity of where the Deepwater Horizon drill rig exploded and sank more than two years ago. The sheen was first reported to the National Response Center September 16 by BP based on satellite images from the 9th and 14th overpasses in the Mississippi Canyon, block 252, approximately 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana. The Coast Guard said the sheen is not feasible to recover and does not pose a risk to the shoreline.

    The Coast Guard, in concert with BP and NOAA, has conducted regular assessments of the sheen by aircraft and boat since its discovery. The observed sheen size has varied over time depending upon the conditions present. Samples of the sheen were taken by Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City Sept. 26 and sent to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Lab in New London, Conn. The Marine Safety Laboratory results indicate the sheen correlates to oil that originated from BP's Macondo Well. The exact source of the sheen is uncertain at this time but could be residual oil associated with wreckage and/or debris left on the seabed from the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010.

    The NOFI effectively informs BP and Transocean that the Coast Guard matched the sheen samples to the Deepwater Horizon spill or sunken drilling debris and that either party or both may be held accountable for any cost associated with further assessments or operations related to this sheen. 

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee, who was the leading investigative force into the BP disaster in 2010, called for a full undersea survey of the Macondo site carried live on the internet so independent scientists can examine the activities as they happen. He said, "One can only hope that the nightmare well has not come back to haunt the people of the Gulf. The federal government should order BP to immediately deploy undersea rovers to examine the well site, the wreckage of the sunken rig, the drill pipe, and the surrounding area. BP must also bring back the Spillcam, so the world can see in real time what is going on at the bottom of the Gulf. There is no room for error, and no room for obfuscation, when it comes to this matter."

 

    During the 2010 BP oil spill, Rep. Markey successfully called for the release of a live internet feed of the undersea rovers. Spillcam, which was first hosted on Rep. Markey's committee website, and footage released by BP at his request, aided scientists in determining the size and rate of the spill. Rep. Markey indicated that the return of Macondo oil also raises the issue of BP's outstanding fines and damage assessments from the 2010 spill. Additional oil and residual effects continuing from the spill years later should be considered in the final judgment, including provisions for additional fines and damages if recurring seeps and leaks are determined to be possible.

 

    Rep. Markey said, "BP must do everything in its power to ensure this well does not rupture or leak, and they should be held responsible if it does. BP still has billions to pay to the people of the Gulf and the U.S. government, but the Gulf region also deserves the peace of mind that this well is dead once and for all."

 

    National environmental organizations including Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation issued a joint statement saying:

"BP's continued attempts to dodge responsibility for the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history must not continue. Despite a costly advertising campaign claiming that the gulf has bounced back from the 2010 oil disaster, the gulf is still reeling, both environmentally and economically. We may not know the full impact of the spill for years to come, but we do know that BP must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, stop stalling, pay up and make the gulf whole.

"This latest slick shows us once again that the oil is still taking a toll on the gulf. The sooner full payment happens, the sooner environmental and economic restoration can begin for this region. We owe it to the Gulf of Mexico -- one of our national treasures -- to make sure BP does right for the people, wildlife and habitat of this region.

"Drilling experts are claiming it's unlikely that BP's Macondo well is leaking again and the Coast Guard feels the residual oil 'does not pose a risk to the shoreline,' but the slick is nonetheless a cause for concern for the wildlife and ecosystem of the gulf -- especially considering recent media reports suggesting BP has proposed a settlement offer that is significantly less than what it would face at trial.

"Alarmingly, BP has purportedly offered a sum less than $20 billion. An amount so low would be inadequate to repair the gulf and would allow the oil giant -- which netted $25.7 billion in 2011 -- to escape paying what is required by law, what it can afford and what is fair in a case with such egregious environmental damage."

"BP must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. It's time for BP to stop stalling, pay up and make the gulf whole."

    Access the release from the Coast Guard (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey and link to related information (click here). Access the release and statement from the environmental groups (click here). [#Energy/OilSpill]

 

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

 

CWA Effluent Guidelines Could Benefit From Better Information

Oct 10: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit from More Information on Treatment Technologies (GAO-12-845, Sep 10, 2012). The report was requested by Representative Timothy Bishop (D-NY), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

 

    In background information GAO indicates that under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA has made significant progress in reducing wastewater pollution from industrial facilities. EPA currently regulates 58 industrial categories, such as petroleum refining, fertilizer manufacturing, and coal mining, with technology-based regulations called effluent guidelines. Such guidelines are applied in permits to limit the pollutants that facilities may discharge. The Clean Water Act also calls for EPA to revise the guidelines when appropriate. EPA has done so, for example, to reflect advances in treatment technology or changes in industries.

    GAO was asked to examine: (1) the process EPA follows to screen and review industrial categories potentially needing new or revised guidelines and the results of that process from 2003 through 2010; (2) limitations to this process, if any, that could hinder EPA's effectiveness in advancing the goals of the Clean Water Act; and (3) EPA's actions to address any such limitations. GAO analyzed the results of EPA's screening and review process from 2003 through 2010, surveyed state officials, and interviewed EPA officials and experts to obtain their views on EPA's process and its results.

    U.S. EPA uses a two-phase process to identify industrial categories potentially needing new or revised effluent guidelines to help reduce their pollutant discharges. EPA's 2002 draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations was the foundation for EPA's process. In the first, or "screening," phase, EPA uses data from two EPA databases to rank industrial categories according to the total toxicity of their wastewater. Using this ranking, public comments, and other considerations, EPA has identified relatively few industrial categories posing the highest hazard for the next, or "further review," phase. In this further review phase, EPA evaluates the categories to identify those that are appropriate for new or revised guidelines because treatment technologies are available to reduce pollutant discharges. Since 2003, EPA has regularly screened the 58 categories for which it has issued effluent guidelines, as well as some potential new industrial categories, and it has identified 12 categories for its further review phase. Of these 12 categories, EPA selected 3 for updated or new effluent guidelines. EPA chose not to set new guidelines for the others.

    GAO indicates that limitations in EPA's screening phase may have led it to overlook some industrial categories that warrant further review for new or revised effluent guidelines. Specifically, EPA has relied on limited hazard data that may have affected its ranking of industrial categories. Further, during its screening phase, EPA has not considered the availability of advanced treatment technologies for most industrial categories. Although its 2002 draft strategy recognized the importance of technology data, EPA has stated that such data were too difficult to obtain during the screening phase and, instead, considers them for the few categories that reach further review. Officials responsible for state water quality programs and experts on industrial discharges, however, identified categories they believe EPA should examine for new or updated guidelines to reflect changes in their industrial processes and treatment technology capabilities. According to some experts, consideration of treatment technologies is especially important for older effluent guidelines because changes are more likely to have occurred in either the industrial categories or the treatment technologies, making it possible that new, more advanced treatment technologies are available.

    Recognizing the limitations of its hazard data and overall screening approach, EPA has begun revising its process but has not assessed other possible sources of information it could use to improve the screening phase. In 2012, EPA supplemented the hazard data used in screening with four new data sources. EPA is also developing a regulation that, through electronic reporting, will increase the completeness and accuracy of its hazard data. In 2011, EPA also began to obtain recent treatment technology literature. According to EPA, the agency will expand on this work in 2013. Nonetheless, EPA has not thoroughly examined other usable sources of information on treatment technology, nor has it reassessed the role such information should take in its screening process. Without a more thorough and integrated screening approach that both uses improved hazard data and considers information on treatment technology, EPA cannot be certain that the effluent guidelines program reflects advances in the treatment technologies used to reduce pollutants in wastewater.

    GAO has made recommendations which they say would improve the effectiveness of EPA's effluent guidelines program by expanding its screening phase to better assess hazards and advances in treatment technology. EPA agreed with two recommendations in principle and said it is making progress on them, but said that one is not workable given current agency resources. However, GAO said it believes improvements can be made.

    Access the complete 72-page report (click here). [#Water]

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

House Dems React To GAO Reports On Fracking Issues

Oct 9: House Democrats that were part of the bicameral requesters of two Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on oil and gas development of shale resources and the utilization of hydraulic fracturing technology, issued a release reacting to the reports [See WIMS 10/9/12]. Members included: Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Diana DeGette (D-CO). They said the reports come at a time of increased domestic oil and gas production and environmental concerns related to hydraulic fracturing.
 
    Rep. Markey, Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee said, "We shouldn't let chemicals and pollutants seep into the environment due to loopholes in the laws governing oil and gas drilling. Regulators have operated with one hand tied behind their back for too long when it comes to the oil and gas industry. Federal officials are limited in their ability to even collect the information necessary for conducting oversight activities. Congress should enact changes to the law that will strengthen oversight of hydraulic fracturing operations, including the disposal of fracturing fluids.  In turn, this will strengthen public confidence in this new source of American energy that we can harness to meet our nation's future energy needs."

    Rep. Waxman, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "EPA and the states share responsibility for ensuring that oil and gas development doesn't irreparably harm the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. To do its job and enforce the law, EPA needs timely and unfettered access to information about oil and gas operations, the chemicals they are using, and their releases to air, land, and water."

    Rep. DeGette, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations said, "Over and over again, GAO highlights that shale oil and gas development can pose inherent environmental and public health risks. Exemptions and limitations make it difficult to determine the extent of those risks. That's why I introduced the FRAC Act, which allows for chemical disclosure and federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing to ensure that the economic benefits of oil and gas production do not come at the expense of the health and safety of our families and communities."
 
    The new GAO reports describe the main environmental risks associated with unconventional shale resource development, including risks to air quality, land resources, wildlife and surface water and groundwater quality. While many assume that these risks can be mitigated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using its authority under national environmental laws, the GAO also clearly identifies key exemptions for or limitations in the applicability of these laws to oil and gas development activities that prevent EPA from taking any action. For example GAO cited:

• Hydraulic fracturing with fluids other than diesel is exempted from permit requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Release of hazardous air pollutants from oil and gas wells and their associated equipment can not be aggregated and regulated as a major source of air pollution under the Clean Air Act, as typically is done with other industrial stationary sources.
• Typically, EPA requires permits for stormwater discharges at construction sites, which prevents sediment from entering nearby streams. These permits are not required for construction activities on oil and gas well sites.
• The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act established the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) -- but oil and gas operators are not required to report chemical releases under TRI.
• EPA cannot treat oil and gas production wastes as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    The Members indicated that this past summer, the Department of Interior for the first time in more than thirty years proposed regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal lands [See WIMS 5/4/12]. While acknowledged as an important step in establishing basic safety protections for public health and the environment, Rep. Markey submitted a critique of the rules suggesting several areas for improvement. Earlier this year, Rep. Markey also released a report detailing oil and gas drilling violations occurring on federal lands. The report found that Department of Interior inspectors were severely limited in their enforcement actions and restricted in the amount of fines levied against violating companies because of outdated and lenient laws and regulations. In fact, all fines issued to more than 300 companies in 17 states over more than a decade were less than $275,000.
 
    In 2011 an investigation released by Reps. Waxman, Markey, and DeGette found that the fourteen leading oil and gas companies used more than 32 million gallons of unpermitted diesel fuel as a component of their hydraulic fracturing fluid, a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing fluid is the only component that triggers the need for a permit under this law.

    Access a release from the Members and link to the related studies and investigations (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Energy/OilGas, #Energy/Shale]

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

 

GAO Reports On Unconventional Oil & Gas & Shale Development

Oct 5: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a major 241-page report entitled, Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements (GAO-12-874, Sep 5, 2012). The report was requested by a number of Democratic environmental leaders in the House and Senate including: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; and Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA); and others.

    In background information, GAO indicates that technological improvements have allowed the extraction of oil and natural gas from onshore unconventional reservoirs such as shale, tight sandstone, and coalbed methane formations. Specifically, advances in horizontal drilling techniques combined with hydraulic fracturing (pumping water, sand, and chemicals into wells to fracture underground rock formations and allow oil or gas to flow) have increased domestic development of oil and natural gas from these unconventional reservoirs. The increase in such development has raised concerns about potential environmental and public health effects and whether existing federal and state environmental and public health requirements are adequate.

    GAO was asked to review environmental and public health requirements for unconventional oil and gas development and: (1) describe Federal requirements; (2) describe state requirements; (3) describe additional requirements that apply on Federal lands; and (4) identify challenges, if any, that Federal and state agencies reported facing in regulating oil and gas development from unconventional reservoirs. GAO identified and analyzed Federal laws, state laws in six selected states (Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming), and interviewed Federal and state officials and representatives from industry, environmental, and public health organizations.

    GAO found that as with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight Federal environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges of pollutants into surface waters. Among other things, CWA requires oil and gas well site operators to obtain permits for discharges of produced water -- which includes fluids used for hydraulic fracturing, as well as water that occurs naturally in oil- or gas-bearing formations -- to surface waters. In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management and disposal of hazardous wastes, among other things. However, key exemptions or limitations in regulatory coverage affect the applicability of six of these environmental and public health laws. For example, CWA also generally regulates stormwater discharges by requiring that facilities associated with industrial and construction activities get permits, but the law and its regulations largely exempt oil and gas well sites. In addition, oil and gas exploration and production wastes are exempt from RCRA hazardous waste requirements based on a regulatory determination made by U.S. EPA in 1988. EPA generally retains its authorities under Federal environmental and public health laws to respond to environmental contamination.

    All six states in GAO's review implement additional requirements governing activities associated with oil and gas development and have updated some aspects of their requirements in recent years. For example, all six states have requirements related to how wells are to be drilled and how casing -- steel pipe within the well -- is to be installed and cemented in place, though the specifics of their requirements vary. The states also have requirements related to well site selection and preparation, which may include baseline testing of water wells before drilling or stormwater management.

    Oil and gas development on Federal lands must comply with applicable Federal environmental and state laws, as well as additional requirements. These requirements are the same for conventional and unconventional oil and gas development. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees oil and gas development on approximately 700 million subsurface acres. BLM regulations for leases and permits govern similar types of activities as state requirements, such as requirements for how operators drill the well and install casing. BLM recently proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing of wells on public lands.

    Federal and state agencies reported several challenges in regulating oil and gas development from unconventional reservoirs. EPA officials reported that conducting inspection and enforcement activities and having limited legal authorities are challenges. For example, conducting inspection and enforcement activities is challenging due to limited information, such as data on groundwater quality prior to drilling. EPA officials also said that the exclusion of exploration and production waste from hazardous waste regulations under RCRA significantly limits EPA's role in regulating these wastes. In addition, BLM and state officials reported that hiring and retaining staff and educating the public are challenges. For example, officials from several states and BLM said that retaining employees is difficult because qualified staff are frequently offered more money for private sector positions within the oil and gas industry. GAO did not make recommendations. In commenting on the report, agencies provided information on recent regulatory activities and technical comments.

    GAO release a second, related 70-page report entitled, Oil and Gas Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks (GAO-12-732, Sep 5, 2012). The report was requested by the same Democratic leaders.

    In background for the second report, GAO indicates that new applications of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing--in which water, sand, and chemical additives are injected under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in underground formations--allow oil and natural gas from shale formations (known as "shale oil" and "shale gas") to be developed. As exploration and development of shale oil and gas have increased--including in areas of the country without a history of oil and natural gas development--questions have been raised about the estimates of the size of these resources, as well as the processes used to extract them.

    GAO was asked to determine what is known about the: (1) size of shale oil and gas resources and the amount produced from 2007 through 2011; and (2) environmental and public health risks associated with the development of shale oil and gas. GAO reviewed estimates and data from Federal and nongovernmental organizations on the size and production of shale oil and gas resources. GAO also interviewed Federal and state regulatory officials, representatives from industry and environmental organizations, oil and gas operators, and researchers from academic institutions.

    GAO found that estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Potential Gas Committee -- three organizations that estimate the size of these resources -- have increased over the last 5 years, which could mean an increase in the nation's energy portfolio. For example, in 2012, EIA estimated that the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States was 482 trillion cubic feet--an increase of 280 percent from EIA's 2008 estimate. However, according to EIA and USGS officials, estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States are highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model structures, and assumptions used to develop them. In addition, less is known about the amount of technically recoverable shale oil than shale gas, in part because large-scale production of shale oil has been under way for only the past few years. Estimates are based on data available at a given point in time and will change as additional information becomes available. In addition, domestic shale oil and gas production has experienced substantial growth; shale oil production increased more than fivefold from 2007 to 2011, and shale gas production increased more than fourfold from 2007 to 2011.

Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects. For example, according to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of: (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments -- temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals. For example, tanks storing toxic chemicals or hoses and pipes used to convey wastes to the tanks could leak, or impoundments containing wastes could overflow as a result of extensive rainfall.

    According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's 2011 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, spilled, leaked, or released chemicals or wastes could flow to a surface water body or infiltrate the ground, reaching and contaminating subsurface soils and aquifers. In addition, shale oil and gas development poses a risk to land resources and wildlife habitat as a result of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to develop oil and gas; using toxic chemicals; and injecting fluids underground. However, the extent of these risks is unknown. Further, the extent and severity of environmental and public health risks identified in the studies and publications GAO reviewed may vary significantly across shale basins and also within basins because of location- and process-specific factors, including the location and rate of development; geological characteristics, such as permeability, thickness, and porosity of the formations; climatic conditions; business practices; and regulatory and enforcement activities.

    Access the complete Unconventional Oil & Gas report (click here). Access the second report on Shale Resources (click here). [#Energy/Frack, #Energy/OilGas, #Energy/Shale]

NAS Says Army Corps' Aging Water Infrastructure Is Unsustainable

Oct 4: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces an "unsustainable situation" in maintaining its national water projects at acceptable levels of performance, says a new report from the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council. The report -- Corps of Engineers Water Resources Infrastructure: Deterioration, Investment, or Divestment? -- suggests expanding revenues and strengthening partnerships among the private and public sectors as options to manage the Corps' aging water infrastructure, which includes levees and dams. 

 

    David Dzombak, chair of the committee that wrote the report and professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Steinbrenner Institute of Environmental Education and Research at Carnegie Mellon University said, "The country's water resources infrastructure is largely built-out, and there are limited sites to construct new projects. Today, the Corps focuses mainly on sustaining its existing structures, some of which are in states of significant deterioration and disrepair.  Funding for maintenance and rehabilitation of Corps water resources infrastructure -- which includes navigation locks and dams, flood management levees and dams, and other facilities -- has been inadequate for decades. We now have a scenario where the water infrastructure is wearing out faster than it is being replaced or rehabilitated. Some components could be decommissioned or divested, but the Corps does not have the authority to do this."

 

    NAS indicates that the Corps is authorized to carry out projects in several mission areas that include navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation. Currently its extensive infrastructure consists of approximately 700 dams, 14,000 miles of Federal levees, and 12,000 miles of river navigation channel and control structures. Because of its many different authorities and programs, the Corps' successes in addressing maintenance and rehabilitation issues in one mission area often do not transfer easily to other mission areas.

 

    The report indicates that the Corps' division and district offices set some priorities for maintenance and rehabilitation of existing projects within annual budgets. However, there is no defined distribution of responsibility among Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Corps for national-level prioritization of investments in maintenance and rehabilitation for existing water infrastructure. For major rehabilitation projects, decisions about funding are the responsibility of Congress and OMB.

 

    NAS said a more systematic approach toward water infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation will require breaking with some management traditions and practices. For example, for Congress and OMB to place higher priority on maintenance issues, some reorientation away from a current strong focus on new projects via periodic Water Resources Development Acts is needed.  In addition, more specific direction from the executive branch and Congress regarding priorities for maintenance investments will be crucial to sustaining the Corps' high-priority and most valuable infrastructure, the committee emphasized.  Decommissioning or divesting some components should also be considered.

                           

    The committee said that partnerships with states, communities, and the private sector could yield new resources and more efficient methods, especially in hydropower generation, flood risk management, and port and harbor maintenance. Based on other hydropower systems such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the committee estimated that Corps hydropower revenues could be increased by rehabilitating and upgrading hydropower projects to improve efficiency of turbine and related power generation and distribution systems. With regard to flood risk management, reducing federal resources available to construct traditional, structural projects would present opportunities to implement nonstructural flood control options, such as zoning and building codes, that often are efficient, cost less, and provide greater environmental benefits. They also offer a chance for the Corps to extend its partnerships with local communities in providing technical advice and other types of support. 

 

    Maintaining the inland navigation system presents especially formidable challenges and choices for the Corps. Federal resources for construction and rehabilitation have declined steadily, and proposals to generate additional revenue by charging lockage fees to system users have been resisted historically. Parts of the system could be decommissioned, but that must be decided by Congress. The committee said, "Keeping the status quo of steady deterioration would entail significant disruptions in service." The report calls for an independent investigation of the opportunities for additional partnerships for operations and maintenance of Corps water infrastructure. Examples of such partnerships include those developed with private entities by state and local governments for port operation. Given the complexities of each Corps mission area, opportunities for new arrangements and greater efficiencies need to be investigated separately and carefully for each mission area.

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access links to the complete report, executive summary and report in brief (click here). [#Water]

 

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

Presidential Debate Hits Lightly On Energy, Oil, Coal & Renewables

Oct 3: The first Presidential debate in Denver touched lightly on energy issues including comments on oil development, renewables and coal. However, there were no specific questions from the moderator related to energy and environment issues. Climate change or global warming were not discussed by either President Obama or Governor Romney. The word "environment" was only mentioned once but it did not relate to the natural environment. The following is a summary of the energy related comments covered in the 90 minute debate.

 

    In opening remarks President Obama said, "I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America. . ." In his opening remarks, Governor Mitt Romney said, "My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs. . ."

 

    At around 20 minutes into the debate, President Obama expanded on his energy comment saying, "On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production, and oil and natural gas production are higher than they've been in years. But I also believe that we've got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments. . ."

 

    And, Governor Romney expanded on his comment saying, "Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I'm president, I'll double them, and also get the -- the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada. And, by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs. . .

 

    President Obama commented later that one of the reasons for returning to the Clinton era tax rate for incomes over $250,000 was to make "investments that are necessary in education or in energy."

 

    The President discussed subsidies for oil companies saying, "The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. Basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that Governor Romney refers to, they don't get. Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money, when they're making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn't we want to eliminate that?"

 

    Governor Romney responded on tax breaks and oil saying, ". . .the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth. But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent. But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this -- this is not -- this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure. . ."

 

    Governor Romney commented again on the President's investment in green energy saying, "But you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is. You put $90 billion into -- into green jobs. And I -- look, I'm all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have -- that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion. . ."

 

    Access the complete transcript of the debate posted on the CNN website with commenting opportunities (click here). Access the video of the debate (click here). [#Energy]

 

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