EPA: Boiler MACT Rules To Be "Significantly Different" Than Proposed

EPA: Boiler MACT Rules To Be "Significantly Different" Than Proposed - Jan 20: A Federal District Court judge in Washington DC issued an order extending by 30 days U.S. EPA's deadline to issue emission standards for large and small boilers and solid waste and sewage sludge incinerators. EPA said it is disappointed that the extension was not longer; however, the Agency said it will work diligently to issue these standards by this new deadline. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman extends the court-ordered schedule for EPA to issue the rules from January 16, 2011 to February 21, 2011.

 

    In its opinion in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA, the Court said, "EPA has not justified its request for an extension until June 15 and July 15, 2011. Nor has EPA even attempted to show that a more expeditious schedule would be impossible. Indeed, EPA's own papers make clear to the Court that its requested extensions would not reflect a schedule of 'utmost diligence.' Accordingly, the Court rejects EPA's proposed schedule and prescribes a more expeditious one."

    In a release, EPA said "the standards will be significantly different than what EPA proposed in April 2010. The Agency believes these changes still deserve further public review and comment and expects to solicit further comment through a reconsideration of the rules." Through the reconsideration process, EPA intends to ensure that the rules will be practical to implement and will protect all Americans from dangerous pollutants such as mercury and soot, which can damage children's developing brains, aggravate asthma and cause heart attacks. The Agency is considering all other options for addressing these issues before the rules would become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    EPA received more than 4,800 comments and additional data during the public comment period for the rules. EPA said the information has shed new light on a number of key areas, including the scope and coverage of the rules and the way to categorize the various boiler types. Given the extensive comments, EPA filed a motion with the court asking for more time to fully evaluate all the comments and data and finalize the rules [See WIMS 12/7/10]. EPA was under a court order to issue the final rules on January 16, 2011, and was seeking in its motion to the court to extend the schedule to finalize the rules by April 13, 2012.

 

    EPA has estimated that there are more than 200,000 boilers operating in industrial facilities, commercial buildings, hotels and universities located in highly populated areas and communities across the country. EPA has estimated that for every $5 spent on reducing the pollutants, the public will see $12 in health and other benefits.

 

    In a release, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said, "Industry has done everything it can to delay these clean up measures. These polluters must be held accountable. Unchecked toxic air pollution from industrial plants is making our families sick." Jim Pew of Earthjustice who represented Sierra Club said, "Every day that industry succeeds in delaying these crucial protections equates to human suffering in the form of lives lost and worsened health. The rule undisputedly will prevent some of the unnecessary deaths and suffering caused by industrial boilers' and incinerators' uncontrolled emissions. Clean air saves lives, and it's time for the companies that operate these big industrial facilities to become better neighbors by keeping their toxic pollution out of our homes, our air, and our food."  

    Sierra Club said that EPA's draft health safeguard for boilers and incinerators, proposed in June 2010 after a decade of delay, is expected to save nearly five thousand lives each year and prevent 3,000 heart attacks, 33,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and millions of acute respiratory problems. The benefits of the proposed health safeguard are projected to outweigh the costs by at least $14 billion every year. The safeguard could also result in the creation of up to 9,000 jobs as pollution controls and new technologies are installed, according to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. 

 

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a release and expressed disappointment about the court's decision to grant EPA only one additional month to issue industrial boiler emission standards. Cal Dooley, ACC President and CEO said, "Today's decision is bad news for U.S. manufacturers, large industries and small businesses alike. After hearing from numerous stakeholders that the proposed rules would cost businesses billions and tens of thousands of jobs, EPA wisely asked for more time to consider new information. Because of today's ruling, EPA will not have adequate opportunity to improve the rules to ensure they are achievable, effective and will not stifle economic growth or put more Americans out of work." In a January 18, 2011, letter to Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, ACC indicated that it has estimated that the so-called, "Boiler MACT" rules "would jeopardize some 60,000 jobs and impose capital costs on the order of $3.8 billion in the chemical industry alone."

 

    A study prepared for the Council of Industrial Boiler Operators (CIBO) released in August 2010, concluded that every $1B spent on upgrade and compliance costs will put 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce US GDP by as much as $1.2B. The study said a significant portion of this "economic pain" would be felt in supplier networks.

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the Court order (click here). Access the Court opinion (click here). Access further information on the proposed rules from EPA's Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial / Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators website (click here). Access more information on EPA's Boiler MACT rule (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from ACC and link to more information (click here). Access ACC's letter to Chairman Issa (click here). Access the CIBO study (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- EPA Says E15 Does Not Harm Emission Controls In Newer Vehicles
- U.S. & China Discuss Climate Change, Energy & Environment
- Rep. Upton Opens Up Energy & Commerce Committee
- Sides Prepare For Contentious Actions In House Oversight Committee
- $25 Million For Air Quality Research To Health Effects Institute
- GSA Touts Sustainable Future Accomplishments

(Click here for details)

Groups Sue EPA Re: Pesticides Impact On 200+ Species

Jan 20: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed what they called "the most comprehensive legal action ever brought under the Endangered Species Act to protect imperiled species from pesticides," suing U.S. EPA for its failure to consult with federal wildlife agencies regarding the impacts of hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 endangered and threatened species. The 411-page brief was filed in the Federal U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco Division).

 

    Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with CBD said, "For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides can have on some of America's rarest species. This lawsuit is intended to force the EPA to follow the law and ensure that harmful chemicals are not sprayed in endangered species habitats."

    Dr. Heather Pilatic, codirector of PANNA said, "Endangered species and biological diversity are strong indicators for the health of the natural-resource base on which we all depend. To the extent that we fail to protect that base we erode the possibility of prosperity for future generations. This suit thus presents a real opportunity for American agriculture: By enforcing the law and counting the real costs of pesticide use, we strengthen the case for supporting a transition toward more sustainable pest-control practices like crop rotations and beneficial insect release."

    The lawsuit seeks protection for 214 endangered and threatened species throughout the United States, including the Florida panther, California condor, piping plover, black-footed ferret, arroyo toad, Indiana bat, bonytail chub and Alabama sturgeon. Documents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA, as well as peer-reviewed scientific studies, indicate these species are harmed by the pesticides at issue. More than a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, and the EPA has registered more than 18,000 different pesticides for use. Extensive scientific studies show widespread and pervasive pesticide contamination in groundwater, drinking water and wildlife habitats throughout the country.

    The groups said, "Many EPA-approved pesticides are also linked to cancer and other severe health effects in humans. Some pesticides can act as endocrine disruptors, interfering with natural hormones, damaging reproductive function and offspring, and causing developmental, neurological and immune problems in wildlife and humans. Endocrine-disrupting pesticides cause sexual deformities such as intersex fish (with male and female parts) that cannot reproduce. Scientists believe that pesticides may also play a role in the recent colony collapse disorder, the disappearance of bees that are agriculturally important pollinators."

    Miller said, "The EPA authorizes pesticide uses that result in millions of pounds of toxins, including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, entering our waterways each year, polluting our soil and poisoning our drinking water. Common-sense restrictions on pesticide use that protect endangered species can also safeguard human health."

    Access a release with links to an interactive map of the species involved in the lawsuit and related information (click here). Access the 411-page legal brief (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- National Coalition Highlights 30 States' Actions On Toxics Bills
- EPA Announces CARE Funding Opportunity
- DOE Says 300,000 Low-Income Homes Have Been Weatherized
- USDA Launches Biobased Product Label: "BioPreferred" Program
- 2010 USDA Colony Collapse Disorder Progress Report
- Nuclear Energy Interactive Guide: Promise and Pitfalls
- EPA Releases Model Air Quality Tribal Implementation Plan
- $8 Million For Voluntary Public Access & Habitat Incentive Program 

(Click here for details)

Salazar Announces Next Round Of Offshore Drilling Reforms

Jan 19: Secretary of the Interior (DOI) Ken Salazar and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Director Michael Bromwich announced the structures and responsibilities of two new, independent agencies that will carry out the offshore energy management and enforcement functions once assigned to the former Minerals Management Service (MMS). Salazar and Bromwich also announced that they are establishing a permanent advisory body through which the nation's leading scientific, engineering, and technical experts will provide input on improving offshore drilling safety, well containment, and spill response. Secretary Salazar has asked former Sandia National Laboratory Director Tom Hunter to lead the body, which will be called the Offshore Energy Safety Advisory Committee (Safety Committee).

    Secretary Salazar said, "We are moving ahead quickly and responsibly to establish the strong, independent oversight of offshore oil and gas drilling that is needed to ensure that companies are operating safely and in compliance with the law. With Director Bromwich's leadership, the recommendations of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and other outside guidance, we are making swift progress in implementing the reorganization plan we put in motion last year. With the leadership of Dr. Tom Hunter, we will also bring together the top minds inside and outside government to help ensure that regulations, safety standards, and well containment capabilities never again fall behind drilling technology and practices."

    BOEMRE Director Bromwich said, "The former MMS was saddled with the conflicting missions of promoting resource development, enforcing safety regulations, and maximizing revenues from offshore operations. Those conflicts, combined with a chronic lack of resources, prevented the agency from fully meeting the challenges of overseeing industry operating in U.S. waters. The reorganization is designed to remove those conflicts by clarifying and separating missions across the three agencies and providing each of the new agencies with clear missions and new resources necessary to fulfill those missions."

    On May 19, 2010, Secretary Salazar signed a Secretarial Order that divided the three conflicting missions of MMS into separate entities with independent missions. MMS was renamed BOEMRE in mid-June as Director Bromwich was sworn-in, to more accurately describe the scope of the organization's oversight. On October 1, 2010, the revenue collection arm of the former MMS became the Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

    Secretary Salazar and Director Bromwich today detailed the structure of the two bureaus that will separately house: (1) the resource development and energy management functions of BOEMRE, and (2) the safety and enforcement functions of BOEMRE. The new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will be responsible for managing development of the nation's offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way. Functions will include: Leasing, Plan Administration, Environmental Studies, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Analysis, Resource Evaluation, Economic Analysis and the Renewable Energy Program. The new Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) will enforce safety and environmental regulations. Functions will include: All field operations including Permitting and Research, Inspections, Offshore Regulatory Programs, Oil Spill Response, and newly formed Training and Environmental Compliance functions.

    Secretary Salazar and Director Bromwich said that the reforms announced today strengthen the role of environmental review and analysis in both BSEE and BOEM through various structural and organizational mechanisms. Those include: The creation of a first-ever Chief Environmental Officer in BOEM; Separating Environmental reviews from Leasing in the regions in BOEM; The development of a new Environmental Compliance and enforcement function in BSEE; and More prominent Oil Spill Response Plan review and enforcement in BSEE. The Department plans to have the re-organization fully implemented by October 1, 2011.

    The new Offshore Energy Safety Advisory Committee (Safety Committee) will advise the Director and the Secretary on a variety of issues related to offshore energy safety, including drilling and workplace safety, well intervention and containment, and oil spill response. The Safety Committee also will facilitate collaborative research and development, training and execution in these and other areas relating to offshore energy safety. The Committee will have 13 members representing Federal agencies, industry, academia, national labs, and various research organizations.

    Access a release from DOI and link to a fact sheet on the changes and the full text of Secy. Salazar's speech (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- EPA & Chrysler Partner On Efficient Hydraulic Hybrid Technology
- EPA Announces Six Landfill Methane Project Winners
- CEQ Final Guidance On NEPA Mitigation and Monitoring
- Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Important FOIA Case
- 2011 Priorities For DOJ Environment & Natural Resources Division
- Making Clean Local Energy Accessible Now
- Impact Of Climate Change On Species & Ecosystems
- U.S. Oil Imports Sent $337 Billion To Foreign Countries In 2010
- $10 Million For DOE's Tribal Energy Program

(Click here for details)

Seeking Balance In A 21st-Century Regulatory System

Jan 18: In a surprising Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, President Obama announced a new Executive Order -- "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" -- calling for a government-wide review of regulations, regulatory improvement, elimination of unnecessary paperwork and a special focus on eliminating burdens for small business. The President said:

 

    "For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people. But throughout our history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is that we have sought the proper balance. We have preserved freedom of commerce while applying those rules and regulations necessary to protect the public against threats to our health and safety and to safeguard people and businesses from abuse.

 

    "From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.

 

    "Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.

 

    "Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government. This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.

 

    "Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws. But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb. For instance, the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.

 

    "But creating a 21st-century regulatory system is about more than which rules to add and which rules to subtract. As the executive order I am signing makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends -- giving careful consideration to benefits and costs. This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens. It means using disclosure as a tool to inform consumers of their choices, rather than restricting those choices. And it means making sure the government does more of its work online, just like companies are doing.

 

    "We're also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money. We're looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for -- and reduce -- the burdens regulations may place on small businesses. Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.

 

    "One important example of this overall approach is the fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. When I took office, the country faced years of litigation and confusion because of conflicting rules set by Congress, federal regulators and states [See WIMS 5/19/09].

 

    "The EPA and the Department of Transportation worked with auto makers, labor unions, states like California, and environmental advocates this past spring to turn a tangle of rules into one aggressive new standard [See WIMS 4/1/10]. It was a victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution. Another example: Tomorrow the FDA will lay out a new effort to improve the process for approving medical devices, to keep patients safer while getting innovative and life-saving products to market faster.

 

    "Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter -- and in some cases tougher -- rules to protect our health, safety and environment. Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars. This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary. But what is clear is that we can strike the right balance. We can make our economy stronger and more competitive, while meeting our fundamental responsibilities to one another."

 

     In addition to the Executive Order, the President also issued two Presidential Memorandums -- one on Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement (Memo #1); and another on Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation (Memo #2). The Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement Memo requires Federal enforcement agencies to make publicly-available compliance information easily accessible, downloadable, and searchable online. This will provide citizens with information they need to determine when entities fail to comply with the law. 

 

    The Regulatory Flexibility, Small Business, and Job Creation Memo requires Federal agencies to consider ways to reduce regulatory burdens on small business and requiring that Agencies provide justifications when such flexibilities are not included in proposed regulation. Agencies will not only be required to consider these alternatives for small businesses, but also to provide written justification when such alternatives are not utilized.

 

    Jack Lew Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) commented on the President's actions in a White House blog post. Lew said, "OMB plays a central role in implementing a President's regulatory agenda. Through our Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB acts as a clearinghouse for the most significant regulations and rules, making sure that policies are consistent across the federal government and with the agenda of the President. OMB also ensures that analysis of rules is done properly, according to one set of standards."

    Lew indicated as the President wrote, our aim is to "strike the right balance" between what is needed to protect the safety and health of all Americans, and what we need to foster economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness. He said, "The Administration has followed this balanced approach since taking office, and this executive order formally details our basic operating principles. With this EO, there should be no confusion about what guides this Administration when crafting regulations. The basic tenets are: to consider costs and how best to reduce burdens for American businesses and consumers; to expand opportunities for public participation and stakeholder involvement; to seek the most flexible, least burdensome approaches; to ensure that regulations are scientifically-driven; and to review old regulations so that rules which are no longer needed can be modified or withdrawn. This smarter approach builds on the best practices of the past, while adapting to serious economic challenges the country faces today. . ."

    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Senior Vice President for Government Relations and Policy, Aric Newhouse issued a statement commenting on the President's executive order saying, "Manufacturers appreciate President Obama's call for a government-wide review of regulations and rules. Manufacturers have been saying for some time that overregulation is harming job creation and stifling economic growth. This is an opportunity for the President to demonstrate results by eliminating unnecessary regulations already in the pipeline or delaying poorly thought-out proposals that are costing jobs. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposals -- from regulating greenhouse gases to the Boiler MACT rule -- are a real threat to America's job creators. We stand ready to assist in the President's efforts to address an escalating problem and meaningfully reduce unnecessary burdens on manufacturers in America so they can get back to creating jobs."  

 

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue issued a statement saying, "We welcome President Obama's intention to issue an executive order today restoring balance to government regulations. While a positive first step, a robust and globally competitive economy requires fundamental reform of our broken regulatory system. Congress should reclaim some of the authority it has delegated to the agencies and implement effective checks and balances on agency power. It also means repealing or replacing outdated or ineffective regulations, ensuring realistic cost-benefit analyses using quality data. No major rule or regulation should be exempted from the review, including the recently enacted health care and financial reform laws. The Chamber shares the president's view that we should 'root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.' And the Chamber will work with the White House, Congress, and the federal agencies to advance common sense regulatory reform measures." 

 

    The regulatory watchdog group, OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass issued a release saying,"Unfortunately, President Obama's regulatory executive order does little to change the mechanics of a broken regulatory process. The order reflects, however, the values the administration has stressed in its two years in office: greater public participation, decisions based on the best available science and technology, and greater agency flexibility. The RFA's [Regulatory Flexibility Act] requirements already burden agencies with procedural hurdles that can delay critical public protections. This memo may very well be taken as an insult by the federal agencies, which write reasoned, evidence-based rules now; those rules would never be approved if they were based on 'guesswork'"

 

    Access the WSJ Op-Ed (click here). Access the Executive Order (click here). Access Memo #1 (click here). Access Memo #2 (click here). Access a fact sheet on the executive order and memorandum (click here). Access the OMB blog posting which also summarizes the actions (click here). Access the statement from NAM (click here). Access the U.S. Chamber statement (click here). Access the release from OMB Watch (click here). Access the OMB OIRA website for more information (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- U.N. Head Calls For Global Energy Revolution
- EPA & SBA Launch Water Technology Innovation Cluster

- U.S. Chamber Interview With Speaker Boehner
- The Wilderness Society v. U.S. Forest Service
- U.S. Magnesium, LLC v. EPA

(Click here for details)

Farm Bureau Calls For Congressional Oversight Of EPA

Jan 11: Delegates at the American Farm Bureau Federation's (AFBF's) 92nd Annual Meeting voted to maintain a strong farm income safety net, address dairy price volatility and urge greater oversight of regulatory actions by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As Congress prepares to draft a new farm bill later this year and in 2012, the delegates reiterated their support for extending the concepts of the 2008 farm bill. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said, "The 2008 farm bill has worked as farmers and ranchers have weathered market ups and downs over the last four years. It's important to maintain a program that protects our nation's food, fiber and fuel supply and the consumers who rely on agriculture's productivity."

    The delegates approved a resolution calling for more congressional oversight of U.S. EPA's regulatory actions. They asked Congress to assess the impact that EPA regulations would have on agriculture and to consider legislation to stop EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases. Stallman said, "EPA's regulatory reach continues to metastasize at the expense of our ability to produce food, fiber and fuel, and EPA often does not recognize the contributions that farmers and ranchers have made to reduce soil loss and produce more with less land, water, nutrients and other inputs. We need more common sense and less negativity toward production agriculture in the enforcement of the nation's existing environmental statutes."

    AFBF also announced on January 10, during the annual meeting, that it was filing a Federal lawsuit to halt the EPA's recently announced Chesapeake Bay pollution regulatory plan. AFBF said that the Agency overreached by setting up a plan for the entire 64,000 square-mile Chesapeake watershed, usurped state control, relied on faulty data and failed to account for agriculture's contributions to improving water quality, and provided insufficient information and time for the public to check EPA's actions.

 

    U.S. Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK), the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, issued a statement at the conclusion of the AFBF annual meeting saying, "I commend the American Farm Bureau Federation and all of its members for the work they do on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers. The Farm Bureau continues to be a strong advocate for our producers and continues to provide common sense solutions to the issues facing rural America.

 

    "The resolutions AFBF passed during the annual meeting will serve as an important guide as we begin the process of reauthorizing the farm bill in 2012. . . I want to commend the Farm Bureau for taking a strong stance on one of the most significant issues facing American agriculture: the hostile regulatory approach of the EPA. As the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I pledge to hold vigorous oversight of the administration on a number of issues that threaten the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.

 

    "I welcome the Farm Bureau's continued efforts to rein in the EPA's aggressive attempt to impose new regulations on agricultural production throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which has far reaching consequences for the entire U.S.  We all support the goal of achieving clean water, but EPA is moving forward with accelerated and questionable regulations without considering the consequences for farmers and rural communities or without considering the ongoing conservation measures our producers are using to improve water quality."

 

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the new Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry did not have a public statement on the AFBF actions.

   

    Access a release from AFBF (click here). Access a release from AFBF on its EPA lawsuit (click here). Access a release from Rep. Lucas (click here). Access a release from EPA on the Chesapeake Bay plan and link to complete details (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
- Government Air Agencies Want Mercury HAP Threshold Of 25 Lbs/Yr
- Texas Stay Of GHG Rules Denied; Hearing On Rulemaking
- Representatives Press For Disclosure Of Fracking Chemicals
- EPA Announces $10 Million For BEACH Grants
- EPA Holds Air Quality Tools for Schools Symposium
- Administration Schedules Western Meetings On Draft Solar PEIS

(Click here for details)

Farm Bureau Calls For Congressional Oversight Of EPA

Jan 11: Delegates at the American Farm Bureau Federation's (AFBF's) 92nd Annual Meeting voted to maintain a strong farm income safety net, address dairy price volatility and urge greater oversight of regulatory actions by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As Congress prepares to draft a new farm bill later this year and in 2012, the delegates reiterated their support for extending the concepts of the 2008 farm bill. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said, "The 2008 farm bill has worked as farmers and ranchers have weathered market ups and downs over the last four years. It's important to maintain a program that protects our nation's food, fiber and fuel supply and the consumers who rely on agriculture's productivity."

    The delegates approved a resolution calling for more congressional oversight of U.S. EPA's regulatory actions. They asked Congress to assess the impact that EPA regulations would have on agriculture and to consider legislation to stop EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases. Stallman said, "EPA's regulatory reach continues to metastasize at the expense of our ability to produce food, fiber and fuel, and EPA often does not recognize the contributions that farmers and ranchers have made to reduce soil loss and produce more with less land, water, nutrients and other inputs. We need more common sense and less negativity toward production agriculture in the enforcement of the nation's existing environmental statutes."

    AFBF also announced on January 10, during the annual meeting, that it was filing a Federal lawsuit to halt the EPA's recently announced Chesapeake Bay pollution regulatory plan. AFBF said that the Agency overreached by setting up a plan for the entire 64,000 square-mile Chesapeake watershed, usurped state control, relied on faulty data and failed to account for agriculture's contributions to improving water quality, and provided insufficient information and time for the public to check EPA's actions.

 

    U.S. Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK), the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, issued a statement at the conclusion of the AFBF annual meeting saying, "I commend the American Farm Bureau Federation and all of its members for the work they do on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers. The Farm Bureau continues to be a strong advocate for our producers and continues to provide common sense solutions to the issues facing rural America.

 

    "The resolutions AFBF passed during the annual meeting will serve as an important guide as we begin the process of reauthorizing the farm bill in 2012. . . I want to commend the Farm Bureau for taking a strong stance on one of the most significant issues facing American agriculture: the hostile regulatory approach of the EPA. As the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I pledge to hold vigorous oversight of the administration on a number of issues that threaten the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.

 

    "I welcome the Farm Bureau's continued efforts to rein in the EPA's aggressive attempt to impose new regulations on agricultural production throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which has far reaching consequences for the entire U.S.  We all support the goal of achieving clean water, but EPA is moving forward with accelerated and questionable regulations without considering the consequences for farmers and rural communities or without considering the ongoing conservation measures our producers are using to improve water quality."

 

    U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the new Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry did not have a public statement on the AFBF actions.

   

    Access a release from AFBF (click here). Access a release from AFBF on its EPA lawsuit (click here). Access a release from Rep. Lucas (click here). Access a release from EPA on the Chesapeake Bay plan and link to complete details (click here).

President Makes Impassioned Plea For Political Civility

Jan 12: President Obama delivered what has to be described as a remarkable speech in Tucson, AZ providing a eulogy to the fallen victims of the horrendous shooting last Saturday, a tribute to the heroic deeds of ordinary people, an impassioned plea for political civility, and most importantly -- hope for a new and better chapter in American Democracy.

 

    The President said, "Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health system. And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government. But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. . . what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. . . 

 

    "As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.  Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.  . . sudden loss causes us to look backward -– but it also forces us to look forward; to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. . .

 

    "For those who were harmed, those who were killed –- they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. We may not have known them personally, but surely we see ourselves in them. . . And in Christina [the 9-year old girl who lost her life] -- in Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic, so full of magic. So deserving of our love. And so deserving of our good example. If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate -- as it should -- let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.

    "The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better.  To be better in our private lives, to be better friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud. . .

    "We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us. And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us. That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. . . 

    "Imagine -- imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation's future. She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted. I want to live up to her expectations.  (Applause.)  I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. . ."

    Access the complete text of President Obama's speech (click here). Access the 33 minute video of the speech (click here).

EPA Defers GHG Permitting For Biogenic Sources

Jan 12: U.S. EPA announced its plan to defer, for three years, greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources. The Agency said intends to use the time to seek "further independent scientific analysis of this complex issue and then to develop a rulemaking on how these emissions should be treated in determining whether a Clean Air Act permit is required."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "We are working to find a way forward that is scientifically sound and manageable for both producers and consumers of biomass energy. In the coming years we will develop a commonsense approach that protects our environment and encourages the use of clean energy. Renewable, homegrown power sources are essential to our energy future, and an important step to cutting the pollution responsible for climate change."

    By July 2011, EPA plans to complete a rulemaking that will defer permitting requirements for CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources for three years. During the three-year period, the Agency will seek input on critical scientific issues from its partners within the Federal government and from outside scientists who have relevant expertise. EPA will also further consider the more than 7,000 comments it received from its July 2010 Call for Information, including comments noting that burning certain types of biomass may emit the same amount of CO2 emissions that would be emitted if they were not burned as fuel, while others may result in a net increase in CO2 emissions. Before the end of the three-year period, the agency intends to issue a second rulemaking that determines how these emissions should be treated or counted under GHG permitting requirements.

    The Agency will also issue guidance shortly that will provide a basis that state or local permitting authorities may use to conclude that the use of biomass as fuel is the best available control technology for GHG emissions until the agency can complete an action on the three-year deferral in July. In a separate but related letter, EPA is notifying the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) that it will grant its petition to reconsider the portion of the May 2010 tailoring rule that addresses the same issue.

    CO2 emissions from biomass-fired and other biogenic sources are generated during the combustion or decomposition of biologically based material. Sources covered by this decision would include facilities that emit CO2 as a result of burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment and livestock management facilities, landfills and fermentation processes for ethanol production.

 

    On January 4, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Jackson seeking immediate action on the treatment of biomass under the Tailoring Rule. The letter says that the agency's response to the matter is "critical to the future of the role that biomass will play in our nation's renewable energy future" because regulation of the fuel source has "created significant uncertainty in the biomass energy market."

    On January 2, 2011, air permitting requirements began for large GHG emitting industries that are planning to build new facilities or make major modifications to existing ones [See WIMS 1/3/11]. These facilities must obtain air permits and implement energy efficiency measures or, where available, cost-effective technology to reduce their GHG emissions. This includes the nation's largest GHG emitters, such as power plants and refineries. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these GHG permitting requirements.

    Access a release from EPA and link to more information (click here). Access a release from NAFO with a link to the Senators' letter (click here). Access the NAFO website for additional background (click here).

National Oil Spill Commission Releases Complete Final Report

Jan 11: As promised, the National Oil Spill Commission, established by President Obama on May 22, 2010, to investigate the root causes of the spill and provide recommendations on how to prevent and mitigate the impact of any future spills that result from offshore drilling, released its extensive, 398-page final report. Also available is a document entitled, Recommendation for Decision Makers and a Multimedia Presentation Summarizing the Commission's Report. On January 6, the Commission released in advance, the chapter from the full report that containing the key findings from its extensive investigation into the causes of the blowout of BP's Macondo well [See WIMS 1/6/11]. The Commission is now scheduled to host a New Orleans forum tomorrow for interested members of the public to learn about and discuss the Commission's final report and recommendations for avoiding another spill disaster.

 

    U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works commented on the final report saying, "The report and recommendations released today underscore the significant safety and environmental risks associated with offshore drilling, and spotlight the systemic lapses that led to the tragic Deepwater Horizon spill. Some steps have already been taken to improve safety, but this report makes clear that more needs to be done to prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move forward on legislation that addresses the Commission's recommendations, ensures that oil companies are held accountable, and protects jobs, coastal communities and the environment. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will also hold a hearing with the Oil Spill Commission members in the coming weeks."

 

   House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) released a statement saying, "Congress needs to ensure that offshore energy production meets the highest safety standards, but as gasoline prices continue to rise we cannot allow ourselves to become increasingly dependent on hostile foreign nations for our energy needs.  Our economic competitiveness, American jobs and our national security are all dependent on getting this right and finding responsible ways to move forward with offshore and onshore American energy production. . . Reforms should accomplish our shared goals of improving safety, allowing drilling to move forward in a timely manner, and putting people back to work. Proposals that prolong the de facto moratorium in the Gulf, cost American jobs, or delay future energy production will be viewed skeptically in both the House and Senate."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), who led a key Congressional investigation into the BP spill last year and co-authored the first legislation to establish an independent spill investigation, said he will introduce legislation reflecting the Commission's recommendations combined with additional legislation which passed the House in August. He said final enactment of that legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans. Rep. Markey said, "Because systemic safety and oversight issues regarding the offshore oil industry persist, if we do not enact reforms, there will likely be repeats of this disaster. The spill commission's independent assessment of America's worst oil spill must lead to reforms, and today's release of the commission's report needs to end the objections that Republican leaders in Washington have raised to legislative action. Some key Republican leaders previously have said that we should wait for the results of this investigation before passing legislation to respond. The results are now in and now it is time for action."

 

    The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) will hold its first hearing of the new Congress to examine the report and recommendations (including any recommendations for legislative action) issued by the National Commission January 26. The Commission's two co-chairs are expected to testify. In an announcement, Senator Bingaman noted that the Committee unanimously reported a bill in the last Congress (S.3516) that he said would "raise the bar on well safety, blowout prevention, oil spill response and worker training. Such legislation continues to be a top priority."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) and many environmental organizations reacted to the final report. API said the industry has already taken significant action to further improve safety in offshore operations consistent with the Commission's recommendations. API Upstream Director Erik Milito said the group is still in the process of reviewing the commission's report but is pleased the commission is recommending increased funding for the Federal agency responsible for inspecting and monitoring offshore activity. However, he said "API is deeply concerned that the commission's report casts doubt on an entire industry based on its study of a single incident. This does a great disservice to the thousands of men and women who work in the industry and have the highest personal and professional commitment to safety." 

 

    A groups of eight non-profit groups called on Congress to heed a key recommendation in the final report from the bipartisan National Commission. The recommendation is that "Congress should dedicate 80 percent of the Clean Water Act penalties to long-term restoration of the Gulf of Mexico" (see page 280 of report). Last year, U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and David Vitter (R-LA) and U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) introduced legislation that would require at least 80 percent of the civil and criminal penalties charged to BP under the Clean Water Act to be returned to the Gulf Coast for long-term economic and environmental recovery. However, those bills expired at the end of the lame duck session for the previous Congress last month.

 

    In a joint statement the groups said, "The oil spill commission recognizes that we cannot compound one tragedy with another. Absent congressional action, Clean Water Act fines automatically will be deposited into the federal treasury. Congress should invest Clean Water Act penalties in the aggressive and comprehensive restoration of the ecosystem, creating thousands of new jobs and providing significant benefits to the commercial fishing and tourism industries, among others, impacted by the spill damage to the ecosystem." The statement was from the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Environmental Defense Fund, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Ocean Conservancy, Oxfam America, and The Nature Conservancy. Many other organizations issued separate statements (See contacts below).

 

    Access the complete final report or individual chapters and appendices (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and further information (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access the complete statement from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access Rep. Markey's complete statement (click here). Access a Committee announcement from Senator Bingaman and link to S.3516 (click here). Access the complete API release (click here). Access the joint statement from the 8 groups (click here). Access statements from: NRDC (click here); Defenders of Wildlife (click here); The Center for Public Integrity (click here); Earthjustice (click here); and Sierra Club (click here). 

Supreme Court Action Likely Ends Citizens Climate Nuisance Suit

Jan 10: The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an order denying a petition of mandamus in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil USA (Docket 10-294) [See WIMS 10/21/09]. The action effectively dismisses the case with no explanation. The case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (Case No. 07-60756) on October 16, 2009, represented a major decision regarding citizen enforcement, utilizing common-law actions and seeking damages resulting from corporate greenhouse gas emissions. The case followed another related decision in State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. Inc. issued on September 21, 2009, by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [See WIMS 9/22/09]. The Supreme Court will hear that case this year [See WIMS 12/7/10].

    The plaintiffs (i.e. Comer, et al), residents and owners of lands and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast, filed this putative class action in the district court against the named defendants, corporations that have principal offices in other states but are doing business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming, viz., the increase in global surface air and water temperatures, that in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' private property, as well as public property useful to them.

    In its conclusion the Appeals Court said, "The plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate standing for their public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims. We decline to find standing for the unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims and dismiss these claims. We find that the plaintiffs' remaining claims are justiciable and do not present a political question. We do not hazard, at this early procedural stage, an Erie guess into whether these claims actually state all the elements of a claim under Mississippi tort law, e.g., whether the alleged chain of causation satisfies the proximate cause requirement under Mississippi state common law; we leave this analysis to the district court in the first instance. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

    The National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) blog explains the convoluted case as follows: ". . .a District Court Judge in Mississippi held that Mississippi residents could NOT sue power companies and refineries for damages that resulted from global warming, but a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise on appeal. That decision was appealed to the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for en banc consideration, but after accepting the case, another judge recused herself because of a conflict of interest, eliminating the court's quorum to hear the appeal. However, the appellate court had already vacated the lower court's decision in anticipation of hearing it, so the lawsuit basically died. The petition for mandamus was an effort to keep the litigation going." The NAM blog comments, "This should be the end of the case because the plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari, but given how convoluted the lawsuit's path through the courts has been, perhaps there's a strange maneuver that could revive it." NAM called the case "one of the major -- and preposterous -- suits claiming damages against industry for causing global warming. . ."

    Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access the Supreme Court order (click here, page 26 of 40). Access the complete 36-page Appeals Court opinion (click here). Access the NAM blog post with more details (click here). Access a Pace Law School blog post explaining the convoluted appeals process in the case (click here).

26 Democrats Push For Senate Filibuster & Holds Rule Changes

Jan 7: As previously reported a number of Senate Democrats are proposing to revise the Senate Rules relating to filibuster so-called "Secret Holds"; & "Shadow Filibusters" [See WIMS 1/5/11]. Although even the procedure regarding when and how to change Senate Rules is debatable, it is generally recognized that rule changes are considered on the first day of a new Congressional session. Accordingly, U.S. Democratic Senators Tom Udall (NM), Tom Harkin (IA) and Jeff Merkley (OR) introduced a resolution (Senate Resolution 10) to reform the Senate rules that includes a package of provisions designed to "increase transparency, restore accountability and foster debate in an institution where obstruction and dysfunction have pushed aside progress for the American people."

 

    Currently, the resolution is co-sponsored by 26 senators. According to a release from Senator Udall the primary sponsor, the resolution comes after years of "unprecedented obstruction and a historic rise in the use of the filibuster." He points out that since 2006, there have been more filibusters than the total between 1920 and 1980. As a result of this "dysfunction," he says in the last Congress the Senate was unable to pass a single appropriations or budget bill, left more than 400 bills sent over by the House unconsidered, and left key executive appointments and judicial nominations to languish.

 

    Sen. Udall said, "Here in the Senate, open, honest debate has been replaced with secret backroom deals and partisan gridlock. Up-or-down votes, and sometimes even debate, on important issues have been unreasonably delayed or blocked entirely at the whim of a single senator. The American people are fed up with it. They are fed up with us. And I don't blame them. We need to bring the workings of the Senate out of the shadows and restore its accountability. Over the next two weeks the American people will have the opportunity to add their voices to the call for reform and I encourage them to speak loudly."

 

    Sen. Harkin said, "This reform effort is about one thing: ensuring the Senate can operate more fairly, effectively and democratically to meet the challenges of our time. When I first moved toward a reform effort in 1995, I saw an escalating arms race, where each side ratcheted up the use of the filibuster. The sad reality is that, today, because of the indiscriminate use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and to address problems is severely jeopardized. Sixteen years after I first introduced my proposal, it is even more apparent that for our government to properly function, we must reform and curb the use of the filibuster."

 

    Sen. Merkley said, "The clear and undeniable fact is that the Senate is broken. Thoughtful deliberation does not occur and far too much gets lost in a tangle of obstruction and delay. Our proposal will help restore the Senate to what the American people believe it ought to be - an institution that respects both minority and majority rights and allows fair consideration, debate and decisions on legislation and nominations."

 

    According to a summary, the rules reform package includes five provisions that would do the following:

• Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed: Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.
• Eliminate Secret Holds: Prohibits one senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.
• Guarantee Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority: Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.
• Talking Filibuster: Ensures real debate following a failed cloture vote. Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.
• Expedite Nominations: Provide for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees. Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments - something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.

    After meeting briefly on January 5, for swearing in ceremonies and some procedural considerations, the Senate is now scheduled to reconvene at 10:00 AM on January 25. It is expected that consideration of rules revisions will be an early matter for consideration when Senators reconvene. As WIMS previously reported support for the change is sharply divided along party lines, however, a rule change may be passed by a simple majority. The Senate votes are now divided with 51 Democrats, 2 Independents that caucus with Democrats and 47 Republicans.

 

    The Washington Post reported that following a Democratic caucus meeting yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that Democrats were ready to consider rules reform on their own. He said, "It's very clear that Democrats want to change the rules. They believe, as I believe, the rules have been abused, as I said in my opening statement yesterday. And we're going to work toward that. We hope that the Republicans see the light of day and are willing to work with us. If not, we'll have to do something on our own."

 

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on January 5, . . one party shouldn't be allowed to force its will on everyone else. And thanks to the Senate, it rarely has. And that's why a recent proposal to change the Senate's rules by some on the other side is such a bad idea. . . a proposal to change the Senate rules so they can continue do exactly what they want with even fewer members than before. Instead of changing their behavior in response to the last election, they want to change the rules. Well, I would suggest that this is precisely the kind of approach a supermajority standard [i.e. 60-vote rule] is meant to prevent."

 

    In addition to Udall, Harkin and Merkley, the resolution is currently co-sponsored by the following senators: Dick Durbin (IL), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sherrod Brown (OH), Mark Begich (AK), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Michael Bennet (CO), Barbara Boxer (CA), Benjamin L. Cardin (MD), Bob Casey (PA), Christopher Coons (DE), Al Franken (MN), Kay Hagan (NC), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Joe Manchin (WV), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Udall (CO), Mark Warner (VA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access legislative details for S.RES.10 including a list of cosponsors (click here). Access a release from Senator Udall (click here). Access a video from Senator Merkley (click here). Access the complete statement from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access the FixTheSenateNow campaign website for extensive background information (click here). Access the Washington Post article (click here).

BP Oil Spill Commission Cites "A Failure Of Management"

Jan 6: The National Oil Spill Commission, established by President Obama on May 22, 2010, to investigate the root causes of the spill and provide recommendations on how to prevent and mitigate the impact of any future spills that result from offshore drilling. The Commission, following extensive hearings and investigation, but without subpoena power, has announced that it will release its final report on January 11, 2011. The Commission also announced that on January 12, it will host a New Orleans forum for interested members of the public to learn about and discuss the Commission's final report and recommendations for avoiding another spill disaster.

 

    The report will contain the Commission's complete examination of impacts and considerations regarding the BP's Macondo well blowout, including chapters on a history of events before and after the blowout, the need for both improved corporate and government safety rules and response practices, challenges for restoring and protecting the Gulf's environment, considerations regarding the Arctic and drilling "frontiers," and the Commission's official recommendations to President Obama, the Congress and industry for avoiding a similar episode. There will also be a separate Chief Counsel's report on the blowout. Today the Commission released in advance the chapter a chapter from the upcoming full report that contains the key findings from its extensive investigation into the causes of the blowout of BP's Macondo well.

    On April 20, 2010, the disaster killed 11 workers, seriously injured many others, and spewed uncontrolled over four million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months, creating the largest oil spill ever in American waters. Among the findings from the chapter the Commission indicates, "The well blew out because a number of separate risk factors, oversights, and outright mistakes combined to overwhelm the safeguards meant to prevent just such an event from happening. But most of the mistakes and oversights at Macondo can be traced back to a single overarching failure -- a failure of management. Better management by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean would almost certainly have prevented the blowout by improving the ability of individuals involved to identify the risks they faced, and to properly evaluate, communicate, and address them."

    Commission Co-Chair William K. Reilly commented on the Commission's findings saying, "My observation of the oil industry indicates that there are several companies with exemplary safety and environment records. So a key question posed from the outset by this tragedy is, do we have a single company, BP, that blundered with fatal consequences, or a more pervasive problem of a complacent industry? Given the documented failings of both Transocean and Halliburton, both of which serve the off shore industry in virtually every ocean, I reluctantly conclude we have a system-wide problem."

    Co-Chair Bob Graham said, "The Commission's findings only compound our sense of tragedy because we know now that the blowout of the Macondo well was avoidable. This disaster likely would not have happened had the companies involved been guided by an unrelenting commitment to safety first. And it likely would not have happened if the responsible governmental regulators had the capacity and will to demand world class safety standards. There is nothing that we can do to bring back the lives of the men we lost that day. But we can honor their memory by pledging to take steps necessary to avoid repeating the fatal practices of the past."

    Other key findings from the chapter include: ". . .the Macondo blowout was the product of several individual missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean, which government regulators lacked the authority, the necessary resources, and the technical expertise to prevent." Also, "The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again. Rather, the root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur."

    The chapter reports that these failures were preventable. Errors and misjudgments by at least three companies -- BP, Halliburton and Transocean -- contributed to the disaster. Federal regulations did not address many of the key issues -- for example, no regulation specified basic procedures for the negative pressure test used to evaluate the cement seal or minimum criteria for test success. The chapter also notes, "Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blowout clearly saved those companies significant time (and money)."

    Access a release from the Commission (click here). Access the complete 48-page chapter (click here). Access the announcement on the New Orleans meeting (click here). Access the Commission website for complete background and further information (click here).