Enviros Oppose EPA's New Proposed Cooling Water Intake Rule

Mar 28: As required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and pursuant to a settlement agreement, U.S. EPA is proposing for public comment standards to protect billions of fish and other aquatic organisms drawn each year into cooling water systems at large power plants and factories. The proposal, based on Section 316(b) of CWA, would establish a common sense framework, putting a premium on public input and flexibility. 

 

    The proposed rule is one of the Republican designated, high profile EPA rulemakings which have been targeted for extensive oversight. Late last year, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) and Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee called on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to provide greater transparency as the Agency considers rules for cooling water intake structures at existing electric generation and manufacturing facilities. He said, "Given that this rulemaking has the potential to affect more than 400 power plants throughout the country and could impact energy supply and reliability, I am concerned about the direction of the proposal and its timing. The potential retrofit costs could be substantial ($200-300 million per unit for coal and $700 million to $1 billion for nuclear power plants) and some coal steam generators may not have the space necessary for the installation of cooling towers and other associated equipment. This could result in the retirement of some of these generators." He called on EPA to allow 180 days at minimum for the public to digest and prepare comments for a rule of this magnitude [See WIMS 12/8/10]. 

    Nancy Stoner, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water said, "This proposal establishes a strong baseline level of protection and then allows additional safeguards for aquatic life to be developed through a rigorous site-specific analysis, an approach that ensures the most up to date technology available is being used. It puts implementation analysis in the hands of the permit writers, where requirements can be tailored to the particular facility. The public's comments will be instrumental in shaping safeguards for aquatic life and to build a commonsense path forward. The input we receive will make certain that we end up with a flexible and effective rule to protect the health of our waters and ecosystems."

    Safeguards against impingement will be required for all facilities above a minimum size; closed-cycle cooling systems may also be required on a case by case basis when, based on thorough site-specific analysis by permitting authorities, such requirements are determined to be appropriate. EPA is proposing the regulation as a result of a settlement agreement with Riverkeeper, Inc. and other environmental groups [See WIMS 1/26/07, WIMS 4/2/09].

    EPA indicates that for "fish impingement" (i.e. being pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake structure), existing facilities that withdraw at least 25 percent of their water exclusively for cooling purposes and have a design intake flow of greater than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) would be required to reduce fish impingement under the proposed regulations. To ensure flexibility, the owner or operator of the facility will be able to choose one of two options for meeting best technology available requirements for reducing impingement. They may conduct monitoring to show the specified performance standards for impingement mortality of fish and shellfish have been met, or they may demonstrate to the permitting authority that the intake velocity meets the specified design criteria. EPA estimates that more than half of the facilities that could be impacted by this proposed rule already employ readily available technologies that are likely to put them into compliance with the proposed standard.

    For "fish entrainment" (i.e. being drawn into cooling water systems and affected by heat, chemicals or physical stress), EPA is proposing a site-specific determination to be made based on local concerns and on the unique circumstances of each facility. The proposed rule establishes requirements for the facility owner to conduct comprehensive studies and develop other information as part of the permit application, and then establishes a public process, with opportunity for public input, by which the appropriate technology to reduce entrainment mortality would be implemented at each facility after considering site-specific factors.

    EPA indicates that because new units can incorporate the most efficient, best-performing technology directly into the design stage of the project, thus lowering costs and avoiding constraints associated with technology that has already been locked in, the proposed rule would require closed-cycle cooling (cooling towers) for new units at existing facilities, as is already required for new facilities. The public will be able to comment on the proposal upon its publication in the Federal Register. EPA will conduct a 90 day comment period, and will carefully consider those comments before taking final action on the proposal. The administrator must take final action by July 27, 2012.

 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Riverkeeper issued a release saying, "The proposed rule, released this evening (March 28), was supposed to modernize the way power plants take in and release water used for cooling. Instead, EPA will leave it up to state agencies to figure out requirements for plants, but decades of experience have shown that states lack the resources and expertise to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis and have complained to EPA of the extreme burden of having to do so.

    Riverkeeper's Executive Director, Paul Gallay said, "We expected more out of the EPA to protect the country's waterways from power plants' destructive impacts. A case-by-case approach will simply not work. Instead, it will continue an endless cycle of paperwork and litigation that will leave water bodies across the country unprotected and countless species at risk." The groups said, "In the absence of a national cooling water rule for nearly 40 years, the country's waterways have been subjected to case-by-case determinations by individual permit writers, typically state agencies, exercising 'best professional judgment' when deciding what cooling system a plant can use." In 2001, EPA identified closed-cycle recirculating cooling systems as the best technology available for new power plants to use, but this did not extend to existing plants.

    The groups said, with nearly 500 U.S. power plants still relying on the "antiquated and destructive, once-through cooling system," each plant can withdraw at least 50 million (and often, more than a billion) gallons of cooling water. This water goes through a condenser where it absorbs heat from the boiler steam, and then is discharged back into the water at higher temperatures. Not only does this super-heated water kill marine life but billions of fish are sucked in with the water and killed with this system. Environmental groups want all power and manufacturing plants, new or old, to use closed-cycle cooling systems. This would generally reduce that amount of water taken in by 95 percent when compared with once-through cooling, leaving trillions of gallons of water untouched every year and fish out of cooling systems. Some plants have voluntarily moved to this system but other still refuse to make the move.

    Reed Super, an attorney representing Riverkeeper and others, who has worked on the cooling water rule since 2000 said, "EPA has the ability to set national standards that would protect the environment with readily-available and affordable technology, but has instead abdicated the responsibility to state agencies who are simply not equipped to make these decisions alone. Unfortunately, EPA's proposal will perpetuate the unacceptable status quo that has allowed antiquated plants to withdraw nearly 100 trillion gallons from our waters each year and indiscriminately kill fish and wildlife, instead of recycling their cooling water as modern plants have for the last three decades."

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's Cooling Water Intake Structure website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the environmental organizations (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• DOI Report Shows Most Public Oil Lease Acres Remain Idle
• Sen. Hearing On Disease Clusters & Environmental Health
• DOE Announces "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" Challenge
• BOEMRE Issues Guidance For Offshore Deepwater Drilling
• U.S. Climate Change Negotiator Position Announcement
• Pacific Merchant Shipping Asso. v. Goldstene (CARB)

(Click here for details)

Energy Debate Begins To Heat Up With Same Old Arguments

Mar 24: Calls by President Obama in his March 11 press conference for the Department of Interior to report on the number of unused oil and gas leases on public lands, as well as proposals to end oil company subsidies; and recent Republican proposals for the Administration to stop getting in the way of more drilling have resurrected the "Use It Or Lose It" debate of a couple of years ago.

 

    On March 10, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a statement on rising gas prices saying, "American oil production reached an 8-year high in 2010, and yet prices continue to climb. We need to finally enact clean energy solutions that will tell Gaddafi and the Saudis that we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand. Despite the Republican rhetoric, the oil and gas industry has more leases to drill for oil in the U.S. then they can even make use of.  Last year the Bureau of Land Management issued 4,090 drilling permits, but industry drilled only 1,480 new wells, or just a little over a third of what they own. And of the 79 million acres of public lands the oil companies hold under lease, they are only actually producing oil on 18.5 million acres, only under a quarter of what they hold."

 

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) released the following statement on Congressional Democrats and the White House's "use it or lose it" claims regarding energy leases. Rep. Hastings said, "In an attempt to shift blame for rising gasoline prices, President Obama and Congressional Democrats are desperately attempting to resurrect an old, discredited myth. But their story doesn't match reality. Federal regulations and laws, especially those imposed by the Obama Administration, are the greatest factors affecting the pace of developing leases. The Administration has imposed regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock, and now wants to turn around and say production is not moving fast enough. The Obama Administration can't have it both ways. The truth is that 'use it or lose it' is already law. The moment a lease is issued the clock starts ticking and rent is paid every year to taxpayers. Instead of recycling old myths, the Obama Administration should examine their own polices that block American energy production and cost American jobs."

 

    House Speaker John Boehner also indicated in a blog posting entitled Deja Vu: Dems Push 'Use It or Lose It' Hoax to Distract From Policies Driving Up Gas Prices, Costing U.S. Jobs saying, President Obama and Senate Democrats recently claimed American job creators are essentially 'sitting' on energy leases and doing nothing with them. The Speaker said, "We won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil if politicians in Washington remain dependent on hollow talking points like 'use it or lose it.'   Americans are looking for real solutions and a sustained commitment to expanding American energy production that will lower gas prices and create more jobs, which is what our American Energy Initiative is all about."

 

    Meanwhile, 48 Senate Democrats issued a release last week and letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) calling on Republicans to abandon a proposal they say would make excessive speculation in the oil markets even worse. They said, "Republicans' reckless spending bill, H.R. 1, would reduce funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by one-third, forcing layoffs to the watchdog agency that polices market manipulation that drives up oil prices. Experts say that with demand fairly stable and supply at an all-time high, speculation is a factor driving up gas prices. One expert said speculation may add as much as $1.50 a gallon to the price consumers pay at the pump for gasoline."

 

    The Senators said, "We find it equally troubling that your preferred budget would cut billions of dollars in investments in critical programs focused on developing new alternative fuels and clean energy technologies, undermining our competitiveness and increasing our trade deficit with oil producing nations. We urge you to reverse these policies that will only set our nation backward, and put America's independence from foreign oil even further out of reach. . ."

 

    In a blog posting by the Wilderness Society on March 22, they said, "With summer driving season just a few months off, the oil companies and their allies in Congress have begun to beat the drum about 'more drilling.' They say that it will lower the price at the pump, although that simply isn't so. In fact, the United States on an annual basis drills more oil and gas wells than any other country on earth. We're even producing more oil today than we were in any of the Bush years – but that production has had zero impact on reducing prices.  Why? Because the world oil price determines the price of our gasoline at the pump, and that is affected by issues unrelated to our production, such as protests in the oil-rich middle east and rising demand from China.

    While the oil companies loudly push for more drilling, there is something else they are happy to keep quiet. The oil companies are sitting on more than 29 million acres of onshore federal oil and gas leases that they are not even using – an area bigger than the state of Ohio, locked up by oil companies. And they are not only sitting on tens of millions of acres of federal leases they aren't using, they also aren't using  thousands of drilling permits that were issued to them last year by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management. . ."

    Erik Milito, upstream director for American Petroleum Institute (API) , called the "use-it-or-lose-it" argument "a convenient way to detract attention from policies that undermine the mission of supplying Americans with the energy they need." He said, ". . . we'd like to set record straight – again – regarding charges by administration officials and members of Congress that American oil and natural gas companies are sitting on oil leases granted by the government, stubbornly refusing to turn them into producing leases. . . So to set the record straight, we are making available to you two fact sheets – one for offshore and one for onshore – that explain exploration and production timelines. We believe they offer a thorough explanation of just what is involved, and how long it takes to turn a lease into a producing field – as much as 10 years. . . It is ridiculous for anyone to imply that these companies would be willing to spend billions of dollars to acquire leases, and then simply sit on them while their competitors around the world are busy producing oil and natural gas. . ."

    Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Hastings (click here). Access the blog posting from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access the Republican's American Energy Initiative Facebook page (click here). Access a release from Senate Democrats (click here). Access the blog post from the Wilderness Society (click here). Access a release from API and link to the fact sheets and the complete statement (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA's Radiation Monitoring Continues To Confirm No U.S. Concern
• NRC OIG Finds Defects In Nuclear Reactor Components
• USDA & DOI Release Wildland Fire Management Documents
• NAS Report On Challenges Facing The Corps of Engineers
• EPA Advisors To Review Report To Congress On Black Carbon
• Stewart and Jasper Orchards v. Salazar

(Click here for details)

New International Effort To Tackle "Trash In Our Oceans"

Mar 25:  With vast amounts of marine litter posing multiple threats, from harming wildlife to damaging tourism to loading the human food chain with potentially cancer-causing toxins, a United Nations conference issued a call for concerted action against "an evil present in all the world's seas." In a commitment statement issued at the end of week-long meeting in Honolulu, experts from governments, research bodies, businesses and trade associations stressed the urgent need to improve global waste management, voicing concern at the growing presence of plastic debris among other rubbish discarded into the oceans, on shore, or brought indirectly to the sea by rivers, sewage, storm water or winds. The conference included delegates from some 35 countries, governments, scientific bodies, and corporations such as Coca-Cola Company and trade associations such as Plastics Europe.

    UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Achim Steiner, whose agency organized the meeting in cooperation with the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said, "Marine debris -- trash in our oceans -- is a symptom of our throw-away society and our approach to how we use our natural resources. It affects every country and every ocean, and shows us in highly visible terms the urgency of shifting towards a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy."

    Monica Medina, NOAA's Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere said, "This conference comes at a critical time for our world. The oceans and coasts are facing a multitude of stressors, including marine debris, that lead to consequences that have both ecosystem and economic impacts. It is vitally important to bring together people committed to these issues to share ideas, develop partnerships and move us all a step closer to the changes that are badly needed for our oceans and coasts."

    The "Honolulu Commitment" issued at the end of the meeting, the 5th International Marine Debris Conference, calls on "international organizations, governments at national and sub-national levels, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens and other stakeholders" to halt and reverse the occurrence of marine debris by minimizing waste and turning it into a resource in an environmentally sustainable manner. Citing the harmful impact of marine debris, UNEP said some 270 species worldwide are affected by entanglement in or ingestion of the trash marine, including 86 per cent of all sea turtles species, 44 per cent of all seabird species and 43 per cent of all marine mammal species.

    Waste management is one of 10 economic sectors highlighted in UNEP's Green Economy Report launched last month, highlighting enormous opportunities for turning land-based waste, the major contributor to marine debris, into a more economically valuable resource [See WIMS 2/22/11]. The value of the waste-to-energy market, for example, was estimated at $20 billion in 2008 and is projected to grow by 30 per cent by 2014.

    Also, in a major report issued two years ago -- Marine Litter: A Global Challenge -- UNEP detailed the human actions, accidental or intentional, that are the sources of marine litter. Ocean-based sources include merchant shipping, cruise liners, fishing vessels and military as well as offshore oil and gas platforms and drilling rigs, and aquaculture. On land, the culprits include beaches, piers, harbors, marinas, docks and riverbanks, and municipal landfills located on the coast, as well as rivers, lakes and ponds that are used as illegal dump sites, discharges of untreated municipal sewage and storm water, industrial facilities, and medical waste.

    Access a release from the UN with links to more information and the Honolulu Commitment (click here). Access a more detailed release from UNEP with further links to related information (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• American Chemistry Council CEO Discusses TSCA & REACH
• Changes Proposed For 2011 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting
• NOAA, FDA Continue To Re-Test Gulf Seafood & Post Results
• Roundtable For Sustainable Biofuels Certification System
• Laboratory Guidelines For Working With Hazardous Chemicals
• EPA Seeks Applicants For RE-Powering America's Land
• Study Compares Polystyrene Foam To Paper- Or Corn-Based Products
• Earth Hour 2011: Saturday March 26, 8.30 PM

(Click here for details)

Detailed Forensic Report On BP Oil Spill Blowout Preventer

Mar 23: The Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which is examining the Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill, announced that it will hold a seventh session of public hearings the week of April 4, 2011. The hearings, which will focus specifically on the forensic examination of the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer (BOP), are scheduled to take place at the Holiday Inn Metairie at the New Orleans Airport. 

 

    BOEMRE and the Coast Guard have made the extensive, detailed forensic examination report available. The report was prepared by U.S. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Columbus, the contractor that performed the examination and has now been released to the parties-in-interest in the investigation, members of the Technical Working Group who witnessed the examination at NASA's Michoud Facility in New Orleans, and the public. 

 

    The forensic examination is one aspect of the much broader comprehensive investigation into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, loss of life, casualty loss, and the subsequent oil spill. Over the course of its investigation, the JIT heard testimony from more than 70 witnesses and examined a broad range of material including photographs, video, data, documents, and physical evidence. Although the full investigation report is not expected to be released until sometime this summer, a report on the BOP and other matters is scheduled to be issued within the next month.

 

    In brief summary the report recounts that, "On the evening of April 20, 2010 control of the well was lost, allowing hydrocarbons to enter the drilling riser and reach the Deepwater Horizon, resulting in explosions and subsequent fires. The fires continued to burn for approximately 36 hours. The rig sank on April 22, 2010. From shortly before the explosions until May 20, 2010, when all ROV intervention ceased, several efforts were made to seal the well. The well was permanently plugged with cement and "killed" on September 19, 2010."

 

    One of the conclusions regarding the BOP which is designed to shear and seal the drill pipe should an accident occur, is that, "The drill pipe within the BOP stack was under a compressive load that elastically buckled the pipe between the Upper VBRs and the Upper Annular. This elastic buckling condition forced the drill pipe toward the sidewall of the wellbore and outside of the cutting blade surfaces of the BSRs. When the ram blocks closed they were not able to overcome the

buckling forces holding the drill pipe against the sidewall of the wellbore. The blocks could not reposition the entire circumference of the drill pipe to within the shearing surfaces of the BSRs."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) the current top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, and whose Subcommittee in the last Congressional session conducted many hearings on the BP oils spill, issued a statement on the release of the report. The Markey release summarizes the conclusion of the study saying, ". . .multiple mechanisms deployed as designed inside of the BOP, including the so-called 'blind shear rams.' However, since the drilling pipe inside of the large, multi-ton safety device had buckled, the cutting devices hit the pipe off-center, failing to fully sever the drilling pipe and allowing oil to continue to flow."

 

    Rep. Markey said, "A blowout preventer is like a car's airbag. It can't prevent the car accident, but it is supposed to deploy and prevent fatalities. This report calls into question whether oil industry claims about the effectiveness of blowout preventers are just a bunch of hot air. It isn't clear from this report that blowout preventers can actually prevent major blowouts once they've started. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the blind shear rams did not seem to work. The spill commission's report said that the problems within the oil industry that led to the BP spill were systemic, and not unique to this disaster. Now we know there could also be systemic design issues with blowout preventers that could cause them to be ineffective, even when deployed as intended. We need a full review of every single blowout preventer used in United States waters, and revisit the designs of these supposed machines of last resort."

 

    Access a release from BOEMRE (click here). Access the two volume report is available online (click here); and (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey and link to the full exchange of correspondence between Markey and DOI on the investigation into the BOP (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA Provides State "Dashboards" To Compare Water Quality Trends
• EPA Promoted Coal Ash Use With Incomplete Risk Information
• New Wiki Site Spotlights FOIA Violations By Obama Administration
• DOE/NREL RFP For Wind Industry Companies
• Nominations For Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee

(Click here for details)

EPA & DOE Updates On Radiation Levels Here & In Japan

Mar 22: During a detailed analysis of four west coast RadNet air monitor filters, U.S. EPA identified trace amounts of radioactive iodine, cesium, and tellurium consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident. EPA said, "These levels are consistent with the levels found by a Department of Energy monitor last week and are to be expected in the coming days." The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also released data recorded from its Aerial Monitoring System as well as ground detectors deployed along with its Consequence Management Response Teams. DOE said the information has also been shared with the government of Japan as part of the United States' ongoing efforts to support Japan with the recovery and response effort.

 

    EPA's samples were captured by three monitors in California and one in Washington State on Friday, March 18 and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis. The data was reviewed over the weekend and the analysis was completed Monday night (March 21). The radiation levels detected on the filters from California and Washington monitors are hundreds of thousands to millions of times below levels of concern. In addition, last night preliminary monitor results in Hawaii detected minuscule levels of an isotope that is also consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident. This detection varies from background and historical data in Hawaii. This isotope was detected at a fixed monitor in Hawaii, and it is far below any level of concern for human health. The sampling filter from this monitor is being sent to EPA's national radiation lab for further analysis.

    EPA said that in a typical day, Americans receive doses of radiation from natural sources like rocks, bricks and the sun that are about 100,000 times higher than what we have detected coming from Japan. EPA said, ". . .the levels we're seeing coming from Japan are 100,000 times lower than what you get from taking a roundtrip international flight." EPA is in the process of conducting detailed filter analyses for fixed monitors located in Oregon. EPA's RadNet filter results for San Francisco, Seattle, Riverside and Anaheim, California detected minuscule quantities of iodine isotopes and other radioactive particles that pose no health concern at the detected levels.

 

    DOE indicated in a release that on March 15, 33 experts from the Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) arrived in Japan along with more than 17,200 pounds of equipment. After initial deployments at U.S. consulates and military installations in Japan, these teams have utilized their unique skills, expertise and equipment to help assess, survey, monitor and sample areas for radiation. The 33 team members joined another six DOE personnel already in Japan. Since arriving in Japan, NNSA teams have collected and analyzed data gathered from more than 40 hours of flights aboard Department of Defense aircraft and thousands of ground monitoring points. The DOE data has been collected, analyzed and posted on the Department's website. Consistent with the President's commitment to share important information related to health and safety with the public, the Department will seek to update the data posted on its website daily.

 

    A release from Greenpeace citing information available from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) and the Ministry of Food Safety indicates that, "Tests carried by the Tokyo metropolitan government found 210 becquerels of iodine-131 per 1 liter of tap water in the city, more than twice the limit of 100 becquerels considered safe for: babies. [And,] the Japanese authorities have started reporting on the contamination levels found in 11 different vegetables. In many vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage, from the Fukushima prefecture - the most contaminated area, the radioactivity levels exceeded safety limits set by the Ministry of Food and Safety. In Motomiya, 50 km East of the plant, the Ceasium-137 concentration in 'kukitachina' leaves was detected to be 82,000 becquerels per kilogram, 164 times the limit. Government called on consumers not to eat the 11 vegetables and food exports from the contaminated areas have been banned."

 

    In the release, Greenpeace said, "This alarming rise in reports of radioactive contamination in Japan's food chain and water supply once again demonstrates that the government's constant reassurances and downplaying of the Fukushima nuclear crisis and risks public health are at best unreliable. A few days ago, Tokyo Metropolitan Government stated that radiation levels had decreased in the city, yet today (March 23) warns that babies should not be given Tokyo tap water. The authorities may be trying to brave about the current crisis by trying to avoid causing panic, but are they risking people's health in the process?"

    "The Fukushima disaster once more demonstrates that it is impossible to guarantee public safety in the event of nuclear accident. Over the last two weeks, we've had inconsistent and unclear information from Japanese authorities, and often contradictory advice from international nuclear regulators. Any attempt to throw the nuclear industry a climate change lifeline in the wake of the Fukushima crisis is a dangerous deceit. The only smart response to this nuclear wake up call would be for governments around the world would be to heavily invest in energy efficiency and to redouble their efforts to harness safe and secure renewable energy sources."

    Environment America issued a release saying in part, "We must learn from this moment and never allow this fate for our children. More than 108 million Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, and Tokyo is 150 miles from the Fukushima plant. We should be ensuring the relative safety of existing plants, putting a moratorium on any new plants, and beginning to phase out our use of nuclear power. In all cases the process should start, but not end, with plants on fault lines, near coasts or large bodies of water, in the hurricane zone or of the same design as the reactors in Japan. We can and must move away from energy technologies that put our environment and families' health at massive risk and repower our country with clean, renewable energy, like wind and solar power."

    A national opinion survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI) of 814 Americans on March 15-16, 2011, indicates a widespread concern about nuclear power. In a release, the groups indicate, "While a drop in public support for nuclear power would be expected after an incident like the Fukushima reactor crisis, the nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a much stronger response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power to wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs." The poll found that 53% of Americans support a moratorium on new nuclear construction, and more than three in four Americans (76%) are more supportive now of making a transition from nuclear power to renewable energy, like wind and solar, than they were a month ago.

 

    Beyond major nuclear power policy questions, the survey also found a majority of Americans living near nuclear power plants ill equipped to deal with a major disaster. According to the survey, over half (52 percent) of Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor do not know "what to do in the event of nuclear reactor emergency," such as "the evacuation route and what other steps to take." The poll indicates that nearly one in four (24 percent) of Americans say they live within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor.   

    Access a release from EPA including the data (click here). Access more information and updates from EPA's Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring website (click here). Access a release from DOE and link to the data (click here). Access DOE's Situation in Japan website for more information (click here). Access more information about NNSA's emergency response capabilities (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace with links to the cited information, a briefing on radiation and health, and more information on Greenpeace activities in Japan (click here). Access a release from Environment America (click here). Access a release from CSI on the opinion survey with details (click here). Access the March 23 update from the UN-IAEA with more information on the food and water contamination (click here). Access the IAEA website for more information (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• Bingaman & Murkowski Release CES White Paper For Comment
• CEQ Launches NEPA Pilot Project Program; Solicits Proposals
• U.S. To Assist Developing Countries On Water Issues
• EDF Reports On International Developments With EU REACH Program
• Groups Sue Re: USDA's GE "Roundup Ready" Alfalfa Decision
• Enviros Challenge NPDES Permit For Allegheny Energy
• Nationwide 2010 Census Data Releases Nearly Completed

(Click here for details)

UN Secretary-General Issues World Water Day Message

Mar 22: Today, on International World Water Day, a day to focus attention on the importance of freshwater and advocating for the sustainable management of freshwater resources, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued the following message. World Water Day, held annually on March 22, was recommended at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The United Nations General Assembly responded by designating March 22, 1993 as the first World Water Day. Each year, World Water Day highlights a specific aspect of freshwater. This year's theme, Water for cities: responding to the urban challenge, aims to spotlight and encourage governments, organizations, communities, and individuals to actively engage in addressing the defy of urban water management.

 

    In his message, the Secretary-General said, "As the world charts a more sustainable future, the crucial interplay among water, food and energy is one of the most formidable challenges we face. Without water there is no dignity and no escape from poverty. Yet the Millennium Development Goal target for water and sanitation is among those on which many countries lag the most. In little over a generation, 60 per cent of the global population will be living in towns and cities, with much of the increase taking place in the inner city slums and squatter settlements of the developing world. The theme of this year's observance of World Water Day -- "Water for Cities" -- highlights some of the main challenges of this increasingly urban future.

 

    "Urbanization brings opportunities for more efficient water management and improved access to drinking water and sanitation. At the same time, problems are often magnified in cities, and are currently outpacing our ability to devise solutions. Over the past decade, the number of urban dwellers who lack access to a water tap in their home or immediate vicinity has risen by an estimated 114 million, and the number of those who lack access to the most basic sanitation facilities has risen by 134 million. This 20 per cent increase has had a hugely detrimental impact on human health and on economic productivity: people are sick and unable to work.

 

    "Water challenges go beyond questions of access. In many countries, girls are forced to drop out of school owing to a lack of sanitation facilities, and women are harassed or assaulted when carrying water or visiting a public toilet. Moreover, the poorest and most vulnerable members of society often have little choice but to buy water from informal vendors at prices estimated to be 20 to 100 per cent higher than that of their richer neighbors, who receive piped city water in their homes. This is not just unsustainable; it is unacceptable.

 

    "Water problems will figure prominently at the forthcoming UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, in 2012 – Rio + 20. My High-level Panel on Global Sustainability and UN-Water are examining ways in which we can connect the dots among water, energy and food security, with the aim of reducing poverty and inequality, generating jobs, and minimizing the risks of climate change and environmental stress.

 

    "On World Water Day, I urge governments to recognize the urban water crisis for what it is -- a crisis of governance, weak policies and poor management, rather than one of scarcity. Let us also pledge to reverse the alarming decline in pro poor investment in water and sanitation. And let us reaffirm our commitment to ending the plight of the more than 800 million people who, in a world of plenty, still do not have the safe drinking water or sanitation they need for a life in dignity and good health."

 

    Access the Secretary-General message (click here). Access a release from the UN (click here). Access the World Water Day website for extensive information and background (click here). Access the UN WWD 2011 website (click here). Access a listing of 2011 International events (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• UN-IAEA Reports "Some Improvements" In Japanese Nuclear Crisis
• DOE Announces Second RFI On Rare Earth Metals
• GOP Governors Tell President About "Hostile" EPA Regulations
• DOI Approves First New Deepwater Exploration Plan Since BP Spill
• Finding The Blue Path For A Sustainable Economy
• Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Penn America Insurance Co.
• Huber v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection

(Click here for details)

EPA & DOE Report On Air Radiation Monitoring From Japan

Mar 18: In a joint statement from U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicated that the United States Government has an extensive network of radiation monitors around the country and no radiation levels of concern have been detected. EPA's RadNet system is designed to protect the public by notifying scientists, in near real time, of elevated levels of radiation so they can determine whether protective action is required. EPA's system has not detected any radiation levels of concern. Additionally, DOE has radiation monitoring equipment at research facilities around the country, which also have not detected any radiation levels of concern. As part of the Federal government's continuing effort to make activities and science transparent and available to the public,  EPA said it will continue to keep all RadNet data available in the current online database. 

    According to a release, as part of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization's International Monitoring System (IMS), DOE also maintains the capability to detect tiny quantities of radioisotopes that might indicate an underground nuclear test on the other side of the world. These detectors are extremely sensitive and can detect minute amounts of radioactive materials.

    The release indicates that on March 18, one of the monitoring stations in Sacramento, California that feeds into the IMS detected "miniscule quantities" of iodine isotopes and other radioactive particles that "pose no health concern at the detected levels." Collectively, the agencies said the levels amount to a level of approximately 0.0002 disintegrations per second per cubic meter of air (0.2 mBq/m3). Specifically, the level of Iodine-131 was 0.165 mBq/m3, the level of Iodine-132 was measured at 0.03 mBq/m3, the level of Tellurium-132 was measured at 0.04 mBq/m3, and the level of Cesium-137 was measured at 0.002 mBq/m3.

    Similarly, between March 16 and 17, a detector at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State detected trace amounts of Xenon-133, which is a radioactive noble gas produced during nuclear fission that poses no concern at the detected level. The levels detected were approximately 0.1 disintegrations per second per cubic meter of air (100 mBq/m3).

    The doses received by people per day from natural sources of radiation -- such as rocks, bricks, the sun and other background sources -- are 100,000 times the dose rates from the particles and gas detected in California or Washington State. These types of readings remain consistent with our expectations since the onset of this tragedy, and are to be expected in the coming days. The release indicates that following the explosion of the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 -- the worst nuclear accident in world history -- air monitoring in the United States also picked up trace amounts of radioactive particles, less than one thousandth of the estimated annual dose from natural sources for a typical person.

 

    Access a release from EPA and link to a special Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring (click here).

House Committee Approves H.R. 910; Senate Offers It As Amendment

Mar 15: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Chaired by Chaired by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) with Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) approved the controversial Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) sponsored by Chairman Upton [See WIMS 3/4/11]. The final vote on the amended bill was 34-19, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting for the approval. The three Democrats voting for the bill included: Representative Mike Ross (D-AR), Jim Matheson (D-UT) and John Barrow (D-GA). Chairman Upton said, "The bill will stop "EPA's controversial backdoor climate change agenda" which "would further drive up the price of energy for American consumers and job creators at a time when gas prices are already spiking and job creation remains weak."

 

    Despite the defeat of several amendments offered by Democrats regarding U.S. EPA's findings on the science, causes and impacts of climate change, an amendment offered by Rep. Matheson on "the sense of the Congress" was adopted by a voice vote. The amendment indicates:

 "It is the sense of the Congress that— (1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level; (2) addressing climate change is an international issue, involving complex scientific and economic considerations; (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis; and (4) [Congress should fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.]" [brackets indicate an amendment to the Matheson amendment].

    On the Senate side, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced an amendment Tuesday to a pending small business bill being considered by the Senate that he said is "identical to a bill, sponsored by Reps. Fred Upton, R-MI, and Ed Whitfield, R-KY, that is being considered in the House Energy and Commerce Committee." According to Sen. McConnell, the bill would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's back-door national energy tax from taking effect." The amendment was originally introduced as a stand-alone bill (S.482) by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee [See WIMS 3/4/11]. That bill has 43 co-sponsors including one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). In addition to Inhofe, McConnell was joined by two other senators who he said have taken a leadership role in the issue -- Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and John Barrasso (R-WY), Vice Chairman of the Republican Conference.

 

    Sen. McConnell indicated that the "unprecedented EPA regulations, designed to regulate carbon emissions from farmers, manufacturers and power plants, will lead to higher gasoline, grocery, electricity and natural gas prices, while stalling economic and job growth." He said, "These new regulations would destroy jobs at a time when Americans need them most. And they'd be especially devastating for states like Kentucky and other coal states. They're attempting to do through regulation what they couldn't do through legislation -- regardless of whether the American people want it or not. This is an insult to the millions of Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet or find a job."

 

    According to Capitol Hill reporters, "Reid attacked the block-EPA plan but said he would allow the amendment to come up for a vote." Reportedly he told reporters in the Capitol, "The Senate [small-business] bill creates jobs, and I don't know why they would want to divert attention from that. We will debate it, we will have a vote on it in due time. It is something that I don't favor, I think his amendment is very, very misguided."

 

    Sen. Inhofe commented on the Senate amendment and said, "The Energy Tax Prevention Act would end EPA's backdoor cap-and-trade agenda. That agenda is designed to make gasoline and electricity more expensive for consumers, families, farmers, truckers-essentially anyone who fills up or flips a switch.  It's also designed to restrict the supply and block the production of America's vast energy resources, which are the largest on Earth. Today was a wake-up call to my colleagues: we have legislation before us to help keep energy prices affordable.  Now they have a choice: to support the Obama Administration's attack on affordable energy, which will bring fewer jobs, a less competitive manufacturing sector, and a chronically sluggish economy, or vote for the Energy Tax Prevention Act to grow the economy and protect small businesses, manufacturers, and consumers from higher energy prices."

 

    Access the Republican markup website for amendments, votes, webcasts and statements (click here). Access the Democrats markup website for similar information and submitted opposition letters (click here). Access a release and comments on the amendment from Sen. McConnell (click here). Access a release and comments on the amendment from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access The Hill report on Senator Reid's comments about the amendment (click here). Access legislative details of H.R. 910 (click here). Access legislative details of S.482 (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA Proposes First-Ever Power Plant Rules For Mercury, Arsenic, Etc.
• House Passes Another Short-Term Budget CR
• USDA Study Indicates Success Of Agriculture Conservation Practices
• Great Waters Coalition Urges Senate To Reject Budget Cuts
• National Pork Producers, et al v. U.S. EPA

(Click here for details)

Japanese Quake, Tsunami & Nuclear Disaster: Few Good Answers

Mar 15: In the aftermath of the largest recorded earthquake to ever hit Japan (8.9) off the coast of the northeastern city of Sendai which triggered a powerful tsunami that has caused incalculable damage and loss of life, there are now significant concerns over the integrity of several nuclear reactors. Reports are that some 800 nuclear plant workers have been evacuated and some 50-60 workers, which must be thought of as heroes, remain in command of the breached facilities and face very high, if not lethal radiation exposures. Obviously, there are many concerns and questions about the potential near-term and long-term human health, economic, environmental and policy impacts both in Japan and internationally and few answers of good information at this point.

 

    In an effort to put the disaster into some factual context, amidst incredible speculations by many sources, WIMS has uncovered two informative article -- a timeline of events the Christian Science Monitor and a concise, point-by-point article by Matthew Bunn, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School entitled, Japan's nuclear power plant crisis: Some context. Also, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has launched daily briefings and updates on the nuclear reactor situation (links provide below).

 

    The Bunn article indicates, "Bad as it is, this accident is dramatically less catastrophic than Chernobyl.  That accident spread millions of curies of radioactivity -- 3-4% of all the radioactivity in the reactor core -- around the surrounding countryside, exposing millions of people in several countries. Large areas are uninhabitable to this day.  Here there is no real prospect of a runaway chain reaction as occurred at Chernobyl." However, Bunn says, "this is the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and in some respects worse than Three Mile Island."

 

    Bunn says the catastrophe, "is clearly an example of the huge importance of taking redundant safety systems seriously, and considering carefully the full scope of events that could occur.  Given the huge magnitude of the quake, I think it is impressive that all the affected reactors initially managed to shut down automatically as planned, and begin emergency cooling operations. . . This reinforces the view that whenever someone says there is less than a one-in-a-million chance of a complex system failing, there is more than a one-in-a-million chance they have made unjustified assumptions in their estimate."

 

    He says, "The reason that the disaster hasn't been worse was that the Japanese system had many, many safety precautions in place. However, on the subject of security, he indicates, "Security, by contrast, is something most people in the nuclear industry might get a half-hour briefing on once a year.  If you have intelligent adversaries, it wouldn't be a surprise to have the main power for the cooling and the backup power both fail — the adversaries would plan to make sure that happened."

 

    On the future of nuclear power, Bunn says, "It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the future of nuclear power in Japan, and the future of nuclear power elsewhere. China will likely continue its ambitious plans, for example. But if I had to guess, I would say public and investor perceptions of the safety of nuclear power around the world has been dealt a serious and lasting blow.  This did not take place in a developing country that had just built its first plant and hadn't had time to develop a proper safety culture -- this took place in Japan, one of the wealthiest, most experienced, and most safety-conscious nations on earth (though one that also has had a history of safety issues that were covered up and not reported to the regulator in a timely way)."   

 

    The timeline article summarizes some key facts to date as follows: Death toll: 2,722 (expected to be much higher); Confirmed missing: 3,742; Evacuated: 439,337; Houses damaged: 68,231; Houses destroyed: 4,648; and Countries offering aid: 102. Also, in separate reports some 140,000 people near the damaged reactors have been advised to remain indoors and attempt to seal their houses. The New York stock market reacted wildly today in response to the Japanese disaster, uncertain economic impacts both here and abroad, as well as the continuing unrest in Libya and north Africa.

 

    On March 14, House Energy & Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA), Subcommittee Ranking Members Bobby Rush (D-IL),  Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a letter to Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ranking Members, requesting an investigation and hearing to examine the safety and preparedness of nuclear power plants in the United States.

 

    The letter indicates, "The worsening nuclear crisis in Japan is raising serious questions in the minds of many Americans about the safety and preparedness of nuclear power plants in the United States. We request that the Committee conduct an investigation and hold hearings to examine this issue. The nuclear industry has downplayed the significance of the events in Japan. Over the weekend, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying organization, said:  'Obviously, any time you have an incident at a nuclear plant that involves any kind of damage or an explosion, it's not good. … But in the scheme of things, is it a disaster? We don't think so.'

    "The nuclear industry has also asserted that it is far better prepared to respond to a nuclear accident than the oil industry was in responding to the blowout of BP's Macondo well. The vice president of nuclear operations for the Nuclear Energy Institute stated: "The problem with the BP event is that they didn't have a Plan B. … We have, I would say, sufficient defense in depth. We have Plan B, C, D and possibly E.'

    "We hope the nuclear industry's self-confidence is warranted, but we should not accept the industry's assurances without conducting our own independent evaluation of the risks posed by nuclear reactors in the United States and the preparedness of industry and regulators to respond to those risks. This is especially important given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is actively considering license applications for new nuclear power plants, as well as renewal licenses for older existing reactors. In recent years, the NRC has approved over 60 license renewal applications, including several for plants with the same design as the endangered Japanese facilities. In fact, the NRC recently voted to renew the operating license for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is of the same design as some of the reactors experiencing severe problems in Japan."

    On March 12, Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) issued a brief statement in response to ongoing reports about the damage to Japanese nuclear facilities after a historic earthquake and tsunami hit the country on Friday, March 11. He said, "Our first priority is the safety of the Japanese people as they assess the damage and work to recover from this terrible natural disaster, and I support the President in his effort to provide assistance to the Japanese government and its people. I understand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical staff have offered support to help mitigate damage to the reactors, and our experts are closely monitoring developments at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and other affected facilities. As we extend our thoughts and prayers to those affected by this historic earthquake and the damage it wrought, we will carefully continue to assess and examine the situation. The details of this tragedy are still unfolding. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is scheduled to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee next week, and we will use that opportunity to explore what is known in the early aftermath of the damage to Japanese nuclear facilities, as well as to reiterate our unwavering commitment to the safety of U.S. nuclear sites."

    Access the Bunn article (click here). Access the Christian Science Monitor article which contains links to related articles (click here). Access a release and the letter from Democrats (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the latest updates on the nuclear disaster from the IAEA (click here). Access a White House press briefing on March 14 with Greg Jaczko the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Republicans Reject EPA Science Findings On Climate Change
• United States v. Desnoyers
• Del-Ray Battery Company, et al v. Douglas Battery
• City of Los Angeles v.  San Pedro Boat Works, et al
• American Commercial Lines LLC v. Water Quality Ins. Syndicate

(Click here for details)

CRS Report Ranks U.S. #1 In "Recoverable" Energy Resources

Mar 11: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released an updated government report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing America's combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. The 28-page report, dated November 30, 2010, U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, indicates that America's recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And, according to the Senators, that's not including "America's immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits."

 

    Senator Murkowski said, "It comes as no surprise that we are once again estimated to have the largest conventional energy resource endowment on Earth. As we debate ways to reduce gas prices and provide relief to American families and businesses, this report should be required reading for every member of Congress. For the sake of our national security, our economy, and the world's environment, we need to explore and develop more of our own resources."

    Senator Inhofe said, "The Obama Administration has made a conscious policy choice to raise energy prices, accomplished in good measure by restricting access to domestic energy supplies. Those supplies are, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest on Earth. We could help bring affordable energy to consumers, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the Obama Administration would simply get out of the way so America can realize its true energy potential."

 

    According to a summary provided by CRS: "Discussions of U.S. and global energy supply refer to oil, natural gas, and coal using several terms that may be unfamiliar to some. The terms used to describe different types of fossil fuels have technically precise definitions, and misunderstanding or misuse of these terms may lead to errors and confusion in estimating energy available or making comparisons among fuels, regions, or nations.

 

    "Fossil fuels are categorized, classified, and named using a number of variables. Naturally occurring deposits of any material, whether it is fossil fuels, gold, or timber, comprise a broad spectrum of concentration, quality, and accessibility (geologic, technical, and cultural). Terminology is adopted to reflect those characteristics.

 

    "For oil and natural gas, a major distinction in measuring quantities of energy commodities is made between proved reserves and undiscovered resources. Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, which are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.

 

    "In the United States, certain institutions are designated to determine and report quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal reserves and undiscovered resources. Other institutions also estimate these values, but differences in estimating methodology can produce significantly different values.

 

    "U.S. proved reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 488 billion short tons, of which 261 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable.

 

    "Comparisons of different fuel types can be made by converting all of them to a common unit, such as barrels of oil equivalent, based on their heat content. The amounts of fossil fuels found in other nations as reserves and undiscovered resources are much more difficult to determine reliably because data are sometimes lacking or unreliable, but gross comparisons of national endowments can be made using available data.

 

    Senators Murkowski and Inhofe in a release, summarized and commented on the CRS report by energy resource sectors and said:

 

    "Oil: CRS offers a more accurate reflection of America's substantial oil resources.  While America is often depicted as possessing just 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil - a figure which narrowly relies on America's proven reserves of just 28 billion barrels - CRS has compiled US government estimates which show that America, the world's third-largest oil producer, is endowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's enough oil to maintain America's current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.  

    "Natural Gas: Further, CRS notes the 2009 assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, which estimates America's future supply of natural gas is 2,047 trillion cubic feet (TCF) - an increase of more than 25 percent just since the Committee's 2006 estimate.  At today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet American demand for 90 years.

    "Coal: The report also shows that America is number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent of the world's coal. Russia, China, and India are in a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 5th, respectively. In fact, CRS cites America's recoverable coal reserves to be 262 billion short tons. For perspective, the US consumes just 1.2 billion short tons of coal per year. And though portions of this resource may not be accessible or economically recoverable today, these estimates could ultimately prove to be conservative. As CRS states: '...U.S. coal resource estimates do not include some potentially massive deposits of coal that exist in northwestern Alaska. These currently inaccessible coal deposits have been estimated to be more than 3,200 billion short tons of coal.'    

    "Oil Shale: While several pilot projects are underway to prove oil shale's future commercial viability, the Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. The Department of Energy estimates that, of this 6 trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially recoverable. That's equivalent to more than five times the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. 

 

    "Methane Hydrates: Although not yet commercially feasible, methane hydrates, according to the Department of Energy, possess energy content that is "immense ... possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels."  While estimates vary significantly, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently testified that: "the mean in-place gas hydrate resource for the entire United States is estimated to be 320,000 TCF of gas."  For perspective, if just 3% of this resource can be commercialized in the years ahead, at current rates of consumption, that level of supply would be enough to provide America's natural gas for more than 400 years."

 

    Access a release from the Senators (click here). Access the CRS report (click here).

 

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• EPA Proposes 3-Year Delay For Biomass-Biogenic GHG Permitting
• GOP Blasts Obama Energy Policy; Tout Their "All-Of-The-Above" Plan
• Rep. Markey Responds To GOP Attack On Obama Energy Policy
• EPA Releases Update To National Air Toxics Assessment Tool
• House Subcommittees Hear EPA Budget Testimony
• Significant Problems With DOE Weapons Cleanup Models Guidance
• U.S. Cities With The Most Energy Star Certified Buildings 
• Southern Nuclear Operating Co. AL, & GA v. U.S

(Click here for details)

President Obama On Gas Prices, Energy Strategy & Budget

Mar 11: At a Presidential news conference today, President Obama had some focused comments on the rising gasoline prices; long-term energy strategy; and budget matters that are now being dealt with on a week-by-week basis in the Congress.

 

    On gasoline prices he said, "Of course, rising prices are not a new phenomenon. Three years ago, before the recession hit, a combination of factors, including rising demand from emerging economies like China, drove gas prices to more than $4 a gallon. The worldwide recession and the decrease in demand pushed prices back down. But over the past year, as the economy has picked up steam and global demand for oil has increased, prices have increased again. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East has added uncertainty to the mix and lost production in Libya has tightened supply. . .

    "Here at home, everybody should know that should the situation demand it, we are prepared to tap the significant stockpile of oil that we have in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're also using the resources at our disposal at the federal level to monitor any possible manipulation in the oil markets. And I'm asking the Attorney General and relevant state -- relevant agencies to work with state attorneys general to monitor for price gouging to make sure that nobody is taking advantage of working families at the pump. In addition, America is better prepared for supply disruptions than we used to be. Today, we use 7 percent less oil than we did in 2005, even as our economy has grown since then, partly because our economy as a whole is more efficient. We're adapting. We're producing more oil and we're importing less. Our automakers, for example, are manufacturing more fuel-efficient cars -- some that now get more than 50 miles to the gallon -- and our consumers are driving more of these cars. . .

    On a longer-term energy strategy, the President said, "Now, the hard truth is, is that as long as our economy depends on foreign oil, we'll always be subject to price spikes. So we've got to get moving on a comprehensive energy strategy that pursues both more energy production and more energy conservation. We need to increase our access to secure energy supplies in the near term, and we've got to make our economy more energy-efficient and energy-independent over the long run. Let me be more specific. First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed. So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality. . .

    "There is more we can do, however. For example, right now, the industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres –- both offshore and on land –- where they aren't producing a thing. . . But let's be clear -- it is not a long-term solution. Even if we started drilling new wells tomorrow, that oil isn't coming online overnight. And even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can't escape the fact that we only control 2 percent of the world's oil, but we consume over a quarter of the world's oil. T. Boone Pickens, who made his fortune in the oil business -- and I don't think anybody would consider him unfriendly to drilling -- was right when he said that "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. We can't place our long-term bets on a finite resource that we only control 2 percent of -– especially a resource that's vulnerable to hurricanes, war, and political turmoil.

    "So beyond increased domestic production, if we want to secure our long-term prosperity and protect the American people from more severe oil shocks in the future, the way to do it is to gradually reduce demand and then do everything we can to break our dependence on oil. . . But the bottom line is this. We've been having this conversation for nearly four decades now. Every few years, gas prices go up; politicians pull out the same old political playbook, and then nothing changes. And when prices go back down, we slip back into a trance. And then when prices go up, suddenly we're shocked. I think the American people are tired of that. I think they're tired of talk. We've got to work together -- Democrats, Republicans, and everybody in between -- to finally secure America's energy future. I don't want to leave this for the next President, and none of us should want to leave it for our kids."

    In response to a question on Presidential leadership on budget matters and the latest discussion of another 2-3 week continuing budget resolution (CR), the President said, ". . .with respect to the budget, I think it's important to understand that right now the discussion is about last year's business. We're talking about how to fund the remainder of this fiscal year. This is an appropriations task. . . The Republicans in the House passed a budget that has been now rejected in the Senate. They are not going to get 100 percent of what they want. The Democrats have put forward spending cuts, many of them pretty painful, that give Republicans already half of what they were seeking, because they're the right thing to do. Many of those cuts are ones that were already embodied in the budget that I proposed for 2012. Now, that's been rejected as well. . . both sides are going to have to sit down and compromise on prudent cuts somewhere between what the Republicans were seeking that's now been rejected and what the Democrats had agreed to that has also been rejected. It shouldn't be that complicated. And so what I've done is, every day I talk to my team, I give them instructions in terms of how they can participate in the negotiations, indicate what's acceptable, indicate what's not acceptable. And our expectation is, is that we should be able to get this completed. . ."

    He continued, "But let me just make some broad points about this. Number one, we can't keep on running the government based on two-week extensions. That's irresponsible. We've got a war in Afghanistan going on. We've got a wide range of issues facing the country on a day-to-day basis. And the notion that we can't get resolved last year's budget in a sensible way with serious but prudent spending cuts I think defies common sense. So we should be able to get it done. . . There are going to be certain things that House Republicans want that I will not accept. And the reason I won't accept them is not because I don't think we've got to cut the budget; we do."

    He said certain cuts "don't make sense." He used examples of cutting $800 out of Pell Grants for 8 million kids and eliminating 200,000 Head Start slots that also would mean the layoffs of 55,000 teachers. He said, "we can't stop investing in our people. We can't stop investing in research and development. We can't stop investing in infrastructure -- those things that are going to make us competitive over the long term and will help us win the future." He also said the Republican budget that passed out of the House included a whole range "riders." He said, "These aren't really budget items. These are political statements. . . If Republicans are interested in social issues that they want to promote, they should put a bill on the floor of the House and promote it, have an up or down vote, send it over to the Senate. But don't try to use the budget as a way to promote a political or ideological agenda. . ."

    Access the President's complete press conference text and response to questions (click here).

THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

• House Subcommittee Approves Bill To Stop EPA GHG Rules
• House Republicans Announce The "American Energy Initiative"
• Report Highlights Navy Security & Funding Needs From Climate Change
• House Ag Committee Grills EPA On Agriculture Regulations
• Markey & Upton Release On Daylight Savings Time
• Permit Delays, NIMBY Activism & Lawsuits Block Energy Projects
• NRDC v. County Of Los Angeles

(Click here for details)