House Proposes Major Cuts In FY12 Interior & Environment Funding

Jun 6: In the midst of intense and highly partisan debate over raising the U.S. debt ceiling, the House Appropriations Committee released the fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill which will be considered the subcommittee today (July 7). The legislation includes funding for the Department of the Interior, U.S. EPA, the Forest Service, and various independent and related agencies. In total, the bill includes $27.5 billion in spending -- a reduction of $2.1 billion below last year's level and $3.8 billion below the President's budget request. [Note: major cuts in these agency programs were recently passed as part of the FY11 budget in the Continuing Resolution. FY12 cuts will reduce this funding further].

 

    Overall, the funding level is $106 million below fiscal year 2009 spending levels. The legislation also includes a total cut to climate change programs of $83 million – or 22% – from last year, and decreases land acquisition funding by $239 million – or 79%.

    According to a Committee release, in addition, "the legislation unveiled today also includes several provisions aimed at reining in out-of-control federal bureaucracies and overly burdensome regulations that harm American businesses and hinder economic recovery." The proposal is particularly harsh on EPA funding which amounts to $1.5 billion of the total $2.1 billion in cuts over last year's level; and $1.8 billion of the total $3.8 billion that the President requested.

    The Committee said, "The EPA has been funded at unparalleled high levels over the past several years, leading to wasteful and unnecessary spending within the agency, as well as contributing to the agency's regulatory over-reach, which has a detrimental effect on American businesses and the recovering economy." EPA is funded at $7.1 billion in the proposed legislation, 18% below last year's level, 20% below the President's request. In total, the funding level is below FY 2006 level by $468 million. The bill also caps EPA's personnel at the 2010 level (the lowest since 1992), and rescinds certain unobligated grant and contract funding.

    According to a Committee summary, some of the EPA cuts include:

• $967 million cut in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These funds received $6 billion in the "stimulus" legislation, and this cut brings these accounts to the fiscal year 2008 level
• $102 million cut in grants for state implementation of environmental programs
• $46 million cut in requested funding to regulate greenhouse gases
• $422 million cut in EPA operations/administration
• $76 million cut in EPA regulatory programs
• $49 million cut in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
• $4 million cut in the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Initiative
• $8 million cut in the Puget Sound Restoration Initiative

    House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said, "Americans are sick to death of excessive government spending and regulation that is pushing us further and further away from economic recovery. This bill pinpoints and cuts extraneous, duplicative and unnecessary spending, prioritizes funding for programs with the most benefit to American families and businesses, and helps put a stop to free-wheeling government over-regulation." Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "At a time when we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend, our government can't afford to continue on its recent spending binge with its head in the sand when it comes to our fiscal challenges. In this bill we face those challenges head on, setting priorities and distinguishing between what is necessary and what would just be nice to do -- something American families do every day. The bill reins in out-of-control regulation and provides the certainty that our economy needs to make a strong recovery." 

    The bill also includes funding at $9.9 billion for the Department of the Interior (DOI), which is $720 million (7%) below last year's level and $1.2 billion below the President's request. Within the DOI funding cuts from FY11 levels are: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), -$63 million; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), -$315 million; National Park Service (NPS), -$129  million; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), -$30 million; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), -$72 million; and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), -$64 million.

    Additionally, the proposal includes the following cuts over FY11: U.S. Forest Service, -$164 million; Indian Health Service, -$392 million; Smithsonian Institution, -$8; National Gallery of Art, - $33 million; and National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, -$20 million for each endowment. 

    Finally, the legislation includes special provisions (i.e. special-interest riders), most directed at EPA including:

• A provision clarifying current permitting activities for the Outer Continental Shelf, and setting parameters for EPA approval of exploration permits. A similar legislative provision passed the full House in June
• A provision prohibiting the Office of Surface Mining from moving forward with proposed updates to the "stream buffer rule"
• A provision instituting a one-year prohibition on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources
• A provision prohibiting the EPA from changing the definition of "navigable waterways" under the Clean Water Act
• A provision providing exemptions from greenhouse gas reporting for certain agricultural activities
• A provision prohibiting funds for defining coal ash as hazardous waste
• A provision prohibiting funds for the EPA from expanding storm water discharge requirements
• Includes the House-passed "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011," approved by the House in March, which clarifies Congressional intent on the dual regulation of pesticides near navigable waterways

        House Appropriations Committee Ranking Democratic Member Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA) commented on the Republican proposal and said, "The Republican leadership proposed an exceedingly low subcommittee allocation that has now resulted in a bill that would be devastating for the environment and for the preservation of America's natural heritage, including the lowest level of spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund in more than 40 years.

    "Overall, the allocation for this bill is 7 percent below the amount enacted in the current year -- an irresponsible level that will have a negative impact on our natural resource agencies and on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After the EPA took a substantial cut of 16 percent in the current fiscal year, the Republican Majority is now proposing a further reduction in the agency's budget of 18 percent.  This bill would substantially diminish the capacity of EPA to carry out its responsibilities -- which may actually be the goal of some of my colleagues on the other side. But the repercussions will be felt across the nation, including an ever-growing backlog of water treatment infrastructure projects and a decline in air and water quality.

    "As was pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, the vast majority of the EPA's funds pass through to states and localities that are already squeezed by budget cuts. These infrastructure projects create jobs in communities all across the country and provide one of the most basic services taxpayers expect: clean water. The Bush Administration's EPA Administrator estimated that there was a $688 billion nationwide backlog of clean water infrastructure projects, and that total is even larger today. That backlog will not disappear if we just ignore it but, as we have seen in so many cases this year, the Republican leadership has decided to push this problem farther down the road.

    "In addition to the clearly insufficient levels of funding across the board in this legislation, we were surprised that the Majority also included a wish list of special-interest riders to the bill that will handcuff the EPA and the Department of the Interior. One of these riders is language that would effectively block any funding for new listing activities under the Endangered Species Act. These types of riders are largely ideological, have no impact on deficit reduction and most will be rejected by the Senate and the President."

 

    Access the Republican release and summary of the legislation and links to the full text and summary tables (click here). Access the Democratic release and summary of the legislation (click here). [*All]

ExxonMobil Yellowstone River Spill Taints World-Class Trout Stream

Jul 6: Early in the morning on July 2, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (EMPCo) discovered an undetermined amount of crude oil was released into the Yellowstone River in Montana, from an EMPCo pipeline. The release originated from a 12" crude pipeline operated by EMPCo that runs from Silver Tip, MT to Billings, MT. ExxonMobil reported that the pipeline was shutdown and the segment where the release occurred has been isolated. All appropriate state and Federal authorities were notified.

 

    On July 3, EMPCo indicated that it had expanded its clean up operation and was bringing in experts from across the country to clean up the oil. EMPCo President Gary Pruessing said in Billings, headquarters for the response effort, said, "We will stay with the cleanup until it is complete, and we sincerely apologize to the people of Montana for any inconvenience the incident is creating." EMPCo reported that the amount of oil released is estimated to be between 750 and 1,000 barrels. Air quality monitoring throughout the impacted area is ongoing and has confirmed no danger to public health. Municipal water systems have been notified to monitor water quality but no reports of impacts have been received to date. Oil has been found as far as five miles down the river from the pipeline location and additional reports of oil sightings are being investigated.

 

    ExxonMobil said it is working to coordinate the cleanup with local authorities, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, county commissioners, local response organizations and International Bird Rescue. For the purposes of the response, the area downriver of the spill has been organized into four zones. Cleanup activities are focused in the first two zones -- Laurel to Duck Creek Bridge, a distance of seven miles from the spill location, and Duck Creek Bridge to Johnson Lane (12 miles). Reconnaissance and evaluation activities are under way in the second two zones -- Johnson Lane to Miles City (144 miles) and Miles City to Glendive (78 miles). By July 4, ExxonMobil reported that more than 280 people are now involved in the response and cleanup effort including ExxonMobil's North America Regional Response Team, the Clean Harbors and ER oil spill response organizations and additional contractors. More than 150 people cleaned up oil along the river banks on the 4th.

 

        Information from Wikipedia indicates that the Yellowstone River is a tributary of the Missouri River, approximately 692 miles long, in the western United States. Considered the principal tributary of the upper Missouri, the river and its tributaries drain a wide area stretching from the Rocky Mountains in the vicinity of the Yellowstone National Park across the mountains and high plains of southern Montana and northern Wyoming. It is the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states. The Yellowstone River is considered to be one of the great trout streams of the world and is officially classed as a blue ribbon stream in Montana from the park to the confluence with the Boulder river east of Livingston and from the mouth of Rosebud creek near Rosebud, Montana to the North Dakota border. The lack of dams along the river provides for excellent trout habitat from high inside Yellowstone Park, downstream through Gardiner, the Paradise Valley, Livingston, and to Big Timber, a stretch of nearly 200 miles (320 km). The Yellowstone varies in width from 74 feet (23 m) to 300 feet (91 m), so fishing is normally done by boat. The most productive stretch of water is through Paradise Valley in Montana, especially near Livingston which produces brown trout, rainbow trout and native cutthroat trout as well as Rocky Mountain whitefish.

 

    The incident has sparked calls from the House and Senate for investigations and answers. Montana's senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) called on ExxonMobil to set up a quick and effective claims process to ensure Montanans impacted by the Yellowstone River oil spill have swift recourse for repayment. At the same time, Baucus pressed ExxonMobil for information on current cleanup efforts and a detailed history of risk evaluations and prevention measures leading up to the pipe rupture. He said, "Priority number one is getting the oil cleaned up quickly and making sure homeowners, businesses, sportsmen and wildlife are made whole. I'm keeping a close eye on ExxonMobil and working with the refinery and local officials to make sure the river is restored and Montanans are paid fairly and quickly for their losses. I'm calling on ExxonMobil to answer some tough questions so we can find out how this accident happened and what needs to be done to make sure something like this it never happens again."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee said concerns were growing that the pipeline spill "may be larger than previously thought," and called for investigative hearings to be held into the incident and related safety and environmental issues. Markey said, "ExxonMobil has turned parts of the Yellowstone River black with their spilled oil. Just as BP was held to account for their accident in the Gulf of Mexico, ExxonMobil should appear before Congress so that we can examine the holes in oil pipeline safety that led to this incident and how we might prevent another spill in the future."

 

    Although the House Energy and Commerce Committee has not issued a formal release, a report in The Hill quoted a spokesperson for Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), who said the panel's Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on pipeline safety legislation by the end of the month.

 

    Access links to the ExxonMobil news releases (click here). Access the Wikipedia for extensive information on the Yellowstone River (click here). Access a release from Sen. Baucus including the letter to the ExxonMobil CEO (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access The Hill report on the House hearing (click here). [*Energy/OilSpill, *Water]

GOP Senators Object To CWA Guidance Document; Comment Extended

Jul 5: U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers announced in the Federal Register [76 FR 39101-39102] they are extending the comment period until July 31, on their proposed Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act (CWA). On May 2, 2011, EPA the Corps officially announced availability of draft guidance (76 FR 24479) that describes how the agencies will identify waters protected by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA or Act) and implement the Supreme Court's decisions on this topic (i.e., Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) (531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and Rapanos v. United States (547 U.S. 715 (2006)) (Rapanos)). The comment period was originally set to expire on July 1, 2011, and the agencies are extending the public comment period by 30 days. EPA and the Corps originally announced the Guidance on April 27, as part of the Administration's National Clean Water Framework [See WIMS 4/27/11]. The Guidance would replace previous guidance concerning the scope of protection for critical waters.

 

    On June 30, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), along with 40 Republican colleagues sent a letter to EPA and the Corps asking the agencies to abandon their draft guidance document. Senator Inhofe, who is leading the effort said, "I am pleased to join 40 of my colleagues in opposition to EPA and Army Corps' recent guidance document, which seeks to greatly expand federal jurisdiction over our nation's waters. Whether it's global warming or clean water, the Obama EPA is aggressively trying to achieve through regulation what could not be achieved through legislation, and this guidance document is a prime example. The agencies should immediately abandon it and work to implement an effective balance between state and federal authority-that balance is the best way to achieve substantial progress in protecting water."

    In their letter the Senators said, "We have a great deal of concern about the actions that the Agencies are pursuing. The Agencies claim that this guidance document is simply meant to clarify how the Agencies understand the existing requirements of the CWA in light of the current law, regulations, and Supreme Court cases. More than clarifying, they greatly expand what could be considered jurisdictional waters through a slew of new and expanded definitions and through changes to applications of jurisdictional tests. This guidance document improperly interprets the opinions of the plurality and Justice Kennedy's opinion in Rapanos v. United States by incorporating only their expansive language in an attempt to gain jurisdictional authority over new waters, while ignoring both justices' clear limitations on federal CWA authority. . .

 

    "Because the draft guidance will substantively change how the agencies decide which waters are subject to federal jurisdiction and will impact the regulated community's rights and obligations under the CWA, this guidance has clear regulatory consequences and goes beyond being simply advisory guidelines. The draft guidance will shift the burden of proving jurisdictional status of waters from the Agencies to the regulated communities, thus making the guidance binding and fundamentally changing the legal rights and responsibilities that they have. When an agency acts to change the rights of an individual, we believe that the agency must go through the formal rulemaking process."

 

    On June 22, 2011, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy also submitted public comments on the Guidance and among other concerns raised questions regarding the "guidance" v. "rule" issue [See WIMS 6/24/11]. SBA Advocacy said, "Advocacy is concerned that the Agencies are choosing to address the very important issue of the determination of jurisdictional decision in guidance rather than through the rulemaking process. Advocacy believes that imposition of the changes the Agencies propose in the Guidance is properly made through the rulemaking process as governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. Advocacy realizes that the Agencies are soliciting comments on the proposed guidance. However, the rulemaking process provides the public and small businesses with important protections beyond the ability to comment such as the right to a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the requirement that agencies respond to comments. . ."

 

    Access today's FR announcement (click here). Access the letter from Republican Senators including highlights of several specific issues regarding the draft guidance document (click here). Access the EPA Docket for this action for background and to submit and review comments (click here). Access the Obama Administration's Clean Water Framework (click here). Access the draft Clean Water Act guidance from U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with supporting documents and commenting instructions (click here). [*Water]

Three Pesticides Added To International Rotterdam Convention PIC

Jun 27: Parties to a global treaty supporting information exchange in international trade of hazardous chemicals have acted to strengthen protection of human health and the environment by expanding the exchange of critical safety information between exporting and importing States. Agreement was reached on Friday, 24 June 2011, at the conclusion of a week-long meeting held in Geneva [See WIMS 6/20/11]. The fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP5) to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade agreed by consensus to add three pesticides, alachlor, aldicarb and endosulfan, to Annex III of the Convention. Listing in Annex III triggers an exchange of information between Parties and helps countries make informed decisions about future import and use of the chemicals. The U.S. signed the Convention in 1998, but has never ratified the Rotterdam Convention.

    Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director said, "The agreement on listing endosulfan coupled with decisions to strengthen technical assistance and synergies taken by the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention demonstrate that increasing cooperation between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions is yielding a rich harvest of benefits to countries by the protection of public health and the environment globally." Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) agreed earlier this year to eliminate endosulfan from production and use globally.

    The decisions to list three chemicals were among 12 separate decisions adopted at the conference aimed at strengthening the globe's first line of defense for chemical safety. Amendments to the Convention bringing the three new chemicals under the Prior Informed Consent procedure will enter into force on October 24, 2011. This will raise the number of chemicals covered under the Convention to forty-three. Jim Willis, Executive Secretary said, "The addition of these three chemicals marks the second time since the Convention entered into force that Parties have expanded the Convention's list of substances covered by the Prior Informed Consent procedure. This gives countries that are considering importing hazardous chemicals the right-to-know about the risks they carry and how they can protect public health and the environment, as well as the means to protect against unwanted imports."

    The conference agreed to include endosulfan as a pesticide in Annex III to the Convention as recommended by the Chemical Review Committee, a scientific expert body, at its second and sixth meetings. This marked a breakthrough, as past conferences had been unable to agree on inclusion of the pesticide in Annex III. Countries will now be provided with risk information allowing them to make informed decisions on importation of the hazardous chemical. The pesticides alachlor and aldicarb were recommended by the Chemical Review Committee at its fourth meeting. Agreement to list a fourth chemical, chrysotile asbestos, eluded the conference for the third time since it was first recommended for listing by the treaty's Chemical Review Committee in 2002. Debate over the recommended listing of chrysotile asbestos drew widespread public attention throughout a week of sometimes tense negotiations between the Convention's parties.

Peter Kenmore, Executive Secretary, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said, "The robust participation of developing countries and countries with economies in transition in the work of the Rotterdam Convention has been on display this past week, as they increasingly are taking over the responsibility to assess the risk attached to hazardous chemicals and severely hazardous pesticide formulations. The failure to find consensus on one substance does not diminish this achievement." Over 500 participants, representing more than 135 governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations attended the fifth meeting of Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention.

    Access a release on the COP5 meeting (click here). Access the documents for the COP5 meeting (click here). Access complete background and details on the Rotterdam Convention website (click here). [*Toxics, *Haz] 
(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- THIS IS THE LAST DAY -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

NOAA Release 2010 State Of The Climate Report

Jun 27: Worldwide, 2010 was one of the two warmest years on record according to the 2010 State of the Climate report, which was release by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The peer-reviewed report, issued in coordination with the American Meteorological Society, was compiled by 368 scientists from 45 countries. It provides a detailed, yearly update on global climate indicators, notable climate events and other climate information from every continent.

 

    This year's report tracks 41 climate indicators -- four more than last year -- including temperature of the lower and upper atmosphere, precipitation, greenhouse gases, humidity, cloud cover, ocean temperature and salinity, sea ice, glaciers, and snow cover. Each indicator includes thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets that allow scientists to identify overall trends. While several well-known cyclical weather patterns had a significant influence on weather and climate events throughout the year, the comprehensive analysis of indicators shows a continuation of the long-term trends scientists have seen over the last 50 years, consistent with global climate change.

 

    Thomas Karl, L.H.D, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC said, We're continuing to closely track these indicators because it is quite clear that the climate of the past cannot be assumed to represent the climate of the future. These indicators are vital for understanding and making reliable projections of future climate." Last year was marked by important climate oscillations like the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation, which affected regional climates and contributed to many of the world's significant weather events in 2010. Highlights of some of the climate indicators include:

• Temperature: Three major independent datasets show 2010 as one of the two warmest years since official record-keeping began in the late 19th century. Annual average temperatures in the Arctic continued to rise at about twice the rate of the lower latitudes.
• Sea Ice & Glaciers: Arctic sea ice shrank to the third smallest area on record, and the Greenland ice sheet melted at the highest rate since at least 1958. The Greenland ice sheet melt area was approximately 8 percent more than the previous record set in 2007. Alpine glaciers shrank for the 20th consecutive year. Meanwhile, average sea ice extent in the Antarctic grew to an all-time record maximum in 2010.
• Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Level: Even with a moderate-to-strong La Niña in place during the latter half of the year, which is associated with cooler equatorial waters in the tropical Pacific, the  2010 average global sea surface temperature was third warmest on record and sea level continued to rise.
• Ocean Salinity: Oceans were saltier than average in areas of high evaporation and fresher than average in areas of high precipitation, suggesting that the water cycle is intensifying.
• Greenhouse Gases:  Major greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise. Carbon dioxide increased by 2.60 ppm, which is more than the average annual increase seen from 1980-2010.

    NOAA indicated that several major cyclical weather patterns played a key role in weather and climate in 2010:

• El Niño-Southern Oscillation: A strong warm El Niño climate pattern at the beginning of 2010 transitioned to a cool La Niña by July, contributing to some unusual weather patterns around the world and impacting global regions in different ways. Tropical cyclone activity was below normal in nearly all basins around the globe, especially in much of the Pacific Ocean. The Atlantic basin was the exception, with near-record high North Atlantic basin hurricane activity. Heavy rains led to a record wet spring (September – November) in Australia, ending a decade-long drought.
• Arctic Oscillation: In its negative phase for most of 2010, the Arctic Oscillation affected large parts of the Northern Hemisphere causing frigid arctic air to plunge southward and warm air to surge northward. Canada had its warmest year on record while Britain had its coldest winter at the beginning of the year and coldest December at the end of the year. The Arctic Oscillation reached its most negative value in February, the same month several cities along the U.S. East Coast had their snowiest months ever.
• Southern Annular Mode: An atmospheric pattern related to the strength and persistence of the storm track circling the Southern Hemisphere and the Antarctic led to an all-time maximum in 2010 of average sea ice volume in the Antarctic.

    Access a release from NOAA (click here). Access the full report, previous reports, and a highlights document (click here). [*Climate] (click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- JUST 1 DAY LEFT -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Sackett v. U.S. EPA

Jun 28: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Ninth Circuit case of Sackett v. U.S. EPA (SupCt docket No. 10-1062). The High Court included the specific proviso that the review will be limited to the following questions: (1) May petitioners seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §704? (2) If not, does petitioners' inability to seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order violate their rights under the Due Process Clause?

 

    On September 20, 2010, the Ninth Circuit decided the case regarding the determination of whether Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct review of administrative compliance orders issued by the U.S. EPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA) before EPA has filed a lawsuit in Federal court to enforce the compliance order. The Appeals Court said, "We join our sister circuits and hold that the Clean Water Act precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders, and that such preclusion does not violate due process."

 

    In making its ruling, the Appeals Court indicated that, ". . .we do not work from a blank slate. Every circuit that has confronted this issue has held that the "CWA impliedly precludes judicial review of compliance orders until the EPA brings an enforcement action in federal district court." The Appeals Court cited cases from the 10th, 6th, 4th, and 7th Circuits and many Districts and said, "The reasoning of these courts is persuasive to us, as well as the broad uniformity of consensus on this issue."

 

    Access the Supreme Court docket (click here). Access the order granting the petition (click here). Access the complete 9th Circuit opinion (click here). [*Water]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- JUST 2 MORE DAYS -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

Rep. Markey Probes Validity Of Natural Gas Reserve Estimates

Jun 27: Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee in a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission asks whether a 2008 rule allowing natural gas companies more flexibility in how they reported on unproven gas reserves had allowed the companies to "paint an overly-optimistic picture of their reserves and the industry's potential contribution to America's energy needs." The letter was sent by Rep. Markey in response to articles published in the New York Times (NYT) questioning whether the new rules provide investors with sufficient information regarding natural gas reserves and why they fail to provide for third-party verification of reported reserves. On June 25, NYT published an article entitled, Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush; followed by a second article, Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas, on June 26 (See links below).

    Markey said, "The SEC rules allow natural gas companies to self-report their reserves without providing enough detail or independent review of their claims. When it comes to fuel that millions of Americans depend upon to meet their energy needs, the SEC should not violate the 'trust, but verify' principle. The SEC needs to provide answers on how they think these new rules could be affecting assumptions of domestic natural gas reserves."

    According to a release from Markey, under prior SEC rules, natural gas companies were allowed to count gas only from areas close to their active wells as part of their proven reserves. Under the 2008 rules adopted by the Bush administration just days before former Chairman Christopher Cox's departure from the commission, companies can now include gas from yet untapped fields based on modeling methods. Markey indicated that the Times article reports that natural gas companies were not required under the rule to disclose precise details about the technology used to estimate reserve sizes, and that while the SEC considered requiring third party audits to verify the new reserve estimates, it did not do so in the final rule.

    Markey sent a similar inquiry to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) about their reported staff concerns regarding the official estimates of domestic natural gas reserves. In that letter, Markey asked the EIA "to justify their bullish claims on natural gas resources and reserves in light of reports in The New York Times "indicating skepticism exists within. . . [EIA] about its own estimates. In a letter to the head of the EIA, Markey asked "how the agency was justifying optimistic estimates of domestic natural gas production, especially from shale gas formations that require the increasingly-scrutinized technique called hydraulic fracturing to extract the trapped fuel, in light of the revelations."

    Markey said, "We need to know whether the natural gas located underneath the surface is a real source of fuel for the next generation, or a speculative bubble hyped by the oil and gas industry, and echoed by the federal government's energy experts. Natural gas has been touted as a 'bridge fuel' that will take us from dirtier fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy technologies. If these claims are accurate, natural gas could offer a viable pathway towards meeting our energy needs while reducing carbon dioxide pollution. If they are not, America's natural gas future could be a bridge to nowhere."

    Chesapeake Energy Corporation CEO Aubrey McClendon immediately sent a lengthy letter to all company employees in response to the NYT "Sound an Alarm" article. The letter, posted on the Company Facebook page indicates in part, "The story is misleading, at best, and is the latest in a series of articles produced by this publication that obviously have an anti-industry bias.  We know for a fact that today's NYT story is the handiwork of the same group of environmental activists who have been the driving force behind the NYT's ongoing series of negative articles about the use of fracking and its importance to the US natural gas supply growth revolution – which is changing the future of our nation for the better in multiple areas.  It is not clear to me exactly what these environmental activists are seeking to offer as their alternative energy plan, but most that I have talked to continue to naively presume that our great country need only rely on wind and solar energy to meet our current and future energy needs. . .

    "Since the shale gas revolution and resulting confirmation of enormous domestic gas reserves, there has been a relatively small group of analysts and geologists who have doubted the future of shale gas.  Their doubts have become very convenient to the environmental activists I mentioned earlier. . . But I wanted you to know that this reporter's claim of impending scarcity of natural gas supply contradicts the facts and the scientific extrapolation of those facts by the most sophisticated reservoir engineers and geoscientists in the world. Not just at Chesapeake, but by experts at many of the world's leading energy companies that have made multi-billion-dollar, long-term investments in U.S. shale gas plays, with us and many other companies. . ."

    Access a release from Rep. Markey on the SEC letter (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey on the EIA letter (click here). Access the Markey letter to SEC (click here). Access the Markey letter to EIA (click here). Access the NYT 6/25 article (click here). Access the NYT 6/26 article (click here). Access the McClendon letter to employees (click here). [*Energy/NatGas/Shale] (click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period -- JUST A FEW DAYS LEFT -- you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

NAS: Policy Options For Reducing Energy & GHG From Transportation

Jun 23: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) announced a new report entitled, Policy Options for Reducing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation, and indicated, "It will take more than tougher fuel economy standards for U.S. transportation to significantly cut its oil use over the next half century.  It will likely require a combination of measures that foster consumer and supplier interest in vehicle fuel economy, alternative fuels, and a more efficient transportation system. Public interest in reducing the cost of securing the nation's energy supplies, curbing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), and improving transportation operations could motivate such varied actions." 
 
    Emil Frankel, director of transportation policy, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC and chair of the committee that wrote the report said, "It is not simply a matter of choosing a single best policy. Decisions about whether and how to reduce transportation's use of oil will require officials to consider a range of options." The U.S. transportation sector accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's oil use and about 25 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions.  Federal regulations over the past 40 years such as fuel economy standards have helped the transportation sector make significant gains in controlling its oil use and emissions. However, the NAS committee said "these measures are likely to do little more than temper growth in the sector's carbon dioxide emissions and demand for oil over the next several decades." 
 
    According to the report, to achieve earlier, larger, and sustained gains, a longer-term strategy involving a mix of policy measures and impacts on transportation energy demand and supplies is needed.  The report was developed to inform policymakers of the pros and cons of available policy options to reduce energy use and emissions over time from cars, trucks, and aircraft -- the U.S. transportation modes that collectively account for 95 percent of transportation oil use.

 

    The policy options examined in the report include a range of approaches but are not ranked in any particular order:

•  land-use and travel-demand management measures aimed at curbing household vehicle use
• low-carbon standards for transportation fuels
• public investments in transportation infrastructure to increase vehicle operating efficiencies
•  transportation fuel taxes
• vehicle efficiency standards, "feebates," and other financial incentives to motivate interest in vehicle efficiency

    Because some of the policies are market and demand oriented, others regulatory, and others hybrids of the two, they produce different responses from users and suppliers of transportation vehicles and fuels. They also have different track records of implementation and thus differing prospects for early application. The report says that any serious actions must ultimately cut the amount of oil used and GHGs emitted from the nation's 225 million cars and light trucks. Policymakers need to look beyond measures that center largely on suppliers of vehicles and fuels and adopt policies that will also cause consumers to respond with strong and sustained interest in saving energy and lowering emissions. 

 

    In assessing opportunities for policy, the report says fuel taxes have both the greatest applicability across modes and the widest scope of impact. Raising fuel prices can lead to increased consumer and supplier interest in more fuel-efficient vehicles and operations. It can also reduce the total amount of energy-intensive travel by making it more expensive. However, the report indicates, "political resistance to fuel taxes is high. The federal gas tax, approximately 18 cents per gallon, has not been raised since 1993. To make this a more viable option over time, pursuing innovative ways to use the new tax dollars could help spur and sustain public support."

 

    The committee said that vehicle standards with a more focused impact on vehicle energy and emissions performance have the advantage of familiarity and public acceptance. This advantage is important because it can mean early savings in oil use and emissions. Purchase incentive programs that impose fees on inefficient vehicles to fund rebates on efficient ones -- known as feebates -- may ultimately motivate consumers to buy the newer designs. However, neither efficiency standards nor such purchase incentives will prompt vehicle users to engage in more energy-efficient operations, such as driving less or carpooling more. 

 

    Creating an environment less dependent on private vehicles may pay dividends by reducing the total demand for vehicle travel, but the Committee notes that it "may take decades to bring about through land-use planning and controls." In the meantime, public investment in infrastructure for highways, airways, and waterways can make transportation more efficient while reducing system delays and congestion. These operational benefits may be politically palatable ways to save energy and emissions in the near term, especially if consumers face higher energy prices down the road. 

 

    Access a release from NAS (click here). Access a report brief (click here). Access a summary table of options (click here). Access the complete 162-page report (click here). [*Transport, *Climate, *Air, *Land]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

EPA Sets Schedule For Boiler MACT & Solid Waste incinerator Rules

Jun 24: As part of a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, U.S. EPA has set a schedule for issuing updated air toxics standards for boilers and certain solid waste incinerators. To ensure that the Agency's standards are based on the best available data and the public is given ample opportunity to provide additional input and information, the Agency will propose standards to be reconsidered by the end of October 2011 and issue final standards by the end of April 2012. This is the best approach to put in place technically and legally sound standards that will bring significant health benefits to the American public.

    Following the April 2010 proposals, the Agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses and communities, including a significant amount of information that industry had not provided prior to the proposals. Based on this input, the Agency made extensive revisions that resulted in dramatic cuts in the cost of implementation, while maintaining maximum public health benefits. Because the final standards significantly differ from the proposal, however, EPA believed further public review was required and announced it would reconsider the standards.

    After the final standards were issued, multiple industry groups petitioned the Agency to delay the effective date of standards for major source boilers and commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators. In May 2011, EPA announced it would stay the effective date of those standards [See WIMS 5/16/11]. EPA did not stay the effective date of the standards for boilers located at area sources of air toxic emissions.

 

    In its filing with the Appeals Court, EPA said, "Petitioners Sierra Club, et al., (collectively Sierra Club) oppose holding the case in abeyance for any period longer than three months. Sierra Club does not address the appropriateness of the Court adjudicating challenges to a rule that may soon be modified as the result of the reconsideration process. Rather, Sierra Club's Opposition is based on its concern that the litigation, and the effective date of the rule, will be indefinitely delayed. Sierra Club's concern is misplaced. EPA intends to complete its reconsideration process expeditiously. Specifically, EPA intends to sign a proposed rule by October 31, 2011, and to sign a final rule by April 30, 2012, less than one year from now. Given the potential waste of judicial resources in proceeding to review this rule when it may be modified in a short time the case should be held in abeyance pending completion of the reconsideration process."

 

    On June 22, responding to what they say are "urgent calls from job creators across a range of industries, bipartisan members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce have introduced H.R.2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. The proposal would direct EPA to develop achievable standards affecting non-utility boilers and incinerators and grants additional time for development of and compliance with the rules. The legislation would stay the boiler and incinerator rules and calls for EPA to repropose the rules within 15 months and extend compliance times from 3 to 5 years [See WIMS 6/22/11].

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the filing with the Appeals Court (click here). Access complete information and background on the issue (click here). [*Air]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

IEA Countries To Release 60 Million Barrels Of Reserve Oil

Jun 23: International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka announced that the 28 IEA member countries, including the United States, have agreed to release 60 million barrels (mb) of oil in the coming month in response to the ongoing disruption of oil supplies from Libya. IEA said this supply disruption has been underway for some time and its effect has become more pronounced as it has continued. The normal seasonal increase in refiner demand expected for this summer will exacerbate the shortfall further. Greater tightness in the oil market threatens to undermine the fragile global economic recovery.

    In deciding to take the collective action, IEA member countries agreed to make "2 million barrels of oil per day" available from their emergency stocks over an initial period of 30 days. Leading up to this decision, the IEA has been in close consultation with major producing countries, as well as with key non-IEA importing countries. Tanaka said, "Today, for the third time in the history of the International Energy Agency, our member countries have decided to release stocks. I expect this action will contribute to well-supplied markets and to ensuring a soft landing for the world economy."

    The IEA estimates that the unrest in Libya had removed 132 mb of light, sweet crude oil from the market by the end of May. Although there are huge uncertainties, analysts generally agree that Libyan supplies will largely remain off the market for the rest of 2011. Given this loss and the seasonal increase in demand, the IEA warmly welcomes the announced intentions to increase production by major oil producing countries. As these production increases will inevitably take time and world economies are still recovering, the threat of a serious market tightening, particularly for some grades of oil, poses an immediate requirement for additional oil or products to be made available to the market. The IEA collective action is intended to complement expected increases in output by these producing countries, to help bridge the gap until sufficient additional oil from them reaches global markets.

    Total oil stocks in IEA member countries amount to over 4.1 billion barrels, and nearly 1.6 billion barrels of this are public stocks held exclusively for emergency purposes. IEA net oil-importing countries have a legal obligation to hold emergency oil reserves equivalent to at least 90 days of net oil imports. These countries are holding stock levels well above this minimum amount, currently at 146 days of net imports.The IEA Governing Board will within 30 days of this notice reassess the oil market, review the impact of their coordinated action and decide on possible future steps.

 

    In the United States, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the U.S. and its partners in IEA have decided to release a total of 60 million barrels of oil onto the world market over the next 30 days to offset the disruption in the oil supply caused by unrest in the Middle East. He said the U.S. will release "30 million barrels" of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is currently at a historically high level with 727 million barrels. Chu said, "We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery. As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to take additional steps if necessary."

    Chu indicated that the U.S. has been in close contact with oil producing and consuming countries about disruptions to the international oil market that could affect the global economy. The situation in Libya has caused a loss of roughly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day - particularly of light, sweet crude - from global markets. As the U.S. enters the months of July and August, when demand is typically highest, prices remain significantly higher than they were prior to the start of the unrest in Libya.

    The United Kingdom (UK) is contributing some "3 million barrels." Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Department of Energy and Climate Change said, "This coordinated global action shows that both producer and consumer nations around the world are taking decisive steps to ensure enough oil is available. That's why we strongly welcome Saudi Energy Minister al-Naimi's statement earlier this month that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries will increase oil production to supply whatever the market needs."

 

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released a statement on the SPR announcement saying, "Everyone wants to help the American people and lower prices at the pump -- especially now, in tough economic times. And it is good that the Obama Administration is conceding that increased supply will lower those costs. But by tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the President is using a national security instrument to address his domestic political problems. The SPR was created to mitigate sudden supply disruptions. This action threatens our ability to respond to a genuine national security crisis and means we must ultimately find the resources to replenish the reserve -- at significant cost to taxpayers. There is a better way: we need a sensible energy policy to increase the supply of American energy, which will lower costs and create millions of American jobs. According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Unfortunately, this administration has consistently blocked the production of American-made energy and opposed legislative efforts in the House to increase supply.  House Republicans will continue to advance the American Energy Initiative and work to lower gas prices and create jobs by responsibly increasing the production of energy here at home."

 

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement saying, "Today, America's families face near-record prices at the pump while Big Oil rakes in near-record profits. With speculators and special interests standing in the way of lower gas prices, with Republican leaders supporting continued giveaways to the oil industry and letting speculators off the hook, and with Middle East unrest disrupting the supply of oil worldwide, we must do everything in our power to ease the burden on American consumers. The Obama Administration is fulfilling this charge by releasing oil from our national stockpile to bring relief to our middle class, responding to calls by House Democrats, led by Congressmen Bishop and Markey. We are already seeing the results in falling oil prices. This action echoes Democratic legislation in our Clean Energy Jobs Now agenda -- the Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act -- that calls for a release from the SPR during periods of high gas prices, along with an end to tax breaks for Big Oil. We are sending a clear message to speculators: we stand with American consumers and businesses; we will keep working to alleviate their economic struggles; and we will place our families' interests ahead of Big Oil's bottom line."

 

    The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) President Charles Drevna criticized the decision by the Obama administration to release 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR. He said, "Releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve today, when gasoline prices are falling and there is no supply shortage, makes no sense and weakens our economic and national security. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency lifeline to protect our nation against critical shortages in our oil supply and shouldn't be used as a Strategic Political Reserve to boost the popularity of elected officials.

    "This action today will do nothing to benefit consumers. Instead, it leaves our nation vulnerable if hurricanes, other natural disasters or a foreign crisis causes a real supply shortage. These are the types of emergencies the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to protect against. Instead of releasing 30 million barrels of oil from our emergency supply when there is no emergency, our leaders should be drawing up plans to lift the roadblocks preventing our nation from utilizing the billions of barrels of oil and natural gas reserves right here in America. This would produce more energy, more jobs and economic prosperity. No other nation puts so many limits on the use of its own natural resources to benefit its own people."

 

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also said it thinks the release of SPR oil "is bad energy policy." Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber's Energy Institute said, 

"The Obama Administration's decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is ill-advised and not the signal the markets need. Unrest in the Middle East is likely to continue for quite some time, so a temporary increase in supply is not a substitute for a long term fix. Our reserve is intended to address true emergencies, not politically inconvenient high prices. Rather than dabbling around the edges, the Administration should take steps to increase domestic production of oil -- on and offshore, like the bill the House passed last night. With U.S. crude oil production expected to decrease by 90 million barrels in the next year, the Administration should instead focus on increasing domestic production to improve our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create thousands of jobs."

    Access a release from IEA (click here). Access a fact sheet from IEA with more details (click here). Access a table of IEA members and their latest import levels and public and private reserve levels (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). Access a release from the UK (click here). Access a release from Speaker Boehner (click here). Access a release from Rep. Pelosi (click here). Access a release from NPRA (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber Energy Institute (click here). [*Energy/Oil]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

House Members Introduce EPA Regulatory Relief Act

Jun 22: Responding to what they say are "urgent calls from job creators across a range of industries, bipartisan members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce have introduced H.R.2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011. The proposal, which directs EPA to develop achievable standards affecting non-utility boilers and incinerators and grants additional time for development of and compliance with the rules, was offered by Representatives Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), together with Representatives John Barrow (D-GA), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Pete Olson (R-TX), Mike Ross (D-AR), and Steve Scalise (R-LA). The lawmakers said economic analyses have "projected that compliance with the rules as currently proposed could cost in excess of $14 billion, which could put more than 200,000 jobs at risk."

 

    In a joint statement the legislators said, "Our goal is simple. With the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, we are giving EPA the time it needs -- the time it has requested -- to address difficult technical issues and develop rules that are workable in the real world. Likewise, businesses, institutions, and facilities need adequate time to finance the new monitoring and control equipment that will be required to meet the new standards, to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, and to design, procure, install, test, train personnel, and start up equipment. Without regulatory relief, EPA's current rules endanger hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide by forcing plant shutdowns and relocation of American manufacturing and jobs overseas. We look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the Obama administration, to see this type of common-sense relief become law."

 

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) lent his support to the legislation, endorsing what he called "the members' bipartisan approach to protecting jobs and pursuing sensible regulations." He said, "All year long, the Energy and Commerce Committee has focused on creating jobs and spurring economic growth. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act is exactly the brand of regulatory common sense we promised. This bill gives EPA the time it needs to write rules that make sense, and it gives businesses, schools, and other affected facilities the time they need to put the rules into action. This bill is proof positive that Members can work together to protect jobs and guard against regulatory overreach."

 

    On February 23, 2011, in response to Federal court orders in Sierra Club v. EPA requiring the issuance of final standards [See WIMS 1/21/11], U.S. EPA issued final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators -- the so-called "Boiler MACT" rules [See WIMS 2/23/11]. In response to a September 2009 court order, EPA issued the proposed rules in April 2010, prompting significant public input. The proposed rules followed a period that began in 2007, when a Federal court vacated a set of industry specific standards proposed during the Bush Administration. Based on the public input received following the April 2010 proposal, EPA made extensive revisions, and in December 2010, requested additional time for review to ensure the public's input was fully addressed. EPA had sought in its motion to the court an extension to finalize the rules by April 13, 2012. Instead, the court granted EPA only 30 days and it issued the final rules on March 21, 2011.

 

    On May 16, 2011, EPA announced a temporary stay of the effective date of two of the rules (Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules), stating, "[t]he stay will allow the agency to seek additional public comment before requiring thousands of facilities across multiple, diverse industries to make investments that may not be reversible if the standards are revised following reconsideration and a full evaluation of all relevant data." The Members pointed out that, "The stay will last only until completion of the reconsideration process (or the judicial review of the rules if earlier). The stay does not apply to the other two rules and does not extend the compliance deadlines for any of the four rules." [See WIMS 5/16/11].

   

    H.R.2250 would stay the four proposed EPA rules including:

• (1) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).
• (2) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15554 (March 21, 2011).
• (3) Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, published at 76 Fed. Reg.15704 (March 21, 2011), and,
• (4) Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste, published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 (March 21, 2011).

    According to a release from the members, "to protect jobs and allow time for development of achievable standards," H.R.2250 would:

• Provide EPA with at least 15 months to re-propose and finalize new rules for boilers, process heaters, and incinerators;
• Extend compliance deadlines from 3 to at least 5 years to allow facilities adequate time to comply with the standards and install necessary equipment;
• Direct EPA, when developing the new rules, to adopt definitions that allow sources to use a wide range of alternative fuels; and, 
• Direct EPA to ensure that the new rules are achievable by real-world boilers, process heaters, and incinerators and impose the least burdensome regulatory alternatives consistent with the President's Executive Order 13563.

    Access a release from the Members (click here). Access a fact sheet from the Members with links to background information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2250 (click here). Access links to the final rules, fact sheets, and regulatory impact analyses for each of EPA's regulatory actions (click here). Access more information from EPA's Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial / Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators website (click here). [*Air]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.

EPA Extends Comments On Mercury & Air Toxics Standards 30-Days

Jun 21: U.S. EPA announced that in response to requests from members of Congress and to encourage additional public comment it will extended the timeline for public input by 30 days on the proposed mercury and air toxics standards, an extension that will not alter the timeline for issuing the final standards in November 2011 [See WIMS 3/16/11].

    In a brief statement, Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "EPA will put these long-overdue standards in effect in November, as planned. In our effort to be responsive to Congress and to build on the robust public comment process, we will extend the timeline for public input by 30 days, which will not impact the timeline for issuing the final standards. These standards are critically important to the health of the American people and will leverage technology already in use at over half of the nation's coal power plants to slash emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants. When these new standards are finalized, they will assist in preventing 11,000 heart attacks, 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and approximately 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year. Hospital visits will be reduced and nearly 850,000 fewer days of work will be missed due to illness."

    EPA proposed the first ever national mercury and air toxics standards on March 16, 2011. The standards will be phased in over three years, and states have the ability to give facilities a fourth year to comply. EPA said that currently, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy widely available pollution control technologies that are called for to meet these important standards. Once they are final in November, these standards will ensure the remaining coal-fired plants, roughly 44 percent, take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants. 

    Access the announcement from EPA (click here). Access more information including the Proposed Rule, Fact Sheet Summary, Overview Presentation, Overview Fact Sheet, and Regulatory Impact Analysis (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]

(click here for information on getting the links and more information about eNewsUSA).

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a limited time period you can access today's complete issue of eNewsUSA without the links http://bit.ly/kPRdso.