"SHOVELS FIRST AND LAWYERS LATER"
.
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c The Word - Unrequited Gov
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive
.
Iron Mountain Mine Institute remediation comprises a range of best practices that may be applied throughout the private remedy operations. The best management practices of green remediation provide potential means to improve waste management; conserve or preserve energy, fuel, water, and other natural resources; promote sustainable long-term stewardship; and reduce adverse impacts on the local community during and after remediation activities. Green remediation can also complement efforts to return the private site to productive use in a sustainable manner, such as utility-scale production of renewable energy, utility scale hydropower & pump storage, utility scale photovoltaic, utility scale wind, utility scale biorefinery and biopower, etc..
Utilization of green remediation strategies within the scope of the private response help ensure a protective remedy. It may be possible to lessen the long-term negative effects of the governments previous actions on the site. With the presently operating removal action green remediation practices may be used to upgrade or optimize treatment systems.Iron Mountain Mine remediation strategies complement site reuse involving sustainable activities and property development in accordance with smart growth principles and green building practices.
In April 2009, the OIG identified 10 key management challenges for Fiscal Year 2009. Three of those challenges impact EPA's management and enforcement capability: 1 EPA's organization and infrastructure; 2 Oversight of delegations to States; and 3 Performance measurement. We believe that the underlying issues persist.
.
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c The Word - Ownership Society
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive .
Legislative history indicates that a principal goal in creating section 113 was to clarify and confirm “the right of a person held jointly and severally liable under CERCLA to seek contribution from other potentially liable parties, when the person believes that it has assumed a share of the cleanup or cost that may be greater than its equitable share under the circumstances.” S. REP. NO. 99-11, at 44 (1985).
EPA Grandstanding
Posted on December 13, 2010 by Vorys
We've reported frequently on the efforts by U.S. EPA to inject itself (yes, pun intended) into the hydraulic fracturing debate. Now the NYT is reporting that the Regional Director for EPA Region 6 has issued an order to a Texas producer to provide water supplies to residents whose water wells have been impacted by methane and benzene (see here ). To do so, however, EPA has ignored the work of the Texas Railroad Commission, which has stated that EPA's actions are premature: " Texas officials accused EPA of grandstanding and making 'false claims' about its actions. 'If this is another EPA action designed to reach predetermined conclusions and to generate headlines rather than conduct a successful environmental investigation, then the public is poorly served,' TRC member Elizabeth Ames Jones said. 'The commission will not deny due process to the parties involved in spite of the false claims made against our investigative actions by the EPA staff.'"
1991] FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
WM. & MARY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 16:31
Emasculating State Environmental Enforcement:
The Supreme Court's Selective Adoption of the Preemption Doctrine
Dion W. Hayes
CONCLUSION
While the Constitution does not enumerate the power to regulate business to protect the natural environment as a power of the federal government, one cannot responsibly advocate the federal government's abdication of the responsibility it has assumed in that arena. The environment would benefit from the resurrection of the tradition of concurrent jurisdiction that prevailed in the environmental area prior to 1976.
The Supreme Court acts with institutional restraint when it interprets an explicit directive regarding preemption from Congress as Congress intended the law to take effect.
The Court correctly states that Congress is the governmental body best equipped to assess whether federal and state regulation can coexist successfully." When the Court reaches beyond any directive from Congress and finds in legislative history or another source a presumed intent of Congress as to preemption and so invalidates a state anti-pollution law, the Court enlarges its role and engages in unwarranted judicial activism toward the states. If, as many Court observers suggest, the justices are acutely aware of the political implications of their decisions, then the justices must also be aware of the grassroots support in this country for the preservation of the natural environment. The Court's decisions in the environmental area almost uniformly have hindered the states' efforts to clean up the environment. Concurrent jurisdiction is the best approach to take in the area of environmental regulation. The sooner the Court realizes this and resurrects the presumption against preemption, the more effective antipollution efforts at both the state and federal levels will become.
"[I]t is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right... ." Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bur., Inc., 476 U.S. 409, 424 (1986).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman (ASBO), Office of Small Business Programs, under the Office of the Administrator, serves as a conduit for small businesses to access EPA and facilitates communications between the small business community and the Agency.
Contact:
Joan B. Rogers
EPA Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mail Code: 1230T
Phone: 202-564-6568
Mainline: 202-566-2075
Hotline: 1-800-368-5888 and 202-566-1970 (DC area)
Fax: 202-566-1505ASBO Team
Mission
Functions
Specific ServicesASBO Team
- Joan B. Rogers, ASBO 202-564-6568
- Angela Suber 202-566-2827
- Paula Zampieri 202-566-2496
- Lester Facey 202-566-1321
- Esther McCrary 202-566-2824
- Tom Nakley 202-566-2826
- Treva Alston 202-566-1594
EPA Asbestos & Small Business Ombudsman
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mail Code: 1230T
Mainline: 202-566-2075
Hotline: 1-800-368-5888 / 202-566-1970 (DC area)
Fax: 202-566-1505Mission
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman (ASBO) is to support the environmental and compliance performance of small businesses while reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses, including the cost of compliance and the adverse impact on business operations through representation and collaboration.
Functions
The ASBO Team advocates for small business issues, partners with state Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAPs), small business trade associations, EPA headquarters and regional offices, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and other federal agencies to reach out to the small business community. These partnerships provide the information and perspective EPA needs to help small businesses achieve their environmental performance goals. This is a comprehensive program that provides networks, resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses across the country.
Specific Services
Liaison between EPA and the small business community
- Serves as liaison between small businesses and the EPA to facilitate dispute resolution;
- Hosts small business trade association meetings with the EPA Deputy Administrator and senior management;
- Is the Agency's Point of Contact for the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act (SBPRA) of 2002 ; and
- Takes the lead on behalf of the Administrator in responding to citizen's complaints under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (PDF) (79 pp, 8.4MB, about PDF ) .
Advocate for small business during the EPA rulemaking process
- Increases EPA personnel's understanding of small business concerns and impacts in the development and enforcement of environmental rules and regulations;
- Represents small business views during EPA regulatory activities; and
- Tracks the development and implementation of regulations affecting small business in support of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
Provide technical assistance to small businesses
- Answers technical and regulatory questions on a toll free hotline;
- Maintains and distributes EPA publications;
- Develops compliance assistance tools; and
- Gives direct access to technical assistance through the Small Business Environmental Home Page.
Support national network of Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAPs)
- Acts as the focal point and provides multi-level support and coordination for an extensive national network of SBEAPs;
- Supports annual national conference; and
- Provides support for network through the Small Business Environmental Home Page and associated activities.
.
Protocol For Conducting Environmental Compliance Audits Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act , EPA 305-B-98-009, 12/98. Protocol for Conducting Environmental Compliance Audits Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act and CERCLA Section 103 [EPA 305-B-01-002], 3/01, 75 pp. SEARCH for publications on www.epa.gov/nscep/ .
This web site is maintained by Vision Technologies, Inc. and AGZ & Associates, LLC
and is funded by the EPA Small Business Ombudsman Team, Office of Small Business Programs339 See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, 535 U.S. at 321–43 (discussing how a temporary
moratorium can not be considered a taking without analyzing the particular facts
and circumstances).
340 See Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 741–42 (1996) (recognizing
that government can bear the risk of loss when it enters land markets to further a
regulatory scheme).
341 See id. at 741 (recognizing that the right to transfer is of some importance in the bundle
of rights and the impact of government regulation on transfer of rights and land for value).
But see Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987) (recognizing the inter vivos right to transfer
does cut off the rights of descent and devise in the bundle of rights).
342 See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 625 (2001) (citing Olson v. United States,
292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934)); 4 JULIUS L. SACKMAN, NICHOLS ON EMINENT DOMAIN § 12.01
(rev. 3d ed. 2000)).
343 Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
344 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1993).
345 Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1991).Integrated Cleanup Initiative Draft Implementation Plan
EPA is soliciting public comment on the Integrated Cleanup Initiative Draft Implementation Plan through January 10, 2011. While many actions identified in this plan are underway, EPA will use the comments received to further evaluate and refine the draft plan.
- Integrated Cleanup Initiative Draft Implementation Plan (PDF) (28 pp., 289 K, About PDF )
Please submit comments to:
Becky Brooks
( brooks.becky@epa.gov )
USEPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
(MC 5101T)
Washington, DC 20004[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 74045-74046] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
A Reconsideration of Agricultural Law: A Call for the Law of Food, Farming, and Sustainability
Abstract
American agricultural policy has evolved from its early focus on agricultural development and expansion to its current focus on economic and political support for the agricultural sector. Agricultural law as a discipline has tracked this policy, with agricultural law scholars debating the origins and the validity of the special treatment of agriculture under the law. This article reviews these debates and calls for a reconsideration of agricultural law and policy to address the unique aspects of agricultural production, the fragility of the environment, and the fundamental need for healthy food. Transforming the special law of agriculture to a new more inclusive system that focuses on the sustainable production of healthy food is a critical challenge for the future. Moreover, it provides the only way to assure a politically sustainable agricultural policy.
Repository Citation
Susan A. Schneider, A Reconsideration of Agricultural Law: A Call for the Law of Food, Farming, and Sustainability , 34 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 935 (2010), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol34/iss3/5
Western Governors Association Conference
States' leaders say Endangered Species Act 'nonsensical,' hurts business and farming
The Endangered Species Act is a “nonsensical” policy that hurts businesses, property owners and farmers to protect animals and plants that may not be at risk, a panel of Democratic and Republican governors from throughout the West said Wednesday.
The governors complained of having their hands tied by federal policy as animal populations described as thriving but listed as endangered ravage private ranches, state parks and golf courses. Wildlife advocates say species that have thrived under the law's protection might again be threatened if taken off the list.
“The frustration level is reaching the breaking point in many levels because of this act,” said Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert. “It's nonsensical.”
The Republican governor griped about swarms of endangered prairie dogs digging into golf courses. “They have become so domesticated, they are just a pain,” he said.
The discussion about overhauling the Endangered Species Act came on the second day of a two-day conference of the Western Governors Association. State executives from 19 states, plus the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, were invited to attend.
Federal environmental officials acknowledged the law's challenges and slow-paced evolution, but largely aimed to rebut complaints and praise a conservation policy that seeks to protect nearly 2,000 species of birds, insects, fish, mammals, flowers and trees.
“Does the act always work perfectly? No,” said Eileen Sobeck, deputy assistant secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “Do the successes under the act outnumber the problems? I think they do.”
With its plentiful plains and rich wildlife, endangered species protections remain a testy issue in the West.
Hunters and ranchers, a powerful constituency in the Mountain West, have called for delisting recovering populations of certain species such as gray wolves and grizzlies. They contend that the federal policy affects the value and sovereignty of their land and threatens livestock. Western governors insist states, not federal regulators, should have authority over native species that affect local habitats and create business hurdles.
“We are pretty good at managing our wildlife,” Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana said.
Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have been in negotiations with the federal Interior Department to remove gray wolves from the endangered species in recent weeks, but talks have since stalled.
The region's 1,700 wolves lost their endangered status in Montana and Idaho in 2009, but were returned to the endangered list this year after a lawsuit brought by environmentalists.
Schweitzer, a Democrat, said that the gray wolf population in the West has fully recovered and should not be on the list, but federal regulators have been reluctant to reconsider the endangered designation.
“The Endangered Species Act is the Hotel California,” he told The Associated Press. “You can check in, but you can never leave.”
Schweitzer said rural states do not have enough clout in Congress to successfully lobby for the delisting of wolves under the Endangered Species Act, and he blasted federal officials for making the process so bureaucratic.
Idaho Gov. C. L. “Butch” Otter said the law has pitted business owners against government enforcers. The Republican suggested the federal government instead encourage land owners to protect endangered species on private land through financial rewards.
“The Endangered Species Act is broken, it's bankrupt, it's a fraud now,” he said.Chinook Salmon lost and found department
To maintain a claim that EPA has “unreasonably delayed” its duties under CERCLA, the court held that plaintiffs may continue to press their claims under another statute, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but must do so in another court. The court stated, “plaintiffs may bring an APA claim in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alleging EPA unreasonably delayed in promulgating the financial responsibility regulations required under Section 108(b).” Id . at 6. Unless and until such a litigation is brought and decided, the timeline for financial assurance requirements under CERCLA will remain unclear.
CERCLA 108(b) Rulemaking Overview
Regulatory Access to Contaminated Sites: Some New Twists to an Old Tale 2
Roger D. Schwenke, R26 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 749 (2002)
SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT CHALLENGES
The Safe Watershed Reform-Act (SWR) sets a vision for the watersheds of the United States to be safe. While we have certainly made progress toward that vision since 1972, we face challenges in attaining it.
In 1972 when the CWA was enacted, traditional point sources were thought to be the dominant cause of pollution. Now we have a better understanding of safe watersheds.
THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT.
Over the last 30 years National Water Quality Inventories have documented pathogens as a leading cause of river and stream impairments.
EPA MUST ADDRESS THIS PRIORITY.
HARD LOOK
C. National Environmental Policy Act
In passing NEPA, Congress “recognized the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment” and set out “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a).
To bring federal action in line with Congress' goals and to foster environmentally informed decision-making by federal agencies, NEPA “establishes ‘action-forcing' procedures that require agencies
to take a ‘hard look' at environmental consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley , 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989)). Foremost among those procedures is the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Agencies considering “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” are required to prepare an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The EIS “shall provide full and fair discussion of [the] significant environmental impacts” of the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. That discussion serves two purposes:
First, it ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider,
detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts. Second, it guarantees that the relevant
information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision. Dep't of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen , 541 U.S. 752, 768 (2004) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). By WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT v. KRAAYENBRINK 13249 focusing agency and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action, “NEPA ensures that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.” Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council , 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989).
and coordinated compliance and enforcement, more integrated approaches to capitalize on synergies, improved communication with a broader audience, and greater leveraging of programs. Just as EPA will have to employ all of its tools, so too must all our partners—state, local, tribal, and federal—play their roles.
EPA must improve and adapt regulations, permitting and compliance/enforcement efforts as a key first step to change our current path. EPA will also work to greatly increase cooperation, partnerships and communication to achieve victories in areas where regulatory approaches are not appropriate. We will support legislation and consider administrative action to restore the CWA protections to wetlands and headwater streams that provide clean water for human and ecological uses. We will take action to ensure all major point sources of pollution have permits that require clear, verifiable results. And by implementing new enforcement approaches per the Clean Water Action Plan , including more integrated problem solving, collaboration across standards setting, permitting and enforcement programs, EPA will bring violators into compliance.
Another key element of this strategy is improvement of assessment and classification of watersheds. And building on this, EPA will increase cooperation with states to identify and protect those waters that are healthy; a far more cost effective approach than cleaning up a waterbody after it has been polluted. EPA also seeks to find ways to better integrate new technologies and approaches into our clean water programs. For example, green infrastructure provides an important set of tools for changing the way stormwater discharges viewed—from being treated as a waste product that comes with high-cost infrastructure systems – to realizing and using it as a valued resource. Green infrastructure can also have positive effects on sanitary sewer overflows and combined sewer overflows, which are major urban water concerns. EPA AND STATES will also explore opportunities to better integrate sustainable practices into policies and programs; for instance: energy-neutral wastewater treatment, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and water reuse.
EPA will seek solutions to address recent, emerging, and growing watershed quality issues including increased mining activities, drilling, aging infrastructure and increased urbanization and development. Invasive species are also a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems. Using regulatory programs EPA and States fund communities meaningful steps to reduce OR ELIMINATE the likelihood that invasive species are able to spread from one waterbody to another . Additionally, as excess nutrient pollution continues to be a major concern, industry and communities must find a better means to addressing this problem on the critical path to success. EPA will work in partnership with states AND COMMUNITIES to better manage excess nutrient enrichment and promote state accountability frameworks that include publicly-available, science-based, state nutrient reduction implementation activities that are watershed-based and have mechanisms to achieve the reductions.
STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT GOALS
This strategy's success depends on many factors working together. Local governments, states, and tribes, each working under their own authorities and capacities, to ensure watersheds in their jurisdiction are safe. It is up to EPA to bring these groups together to more smoothly coordinate and harmonize our efforts in order to optimize the results. EPA has identified several key strategies to guide our efforts, and actions that respond to the challenges we face: Public Discussion SEPTEMBER 2010 - 4
.
• Systematically assess watersheds to provide a baseline for transparently tracking progress;
• Enhance COMMUNITIES ability to restore degraded watersheds, and take action to increase the number of restored watersheds;
• Reduce emissions entering our watersheds; and
• Enhance watershed resiliency and revitalize communities through multi-benefit, sustainable technologies and approaches that will ensure resiliency to development, urbanization and other factors.
.
KEY ACTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING WATERSHED PROTECTIONS
By approaching the most significant safe land and watershed challenges facing the nation from a more realistic perspective and using resources creatively, we will undertake a range of actions to implement these strategies to get a better understanding of the state of our nation's watersheds, work to protect what we've got, fix what's broken, expand our work to keep watersheds safe, and build for the future while ensuring we are meeting our economic and community needs. In doing so, the community will expand existing partnerships and develop new, locally-based partnerships, and implement tools and policies that will foster tailored approaches. In addition to strengthening and expanding partnerships, to achieve the next level of protection, we will work within the community and outside the community to strategically leverage funding opportunities to reduce emissions from unregulated sources.
In implementing these actions, the community remains committed to the following principles:
• Use bold, new, creative, more effective ways to implement SWR and other programs, more strategically deploy existing regulatory authorities and enforcement programs, as well as voluntary approaches and market-based incentives;
• Rely on robust science and cutting-edge technologies, particularly in emerging areas of concern such as climate adaptation, ecosystem services, integrated watershed approaches;
• Increase focus on improving environmental quality in disadvantaged communities that have historically suffered severe degradation of watershed quality that provide key ecosystem services;
• Engage a broader range of stakeholders in decision-making and provide the EPA and other stakeholders with reliable information about watersheds; and
• Achieve and document measurable results.
.
Know What You've Got – Systematically Assess Watersheds to Provide a Baseline Effective management of watershed resources requires reliable information and an informed public. To better inform our efforts, improve accountability, policy, planning, increase stewardship, and better measure progress of ongoing efforts to improve the quality of data in the long-term; the EPA will focus on systematically assessing the nations watersheds. The National Aquatic Resource Surveys for streams, lakes and coastal waters already provide the baseline for the condition of watersheds across the - Public Discussion Draft – September 2010 5 -
nation against which we can track changes in water condition at the national and regional scales. In the next several years, EPA will complete the first set of five Aquatic Resource Surveys that will give us a complete picture of the condition of all watershed types across the nation. EPA, working with our partners, will also explore opportunities to build on existing monitoring and assessment efforts to better identify, classify, and track the status of our watersheds. This multi-scaled approach to monitoring and assessment will give communities the information they need to make informed decisions about how best to manage watershed resources and help the public understand the effectiveness of federal and state investments.
Key EPA Actions:
• Complete cycle of National Aquatic Resource Surveys to provide baseline for documenting trends in degradation and major stressors in the next several years,
• Complement existing impaired watershed listings with identification of healthy watersheds across the U.S. ; and
• Explore opportunities for increasing strategic information attained from and integrity of the Integrated Watershed Quality Monitoring and Assessment Reports to provide a more comprehensive picture.
.
Protect What We Have – Increased Focus on Protection of Healthy Watersheds
EPA's watershed quality protection program is focused on the remediation of impaired watersheds and the reduction of specific emission levels in watersheds. While EPA and our state partners have made and are continuing to make considerable progress in this important work, we recognize the need to protect and maintain healthy watersheds as well. Healthy watersheds provide our communities with drinking water, recreational opportunities, environmental benefits and services, including safe watershed for healthy aquatic ecosystems, habitat for fish and wildlife, and better resilience against floods and future land-use changes. Protecting healthy watersheds will result in considerable savings over time if the need for costly restoration can be avoided in watersheds that would otherwise become impaired by cumulative impacts.
EPA will study and report the health and safety of watersheds sufficiently for communities to explore, develop, and make available more effective information and expertise to conduct ecological assessments, to classify and list healthy watersheds. By developing, along with our state partners, a science-based structure on a national level, EPA hopes to provide the tools to help them inventory and then take action to protect their healthy watersheds. EPA will also enhance public awareness and, together with better equipped and organized State action, will ultimately lead to increased protection of our watershed assets.
COMMUNITIES will utilize SWR tools to increase protection of high quality watersheds, including revisions to water quality standards, and focus on protecting those watersheds that are threatened by coal and hard rock mining activities.
Key EPA Actions:
• Through the new Healthy Watershed Initiative, develop a common set of comprehensive metrics to create a national list of healthy watersheds (e.g., linking watershed protection and species diversity); use the latest state-of-the-science, peer-reviewed methods to conduct
Public Discussion Draft – September 2010 6
.
assessments to identify healthy watersheds across states using CWA funds (e.g., 604(b), 319, and 106) in partnership with other Federal agencies. With these assessments, help set States set priorities and implement protection and conservation programs;
Support legislation and consider administrative action to initiate SWR protections for our watersheds;
Use the full suite of SWR tools to dam streams from destruction and degradation caused by mining activities;
Propose changes to the state water quality standard regulations to protect watersheds; and
Ensure States are effectively administering watershed programs.
.
Fix What's Broken – Enhance The Communities Ability to Restore Watersheds
The restoration of watersheds will be critical to making significant progress. In order to do so EPA will use the San Francisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and the Everglades as a demonstration for improved monitoring of restoration progress. Success in cleaning up the Everglades, San Francisco and Chesapeake Bay watersheds will be a model for watershed protection in other parts of the country. This combined approach of protecting healthy watersheds and restoring impaired waters will ultimately improve the overall state of our nation's watersheds.
Key EPA Actions
1 Work with states to and communities to carry out more strategic and effective implementation of watershed-based plans;
2 Develop reasonable assurance guidelines regarding watersheds;
3 Coordinate funding opportunities with USDA to accelerate nutrient and sediment reductions and tackle key agriculture challenges through an integrated approach using 319 Program, Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), CWA section 117, STAR grants and USDA Conservation programs;
4 Use market-based tools where appropriate to improve watersheds;
5 Implement all of the above actions in conjunction with states and communities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and other federal agencies to execute the President's Executive Orders.
In addition, EPA will:
• Implement federal land management practices that protect forests and watersheds, and incorporate sustainable practices;
• Create a system for tracking and reporting watershed commitments and two-year milestone commitments;
Keep it Safe – Safe Watersheds Reform-Act Public Discussion September 2010 7
EPA seeks to increase protection of our watersheds by reducing current loadings and preparing for substantial predicted increases associated with development, urbanization, and other factors. Across the board, under the SWR, communities address a number of watershed challenges.
Where problems are identified, communities apply the best standards available, eliminate loopholes, and set performance standards through robust modifications to current regulations.
For example, in addition to the work underway in Chesapeake Bay as part of the President's recent Executive Order, EPA will use its expertise robustly help communities protect and restore natural treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico as navigable waterways of the united states . EPA is heading up a multi-agency effort to restore and protect the Great Lakes, one of America's great waterways, through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. In other parts of the nation, we will focus on the long-term health of important ecosystems such as the Mississippi River Basin . Further, given the environmental catastrophe resulting from the Deepwater BP oil spill, EPA will take all necessary actions to support efforts to clean up and restore the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and prevent another disaster.
Key EPA Actions:
• Transfer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which will streamline the regulatory authority;
• Develop guidance for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to protect the public and the environment from the effects of sanitary sewer overflows and the release of partially treated waste water from treatment facilities. Potential regulatory approaches include additional reporting and public notice when overflows occur, increased responsibilities for properly operating and maintaining sewer systems, clarifying the requirements for satellite collection systems, and addressing peak wet weather flows at the treatment plant. EPA will also explore more widespread use of green infrastructure techniques in combined sewer overflow control plans;
• Expand municipal storm water guidance to currently unregulated areas and establish performance standards for storm water discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites that result in reduced discharge, including through the use of green infrastructure techniques;
• Develop guidance to reduce pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. ;
• Audit point source programs;
• Evaluate implications of study currently underway within EPA's Office of Research and Development;
• Develop guidance for cooling water intakes at over 1200 power plants and manufacturing facilities; and
• Work in partnership with states and communityies to better manage excess nutrient enrichment in surface waters, including:
Public Discussion Draft – September 2010 8
.
• Initiating scientific report(s) based on best available science and subject to peer review to determine necessary nutrient loads to restore and maintain watershed quality in key areas;
• Developing guidance to assist authorities in standards for nutrients;
• Improving public understanding of the public health, environmental impacts, and economics; and
• Leveraging federal funding to assist communities in implementing nutrient reduction strategies.
.
Build for the Future – Enhance Watershed Resiliency and Revitalize Communities
In order to maximize clean watershed protection under current authorities, EPA must make a substantial shift in programmatic approaches to identify and implement multi-benefit solutions that will help communities plan and be more responsive to changing factors such as population growth, increased urbanization, etc.e. A more realistic approach will facilitate capitalizing on existing programs, tools, policies and available funding to achieve measurable results. A collaborative approach to community-based programs will achieve multiple objectives, break down traditionally stovepipe divisions, and broadly engage local communities in decisions that impact local and state waters. For example, capitalizing on green infrastructure, water/energy synergies and integrated water management are key features in this new approach.
EPA must develop a renewed strategy on green infrastructure to identify and target the next set of actions that need to be undertaken to promote and support green infrastructure practices. EPA must also develop a framework for encouraging and facilitating more integrated watershed management approaches at the state and local level, and support solutions that reduce infrastructure costs and promote more efficient, locally coordinated resource use. These more integrated solutions, ultimately, lead to long-term sustainability, community participation, better watershed quality, and more robust ecosystem services.
Key EPA Actions:
• Promote green infrastructure more broadly. Consider policy options to make green infrastructure solutions an available tool for meeting SWR requirements considering the incorporation of non-traditional or green infrastructure alternatives in policies to increase adoption of green infrastructure practices;
• Encourage integrated water management approaches. Implement policies and help direct national attention toward more sustainable water management practices that better integrate land use at the watershed level. Building on synergies within the watershed sector, integrated approaches can allow communities to more sustainable watershed infrastructure and supply costs and investments,
Public Discussion Draft – September 2010 9
.
as well as potentially reduce overall energy consumption, and both utilize renewable energy and/or create new energy sources;
Encourage states to use their Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) for projects that will best advance these policies and are consistent with the community's sustainability policy. Additionally, EPA will continue to work with States to ensure that all CWSRF programs meet the mandated requirement to use at most 100% of FY 2010 appropriated funds for green projects such as green storm water infrastructure, water efficiency projects, energy efficiency projects, and other innovative environmental projects;
Develop policies that will facilitate greater collaboration and accelerate the commercialization of cutting-edge technologies that help deliver clean water such as energy self-sufficient waste water treatment;
Develop comprehensive approaches, including all of the above actions, to help transform previously degraded urban watersheds into community assets by:
• Linking environmental programs with existing priorities such as economic development;
• Adding environmental components to economic programs in pilot areas
• Facilitating watershed clean-up efforts; and
• Work to ensure the overall sustainability of drinking water and waste water utilities by better incorporating adaptation and mitigation strategies and other cost-efficient infrastructure practices into planning and operations.
.
CONCLUSION
Without safe watersheds, no part of a community—its ecology, its economy, its health—can thrive. It is at the core of our communities and is crucial to the vitality of our rural areas. Realizing this imperative for safe watersheds, our nation will require the balanced, organized, and thoughtful effort and collaboration of all levels of government. We will make the most of all of the resources and programs available to us.
The best way to bring the Safe Watershed Reform-Act's purpose into reality is for communities to strengthen and expand the national conversation on protecting and maintaining watersheds. Growing partnerships will be helpful in light of national trends in watershed quality and recent environmental disasters.
EPA invites tribes, states, communities, and all Americans to come together for safe watersheds and our national quest to achieve the purpose of the SWR. We can have sustainable communities and watersheds.
CERCLA § 104, 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (2000 & Supp. V 2005). Implementation of healthrelated
authorities provided in CERCLA section 104 is a joint responsibility of the EPA
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”), which was
established under section 104. Id. § 9604 (i) (providing a listing of responsibilities of the
ATSDR administrator and of other EPA/ATSDR joint responsibilities).
38 See id. § 9604(a)(1) (2000). See also id. § 9601(23) (defining “removal”); id. § 9601 (24)
(defining “remedial action”). The President is authorized to acquire real property, or any
interest therein necessary, in the President’s discretion, to conduct remedial actions. Id.
§ 9604(j)(1) (2000). See also id. § 9601(33) (defining “pollutant or contaminant”); id. § 9605
(discussing the preparation contents, revision, and republication of the national contingency
plan).
39 42 U.S.C. § 9604 (2000). The President has the authority to act under section 104 of
CERCLA to:
remove or arrange for the removal of, and provide for remedial action
relating to such hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at any
time (including its removal from any contaminated natural resource),
or take any other response measure consistent with the national contingency
plan which the President deems necessary to protect the public
health or welfare or the environment.
Id. § 9604(a)(1).
40 Id. § 9604(e)(5)(A).
41 Id. § 9606(a).
42 Id. § 9606(a)-(b). CERCLA section 106 directs the federal courts to use their equitable
powers to cause responsible parties to abate the danger caused by the release or threatened
release. Id. § 9606(a).(4) that each of the defendants is a “person,” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
(Iron Mountain Mines is not a person)
[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 74045-74046] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no10-78] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0894; FRL-9233-7] Guidance on Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is interested in soliciting individual stakeholder input regarding the issues addressed in the EPA interim final guidance, titled Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites. The Agency will consider the information gathered from this notice and other sources before finalizing this guidance. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2011, 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2010-0894 by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov Fax: (202) 566-9744 Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room; EPA West Building, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2010-0894. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any [[Page 74046]] personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or superfund.docket@epa.gov . The http:// www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund docket is (202) 566-0276. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chip Love, phone: (703) 603-0695, e- mail: love.chip@epa.gov , Construction and Post Construction Management Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA's interim final guidance on Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites addresses some of the common issues that may be encountered during the cleanup process and provides recommendations on how ICs can complement other response actions (such as engineered response action components) at a site. This interim final guidance also provides an overview of EPA's policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the various aspects of planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls. The guidance is available at http:// www.regulations.gov . This guidance does not represent a regulation, and is not subject to the formal provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. However, EPA recognizes the potential importance of this guidance to its Federal, state, local, and tribal partners, to the regulated community, and to the public, and therefore through this Federal Register notice seeks public input on the topics addressed in this interim final guidance and its implementation. This public input opportunity will be available until January 14, 2011. EPA intends to evaluate whether any changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate and expects to issue a final version of this guidance. For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA in particular seeks input on the following: Are there ways EPA can better evaluate the capacity, willingness, and financial assurance of state, tribal and local governments to assist with ICs and engineering controls when such controls are necessary at a site? What potential barriers exist with respect to state, local, and tribal government involvement with ICs and what tools or possible solutions could EPA promote to improve the awareness of and involvement in IC activities? How can site managers better engage and involve affected community stakeholders and local land use decision-makers concerning ICs that may be needed and relied upon to complement other response actions (i.e., engineered response action components) at cleanup sites? How can information concerning ICs and the underlying land and/or resource use restrictions be made more available to local land use decision-makers? How can EPA better identify and account for the full life cycle costs of ICs? EPA intends to accept input on the interim final guidance until January 14, 2011. EPA also intends to fully consider all public input in evaluating whether changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate, and to issue a final version of this guidance. Dated: November 23, 2010. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 2010-30111 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testifies during a hearing in Washington, DC. that "The EPA asks for more time in crafting new pollution regulations."
EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Release date: 12/06/2010
Contact Information: Richard Yost, yost.richard@epa.gov, 202-564-7827, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites small businesses to participate in a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel on a proposed rule that would establish financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry. The requirements will help ensure that owners and operators of the facilities, not taxpayers, foot the bill for environmental cleanup.
The panel will ask a selected group of Small Entity Representatives (SERs), to provide advice and recommendations on the proposed rule to the panel. EPA seeks self-nominations directly from small entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Self-nominations may be submitted through the link below and must be received by December 20, 2010.
The requirements will be developed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly called Superfund.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA to establish a federal panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBAR panel will include representatives from the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and EPA.Small Business Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
- What is the implication of the proposed rulemaking on small entities?
- What is a Small Business Advocacy Panel?
- How can I get involved?
- Who should I contact?
What is the Implication of the Proposed Rulemaking on Small Entities?
Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, establishes certain regulatory authorities concerning financial responsibility requirements. Specifically, the statutory language addresses the promulgation of regulations that require classes of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. EPA recognizes that financial responsibility is an important policy tool for ensuring that the clean-up of contaminated sites is not left as a burden for the public. In a July 28, 2009 Federal Register notice , EPA identified classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry as those for which the Agency will first develop financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b).
As discussed in that notice, EPA research indicates that the hard rock mining industry typically operates on a large scale, with releases of toxic chemicals to the environment and in some situations, subsequent exposure of humans, organisms, and ecosystems to hazardous substances on a similarly large scale. The metal mining industry released nearly 1.15 billion pounds of hazardous substances in 2007. The hard rock mining industry is responsible for polluting 3,400 miles of streams and 440,000 acres of land. Approximately 10,000 miles of rivers and streams may have been contaminated by acid mine drainage from the metal mining industry. The severity of consequences as a result of releases of and exposure to hazardous substances is evident in the enormous costs associated with past and projected future actions necessary to protect public health and the environment.
EPA's preliminary analyses currently show that approximately 298 companies (or 81% of the potentially regulated universe) are small entities.
What is a Small Business Advocacy Panel?
EPA is developing a proposed rule that would require financial responsibility for classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry. At this time, EPA is unable to determine the economic impact of our proposed rule. EPA is proceeding with formation of a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA) requires EPA to convene an SBAR Panel for a proposed rule unless the agency can certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Panel process offers an opportunity for small businesses, small governments, and small not-for-profit organizations (collectively referred to as small entities) to provide advice and recommendations to ensure that EPA carefully considers small entity concerns. The Panel itself is comprised of federal employees from EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. Small Entity Representatives (SERs) provide advice and recommendations to the Panel. Typically, EPA prefers that SERs be owner-operators of small businesses, small organization officials, or small government officials. Other representatives, such as trade associations that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities, may serve as SERs. These other representatives are evaluated on a case by case basis.
Information about what constitutes a " small business " is available at the Small Business Administration's website . A " small government " is defined as a jurisdiction serving a population of 50,000 residents or fewer. A “ small organization ” is defined as any “not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” For purpose of this proposed rule, small businesses pertaining to mining except for oil and gas include any operator who employs fewer than 500 employees. This proposed rule may also affect primary metal manufacturers or processors with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) starting with 331. The criteria for small businesses for metal manufacturers or processors range from 500 to 1,000 employees depending on the six digit NAICS code. To learn more, review EPA's fact sheet, What Potential Small Entities Should Know About the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process (2009) (PDF) (4 pp, 19 K) .
How Can I Get Involved?
You may potentially be subject to this rulemaking and are eligible to serve as a Small Entity Representative (SER), if you are the owner or operator of a small hard rock mining facility. In the July 2009 notice, EPA defined hard rock mining to include classes of facilities that extract, beneficiate or process metals (e.g., copper, gold iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium, and zinc) and non-metallic, non-fuel minerals (e.g., asbestos, phosphate rock, and sulfur). EPA notes that certain non-fuel hard rock mining sectors (e.g. construction sand and gravel) were not included among those hard rock mining facilities identified in the notice. ( See Note 1. ) As mentioned above, other representatives that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities may also serve as SERs, as well.
You may nominate yourself to serve as a SER by following the directions in the next section. Depending on the volume of responses, EPA may not be able to invite all qualified candidates to participate as SERs. Generally, SERs will be asked to review background information, listen to informational briefings, and provide oral and written advice and recommendations to the Panel. One face-to-face meeting is typically held with the SERs in Washington, DC; a toll-free conference line is provided for this meeting.
Additional information about the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act is available in the following fact sheet: What Small Entities Should Know About EPA and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (2009) (PDF) (4 pp, 20K) .
Who Should I Contact?
SERs must:
- be small and expect to be subject to requirements of the proposed rule; or
- represent potentially regulated small entities exclusively or at least primarily represent such entities (e.g., a trade association that exclusively or primarily represents small entities). Nominees such as these will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Individuals who are interested in potentially serving as a SER should send a message to RFA-SBREFA@epa.gov or call Sarah Dale ((202) 564-6998) by no later than 12/20/2010. In the message, please provide:
- your name;
- the name of your company, governmental jurisdiction, or not-for-profit organization;
- the size of your company, governmental jurisdiction, or not-for-profit organization;
- your address; and
- your contact information.
- USE THIS AS THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL: SER Self-Nomination for Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Please remember: Depending on the volume of responses, EPA may not be able to invite all qualified candidates to participate as SERs.
Environmental Interests
Information System Information System ID Environmental Interest Type Data Source Last Updated Date Supplemental Environmental Interests: COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY INFORMATION SYSTEM
CAD980498612 SUPERFUND NPL CERCLIS INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM 38045 FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION ICIS 09/13/2002 ICIS -09-2002-0078
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1987-0013
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1990-0018
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1997-0008
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1997-0157
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Additional EPA Reports:
MyEnvironment Cleanups in My Community Site Demographics Watershed Report
Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC)
Data Source SIC Code Description Primary ICIS 1031 LEAD AND ZINC ORES ICIS 1011 IRON ORES ICIS 1021 COPPER ORES Facility Codes and Flags
EPA Region: 09 Duns Number: Congressional District Number: 02 Legislative District Number: HUC Code/Watershed: 18020112 / SACRAMENTO-UPPER CLEAR US Mexico Border Indicator: NO Federal Facility: NO Tribal Land: NO Alternative Names
Alternative Name Source of Data I M M CERCLIS Organizations
No Organizations returned. National Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS)
Data Source NAICS Code Description Primary FRS 212210 IRON ORE MINING. FRS 212231 LEAD ORE AND ZINC ORE MINING. FRS 212234 COPPER ORE AND NICKEL ORE MINING. Facility Mailing Addresses
Affiliation Type Delivery Point City Name State Postal Code Information System COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR 75 HAWTHORNE STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 CERCLIS Contacts
Affiliation Type Full Name Office Phone Information System Mailing Address COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR EUGENE RAINWATER 4159723217 CERCLIS View Query executed on: DEC-08-2010
Additional information for CERCLIS or TRI sites:
This information resource is not maintained, managed, or owned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Envirofacts Support Team. Neither the EPA nor the Envirofacts Support Team is responsible for their content or site operation. The Envirofacts Warehouse provides this reference only as a convenience to our Internet users.
- National Library of Medicine (NLM) TOXMAP
Listed Water Information
CYCLE : 2006
Click here to see metadata for this report.
Cycle: 2006 State: CA List ID: CAL5244001220020730101915 Waterbody Name: KESWICK RESERVOIR (PORTION DOWNSTREAM FROM SPRING CREEK) State Basin Name: CENTRAL VALLEY Listed Water Map Link: Map Impaired Water .
DELISTING FROM KESWICK TO COTTONWOOD SINCE MAY 2009 - TRUST WATER HABITATS OF THE UNITED STATES
Iron Mountain Mine Cleanup - State of Calif., CVRWQCB, et al. v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al., (EDCal No. CIV-S-91-1167-DFL-PAN) and U.S. v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al., (EDCal No. S-91-0768 DFL/JFM)
Other Impaired Water 303(d) List Information
The most current report available for this water body is 2006.
Data are also available for these years: 2004 2002State List IDs:
Cycle State List ID 2002 CAL5244001220020730101915 2004 CAL5244001220020730101915 2006 CAL5244001220020730101915 State Impairments:
State Impairment Parent Impairment Priority Rank Targeted Flag Anticipated TMDL Submittal CADMIUM METALS (OTHER THAN MERCURY) SEP-30-2020 COPPER METALS (OTHER THAN MERCURY) SEP-30-2020 ZINC METALS (OTHER THAN MERCURY) SEP-30-2020 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Information:
There were no TMDLs reported to EPA by the state.
Watershed Information:
Watershed Name Watershed States SACRAMENTO-UPPER CLEAR CALIFORNIA Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet for Watershed
Sacramento-Upper ClearNumber of Waters listed by State for Watershed
State Name Waters on List Effective Listing Cycle CALIFORNIA 3
2006 Total Number of Waters Listed: 3
Waters Listed By Waterbody
NOTE: Click on the underlined "Waters on List" value to see a listing of those waters. Waterbody Name Waterbody Type Waters on List KESWICK RESERVOIR (PORTION DOWNSTREAM FROM SPRING CREEK) LAKE/RESERVOIR/POND 1
SPRING CREEK, LOWER (IRON MOUNTAIN MINE TO KESWICK RESERVOIR) STREAM/CREEK/RIVER WILLOW CREEK (SHASTA COUNTY, BELOW GREENHORN MINE TO CLEAR CREEK) STREAM/CREEK/RIVER Total Number of Listed Waters: 3
Causes of Impairment
NOTE: Click on the underlined "Causes of Impairment Reported" value to see a listing of those waters with the impairment. Impairment Name Causes of Impairment Reported Percent of Reported COPPER 30.00 ZINC 30.00 ACID MINE DRAINAGE 2
20.00 CADMIUM 20.00 Total Number of Causes of Impairment Reported: 10
Approved TMDLs by Pollutants since October 1, 1995
There were no Approved TMDLs reported to EPA by the state for this watershed. EPA is in the process of collecting TMDL information from the states. Because these efforts are on-going, there may be additional approved TMDLs that were not found here.Approved TMDLS by EPA Fiscal Year (October 1 through September 30) since October 1, 1995
There were no Approved TMDLs reported to EPA by the state since October 1995.TMDL Document Search
Full Text Search of TMDL Documents is available here .
Water | Wetlands, Oceans, Watersheds | Watershed Protection
.
Note
1. See memorandum to Record, from Stephen Hoffman, USEPA and Shahid Mahmud, USEPA. Re : Mining Classes Not Included in Identified Hard Rock Mining Classes of Facilities. June 2009.
David Weaver
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1600
david.s.weaver@nasa.gov
Dec. 6, 2010 RELEASE : 10-326 DOE and NASA Reach Cleanup Agreements with the State of California for the Santa Susana Field Laboratory WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy and NASA signed Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC) with the California Environmental Protection Agency today that define the process for the characterization and cleanup end-state of portions of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL).
The agreements come after more than 10 months of negotiations and extensive public comment on the conceptual framework for cleanup outlined in the Agreement in Principle and additional public comment on the legally enforceable process and procedures in the draft Administrative Order on Consent.
"By working closely with the State of California, we have reached an historic agreement that will allow the Department to carry out its important cleanup work and protect the health of both the surrounding community and the environment," Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said.
"NASA is pleased to join with the Department of Energy and the State of California in signing these agreements and will do its part to assist with the Santa Susanna cleanup," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "We are committed to working with these partners to address the environmental concerns at this former test site."
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said: "The landmark agreements announced today between NASA, the Department of Energy and the State of California are an important step toward real protection for families who live near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. For many years, I have strongly supported the state's and communities' efforts to ensure that a comprehensive cleanup is conducted at Santa Susana that protects the health of the public, including children and pregnant women. I am pleased that NASA and the Department of Energy have stepped up to the plate and agreed to clean up the Santa Susana site to the levels California has determined will provide the greatest protection to nearby communities."
DOE's agreement is a commitment to clean up Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the SSFL to background levels for both chemical and radiological constituents.
DOE's AOC includes several key steps needed to reach the desired end-state of a cleanup to background.
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will determine the radiological background for each radionuclide based upon its on-going radiological background study.
- The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will determine the chemical background for each potential chemical constituent based upon its on-going chemical background study.
- The USEPA will determine, through the ongoing radiological characterization survey, the nature and extent of any remaining radiological contamination.
- DTSC will determine the nature and extent of any remaining chemical contamination based on the previously submitted chemical sampling results, results from co-locating samples with USEPA for chemical analysis, and any DTSC determined necessary additional sampling.
- A major component of the framework is the involvement of USEPA to serve as technical advisor to DTSC and DOE. USEPA will perform confirmatory sampling after DOE has completed cleanup to help ensure all cleanup goals have been met. USEPA also will approve for use DOE identified areas of backfill.
In addition to providing the legal framework for the agreement, the Administrative Order on Consent also outlines a process to address the court-ordered Environmental Impact Statement.
Consequences of the War Against the South
December 11, 2010 By Michael
Neo-Federalist program prevails in America
Murray Rothbard , “Mr. Libertarian” himself, explains the results that came out of Old Abe's conquest of the seceded Southern States in the 1860s. Rothbard argues that beyond its death and destruction, the war also resulted in a huge growth in militarism and destroyed hard money, the old decentralised banking system as well as the pre-war dominance of the essentially libertarian Democratic Party. The previously sovereign States of the Union were forged into a single centralised state ruled by Neo-Federalist principles:
Let us trace the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is, first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There is the complete setting aside of the civilized “rules of war” that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries: instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression was, of course, Sherman's march through Georgia and the rest of the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism). Another consequence, of course, was the ending of effective states' rights, and of the perfectly logical and reasonable right of secession – or, for that matter, nullification. From now on, the Union was a strictly compulsory entity.
Further, the Civil War foisted upon the country the elimination of Jacksonian hard money: the greenbacks established government fiat paper, which it took 14 long years to tame; and the National Bank Act ended the separation of government from banking, effectively quasi-nationalizing and regulating the banking system, and creating an engine of governmentally sponsored inflation.
So ruthlessly did the Lincoln administration overturn the old banking system (including the effective outlawing of state bank notes) that it became almost impossible to achieve a return – impossible that is, without a radical and almost revolutionary will for hard money, which did not exist. On the tariff, the virtual destruction of the Democratic Party led to the foisting of a high, protective tariff to remain for a generation – indeed, permanently, for the old prewar low tariff was never to return. It was behind this wall of tariff-subsidy that the “trusts” were able to form. Further, the administration embarked on a vast program of subsidies to favored businesses: land grants to railroads, etc. The Post Office was later monopolized and private postal services outlawed. The national debt skyrocketed, the budget increased greatly and permanently, and taxes increased greatly – including the first permanent foisting on America of excise taxation, especially on whiskey and tobacco.
Thus, on every point of the old Federalist-Whig vs. Democrat-Republican controversy, the Civil War and the Lincoln administration achieved a neo-Federalist triumph that was complete right down the line. And the crushing of the South, the military Reconstruction period, etc. assured that the Democratic Party would not rise again to challenge this settlement for at least a generation. And when it did rise, it would have a much tougher row to hoe than did Van Buren and Co. in an era much more disposed to laissez-faire.
But this was not all: for the Civil War saw also the inauguration of despotic and dictatorial methods beyond the dreams of the so-called “despots of '98.” Militarism ran rampant, with the arrogant suspension of habeas corpus, the crushing and mass arrests in Maryland, Kentucky, etc.; the suppression of civil liberties and opposition against the war, among the propeace “Copperheads” – the persecution of Vallandigham, etc.; and the institution of conscription. Also introduced on the American scene at this time was the income tax, reluctantly abandoned later, but to reappear. Federal aid to education began in earnest and permanently with federal land grants for state agricultural colleges. There was no longer any talk, of course, about abolition of the standing army or the navy. Almost everything, in short, that is currently evil on the American political scene, had its roots and its beginnings in the Civil War.
Because of the slavery controversy of the 1850s, there was no longer a single libertarian party in America, as the Democratic had been. Now the free-soilers had left the Democrat ranks. But, especially after Dred Scott had pushed the Douglas “Freeport Doctrine” to the fore as libertarian policy, there was hope for a reunited Democracy, especially since the Democrat party was still very good on all questions except slavery. But the Civil War wrecked all that, and monolithic Republican rule could impress its neo-Federalist program on America to such an extent as to make it extremely difficult to uproot.
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State , Conceived in Liberty , What Has Government Done to Our Money , For a New Liberty , The Case Against the Fed , and many other books and articles . He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report .
Copyright © 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute
.
Ruckelshaus saw some of the presidential papers from that era, including a Clean Water Act document on which Nixon had handwritten "bullshit" in a marginal note.
Florida Officials File Lawsuit Against EPA Over Federal Intrusion Into State's Clean Water Program
TALLAHASSEE, FL – Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, Agriculture
Commissioner Charles Bronson, Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi and
Agriculture Commissioner-elect Adam Putnam today announced that the State
of Florida has filed a lawsuit against the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency's intrusion into Florida's
previously approved clean water program.The lawsuit alleges that the EPA's action is inconsistent with the intent
of Congress when it based the Clean Water Act on the idea of cooperative
federalism whereby the States would be responsible for the control of
water quality with oversight by the EPA. Control of nutrient loading from
predominately non-point sources involves traditional States' rights and
responsibilities for water and land resource management which Congress
expressly intended to preserve in the Clean Water Act. It specifically
alleges that the EPA rule and the January 2009 necessity determination by
the EPA for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's waters
were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and requests the
court to enjoin the EPA Administrator from implementing the numeric
criteria for Florida in the rule.“We all want clean water for Florida, and we all believe that
scientifically sound and responsible numeric nutrient criteria will
improve efforts to achieve this goal. Florida was in the process of
developing such criteria under an EPA-approved plan when the EPA decided
to preempt the state's plan,” said Attorney General McCollum. “The EPA
numeric nutrient rule and its proposed criteria are not based on
scientifically sound methodology, and were adopted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner just to settle a lawsuit. I appreciate the commitments
made by my successor, Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi, and the next
Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, to continue protecting Florida's
rights, citizens and waterways through this lawsuit.”“I have been concerned from the beginning that EPA's actions related to
numeric nutrient criteria in Florida waters were not based on factual,
verifiable science,” said Commissioner Bronson, who is a separately named
plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Florida has always been a leader in taking
steps necessary to improve water quality and I was disappointed that EPA
did not incorporate many of the state's suggestions on the proposed rule.
The final rule as written would place a severe financial burden on the
citizens of Florida while not necessarily improving the state's waters.
The action being taken today is unfortunate but necessary to ensure EPA
makes decisions affecting Floridians based on sound science. I am pleased
that Attorney General-elect Bondi and Agriculture Commissioner-elect
Putnam recognize the great importance of this issue and will continue to
protect our citizens from unnecessary and costly regulations.”“These new rules will have a drastic financial impact on local governments
and communities who are already working to comply with Florida's existing
standards under the Clean Water Act. Our communities cannot afford these
new regulations which may not, in the long run, result in any meaningful
improvements to our water quality beyond what our state has already
implemented,” said Attorney General-elect Bondi. “As Florida's next
Attorney General, I will continue this lawsuit and will stand up on behalf
of our citizens and our taxpayers.”“I am grateful to Attorney General McCollum and Commissioner Bronson for
their leadership, and I look forward to working with Attorney
General-Elect Bondi on this critically important issue. This regulation is
estimated to cost consumers and localities billions of dollars and, in
some cases, will require technology that may not be attainable,” said
Commissioner-elect Putnam. “While we all would have preferred to avoid
this litigation, this is but one strategy we will pursue to see that sound
science prevails. I am hopeful the end result of today's action will be
the continued protection and improvement of Florida waters in a way that
makes both scientific and economic sense. As Florida's next Commissioner
of Agriculture, I will make achieving that goal a top priority of my
Administration.”Prior to the EPA's announcement that it would be implementing new rules
for Florida, the state had been diligently working through its Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program to adopt numeric standards for impaired
bodies of water. The EPA had already approved Florida's program on the
basis that it was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Clean Water
Act, referenced in a letter dated September 28, 2007. Additionally, as
recently as January of last year, the EPA praised Florida for implementing
“some of the most progressive nutrient management strategies in the
nation.” Florida's plan had a timetable for implementation through 2011.Despite the fact that Florida was working to implement its approved plan
and was seeing successes, the EPA reversed its determinations in 2009 and
informed the state that new federal rules and criteria would be developed
and implemented by the EPA, preempting the approved state plan. The EPA's
announcement was based on its effort to settle a lawsuit pending against
the agency. At the time of its announcement, the EPA said that “making
such a determination could give the EPA a basis to propose a settlement to
the plaintiffs or to request that the court dismiss the case.”According to the state's lawsuit, the EPA has continued to rely on a
methodology that is not scientifically sound and not site specific for
Florida's waters. In April, the EPA's own Science Advisory Board joined
the chorus of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, the Florida
Legislature and others expressing serious concerns that the EPA's methods
for developing nutrient standards are scientifically flawed.Also of significant concern to the state is the cost implication of
implementing the new criteria. Studies produced by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, as well as two independent studies all show that the
impact to Florida's economy will be in the billions. The EPA's anticipated
cost is the outlier, projecting a cost closer to $200 million. Costs for
implementation are likely to be uneven across the state – high in some
places, minimal in others. Unfortunately, the impact on the areas where
the cost will be high is not offset by low costs elsewhere. These costs
will be borne by the local users or in the case of government-owned
utilities by higher tax rates.A copy of the lawsuit, which was filed today in the federal court in
Pensacola, is available online at:
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/CRUE-8BWPPD/$file/epacompliant.pdfContact: Sandi Copes
Phone: 850.245.0150
Sandi.Copes@myfloridalegal.comU.S. EPA’s
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
of
APPROPRIATED FUNDS
OMB APPROVED
RELEASE 3.2
February 4, 2008EPA's two-year appropriations are:
a.
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Appropriation
The EPM appropriation account encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, and expenses for all programs of the Agency except Science and Technology (S&T), Hazardous Substance Superfund (HSSF), Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response (OSR), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual operation of the various environmental programs. In this regard, the Agency’s activities include oversight and assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes. In addition to program costs, this account funds a large portion of the administrative costs associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources management, general office and building services for program operations, and direct implementation of all Agency environmental programs except those previously mentioned for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and all non-research field operations.
b.
Science and Technology (S&T) Appropriation
EPA's Science and Technology (S&T) appropriation account funds the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions leading to improved protection of human health and the environment, and to advance the base of understanding of environmental sciences. Thus, S&T appropriation account funds most EPA research. The Agency's efforts using S&T funds are conducted through extramural contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, state and local government, and Federal agencies, as well as through intramural work performed at EPA's laboratories and various field stations and field offices.
The S&T Appropriation account funds activities such as developing and improving sampling and analytical methods and instruments for measuring pollutants; determining the effects of pollutants on human health, ecosystems, and the general environment; researching the processes that relate to pollution; evaluating technologies for preventing and controlling pollution; and developing guidelines and research tools to improve risk assessments. The S&T Account also provides operating expenses for most Agency research facilities. This includes categories such as personnel salary & benefits, laboratory supplies and materials, operation and maintenance of lab facilities, equipment, Information Technology (IT) support, human resource development, and printing. Beginning in FY 1996, this account also funds Hazardous Substances research appropriated in the Superfund Account and transferred to the S&T appropriation account. The appropriated Superfund funds are available for obligation for only two (2) years once transferred into the S&T account.
c.
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
This appropriation provides funding for EPA audit and investigative functions and program evaluations to identify and recommend corrective actions of management, program, and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function provides contract audit, performance audit, and financial audit services. Contract audits provide professional judgments, findings, and recommendations to Agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Performance audits review and evaluate all facets of Agency operations. Grant audits focus on the effectiveness of individual projects, reasonableness of costs, and adequacy of management systems. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the OIG program.There are historically two sources of funds for the budget authority in the OIG account: a.) General Revenues, b.) the Superfund Trust Fund. Although the SF appropriation is provided to EPA from the SF Trust Fund as a no-year appropriation, the appropriated Superfund funds are available for obligation for only two (2) years once transferred into the IG account. The Agency’s financial coding structure ensures that both OIG sources of funds are tracked separately to provide proper accounting. Budget authority that is not obligated during the fiscal year is not “drawn down” from the respective funding source.
3. No-Year Appropriations are available for obligation without fiscal year limitation. They remain available until expended, rescinded or otherwise withdrawn. In order for an appropriation to be no-year, it must be expressly stated as such in the appropriating language.
EPA's no-year appropriations are:
a.
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (Superfund)
The Superfund appropriation is provided to carry out the legislative mandates of CERCLA as amended by SARA by addressing the problems of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. The legislation mandates that EPA (1) provide emergency response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean up hazardous waste sites where no financially responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to require responsible private parties to clean up hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the Agency’s Superfund program.
b.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Trust Fund (LUST)
The LUST Appropriation Account is provided to carry out the legislative mandates of SARA by conducting corrective action for releases from leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST Program through state cooperative agreements which enable states to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the environment. The trust fund is also used for enforcement by forcing responsible parties to finance corrective actions and by providing the states with the authority to recover costs from responsible parties for state funds expended for cleanup of abandoned tanks.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the use of funds contained in the LUST Trust Fund for leak detection, prevention, related inspection and enforcement activities. However, Congress must also appropriate funds from the LUST Trust Fund for these purposes for EPA to use LUST appropriations to carry out the Energy Policy Act.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the Agency’s LUST Program.
c. Buildings and Facilities (B&F) Appropriation
Funds are appropriated to EPA’s Buildings and Facilities Account each year to cover the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing installations which house the Agency. This appropriation also covers new construction projects when authorized. Minor repairs and improvements to existing appropriations act.
d.
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
This Appropriation Account, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Act (FWPA) and amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. EPA is responsible for directing all cleanup and removal activities posing a threat to public health and the environment; conducting inspections, including inducing responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and conducting research and oil cleanup techniques. Funds are provided through the OSLTF established by the OPA and managed by the U.S. Coast Guard.
In addition to program costs, this account funds PC&B, travel, and administrative costs associated with the Agency’s Oil Spill Program.
e. State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Appropriation
The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation includes three components: (1) Infrastructure Grants including State Revolving Funds (SRF), (2) Categorical STAG Grants, and (3) other specified grant programs (i.e., Alaska Native Villages, Diesel Retrofits, and work along the Mexican Border).
Funding for the SRFs comprise the largest part of the STAG account. These funds are used to capitalize revolving loan funds in each state which provide loans to municipalities for major wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. There are two types of water infrastructure SRFs: Clean Water SRF (CWSRF) and Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF).
The states loan these funds to municipalities for the infrastructure projects, who then pay back their loan by making payments back into the state SRF account. The state can then make more loans (hence the term "revolving") to other municipalities. The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) reauthorized the “construction grants” program through 1990 and provided for its phase-out and replacement with a State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, to be capitalized by grants to the States.]
Categorical State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) provide financial assistance to states and tribes in numerous environmental categories by program. These grants help states and tribes develop the technical, managerial, and enforcement capacity to operate the environmental programs that monitor drinking water systems, implement water quality standards, combat air pollution, promote the use of safer pesticides, manage hazardous waste, and assure compliance with Federal environmental laws. In addition, Categorical STAG funds are available in specified amounts appropriated for certain grant programs identified in the statute.
The Omnibus Rescissions and Appropriations Act (ORAA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) provided EPA permanent authority within the STAG account to award Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs). PPGs permit states and tribes to combine STAG "categorical grants” (i.e. air, water) into one or more grants, to be used for addressing the unique priorities of each state or tribe. PPGs were created to reduce the burden on and increase the flexibility for state and tribal governments that need to manage and implement their environmental protection programs, and at the same time produce the results-oriented performance necessary to address the most pressing concerns and achieve a clean environment.CHAPTER 2:
ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES OR FUNDS CONTROL
There are a number management and staff levels involved with funds control at EPA (for an illustration showing the relationships of these, see Exhibit 2520-2-1). The positions associated with funds control within EPA range from National Program Managers (NPMs) to funding document originators. This section will briefly describe the roles and responsibilities of each of these key players regarding funds control and focus mostly on the Funds Control Officers (FCOs).
All levels of responsibility for funds control should ensure that no expenditures be authorize or created as an obligation under any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available [31 U.S.C 1341(a)]. All personnel responsible for administrative control of funds should familiarize themselves with the following legal requirements found in:
a. Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341(a);
b. OMB Circular A-11, Part 4; and
c. EPA’s Administrative Control of Appropriated Funds Manual (RMDS 2520).
I.
PARTICIPANTS:
A. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS (AAs),
NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGERS (NPMs), and
RESPONSIBLE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OFFICERS (RPIOs)
The Administrator and the twelve (12) Assistant Administrators (AAs) in headquarters are National Program Managers (NPMs) who control resources. These thirteen (13) NPMs, who are normally political officials, formulate budgets for EPA’s national programs and offices including the regional program components. NPMs responsibilities include planning, formulating, and justifying budgets for national EPA programs, making adjustments to national program budgets (e.g., headquarters/regional splits) as needed, and preparing program operating guidance. For example, the AA for the Office of Water has national budget responsibilities for the entire EPA Water Program.
The Responsible Planning and Implementation Officers (RPIOs) are the 24 EPA senior managers responsible for planning and implementing operating plans, using and accounting for resources, and reviewing programs. This consist of 24 individuals who are the Administrator, the (12) headquarters Assistant Administrators, including the Inspector General, and the ten (10) Regional Administrators. Each RPIO has program operations to administer and a budget to execute.
In terms of properly utilizing funds for the purpose for which they were appropriated, the RPIOs, their Allowance Holders (AHs), and FCOs bear sole responsibility. No other Agency organizations are fully aware of the obligating activities and the decisions behind them that transpire on a day-to-day basis. , The RPIOs are presumed to be the most knowledgeable EPA entity regarding what is permissible in the authorizing statutes for their programs. Additionally, the RPIOs are active participants during the process of budget formulation, the OMB submission, the Congressional Justification, and all subsequent stages of the legislative history behind the appropriations act. They receive copies of the House, Senate, & Conference Committee Appropriation Reports and are kept informed of what is in the Public Law for their programs. The OGC is available to assist them in any interpretation of ambiguous language. The actions taken by the RPIOs’ in executing their portion of the budget is subject to audit and review by the OIG, GAO, Congressional Committees, Agency management, etc. RPIOs are held accountable responsibility for the utilization of their funds.B. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS (RAs)
Each Regional Administrator (RA) is both a Responsible Planning and Implementation Officer (RPIO) and an Allowance Holder (AH). RAs are not NPMs since they have a primary responsibility for regional, not national, administration and budget execution for all programs in the states and territories within their region. RAs coordinate on budget formulation and execution with NPMs and present regional budget planning concerns through the Lead Region process.
Lead Regions are designated for each major program (Water, Air, etc.) and they are responsible for representing the designated program with the appropriate NPM in developing priorities, budgets, and work year estimates for the regional program components. Lead Regions are rotated every two years and are also responsible for working with their respective NPM to identify and synthesize the issues of all ten (10) regions into a "regional view" that can be effectively factored into Agency decision-making. The list of Lead Regional Coordinators can be found at http://www.epa.gov/regional/leadregionprocess.htm. NPMs are responsible for soliciting and using this contribution from their Lead Region on major decisions.
As RPIOs, Regional Administrators are responsible for overseeing the execution of their allowances and for the review of budget reprogrammings before they are sent to the Office of Budget (OB). In carrying out his or her responsibilities, a RA typically depends heavily upon their Assistant Regional Administrator (ARA) and an individual in the ARA's office who serves essentially as a Budget Officer. In many Regions, this individual is the Regional Comptroller.
C. SENIOR RESOURCE OFFICIALS (SROs)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS (DAAs)/
ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS (ARAs)
The SROs are Senior Executive Service (SES) managers who are designated by and report to the Administrator, the 10 RAs, the GC, the Inspector General, and nine AAs. Additionally, one SES manager is designated by the Deputy Administrator for the Office of the Administrator (OA). The CFO approves all SRO designations upon initial designation, and annually thereafter. In line with the CFO Act (CFOA) of 1990, SROs must have the knowledge, skills and abilities in resource management necessary for the position.
SROs are typically Deputy Assistant Administrators (DAA) and Assistant Regional Administrators (ARAs). The SRO is accountable for the Headquarters Office's or Region's, effective resource management, including acquisition, assistance, budget, financial management and management integrity.
SRO accountability, like the accountability of other EPA managers and officials, cannot be delegated, even if SRO functions are delegated. When SROs are temporarily absent, the individual acting for the SRO must be appraised of SRO responsibilities. In cases where a resource requirement may involve more than one program or Regional Office, the SROs of all affected offices share responsibility. While the SROs are accountable for resource management in their respective Headquarters Offices or Regions, the CFO has overall responsibility for these resources. Specifically, the SROs:
1. advise the CFO on fiscal resource management issues, including acquisition, assistance, budget, financial management and management integrity. Extramural resources within this scope include contracts, simplified acquisitions, grants, loans, and cooperative and interagency agreements;
2. oversee, assess and advocate accountable fiscal resource management;3. ensure compliance with fiscal resource management laws and regulations while furthering program mission;
4. ensure appropriate and effective systems, procedures, management controls, communication and outreach are in place for accountable fiscal resource management;
5. ensure appropriate and effective planning, assessment, monitoring and control for accountable fiscal resource management;
6. ensure that assistance and acquisition mechanisms are used for work appropriate to their purposes;
7. review and approve the following extramural management actions and funding requests. SRO concurrence is required for all:
a. requests for contract advisory and assistance services;
b. procurement requests (PRs) not including requests for incremental funding over $1 million and;
c. agreements for Federal funding assistance when total project costs are expected to be $5 million or more for continuing program grants and over $1 million for project grants.
8. ensure -- by working through established organizational structure -- that program or Regional resource managers [e.g., Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), project officers (POs), work assignment managers (WAMs), delivery order project officers (DOPOs); grants management officers; funds control and financial management officers; and their supervisors:
a. are working within their workload limitations;
b. have Agency-required training and experience, and receive appropriate program or office-specific training that is available; and,
c. have appropriate resource management responsibilities in their position descriptions and performance standards.
9. manage and certify completion of the Annual Review of Unliquidated Obligations for current and prior year travel and simplified acquisitions, as described in Chapter 3, Part IV.A.
D. SENIOR BUDGET OFFICERS (SBOs)
In Headquarters, Senior Budget Officers (SBOs) greatly assist the NPMs and SROs in carrying out the responsibilities listed previously and serve as the primary liaison between the Office of Budget (OB) and the Allowance Holders (AHs). The SBO:
1. has the lead role for managing the budget formulation process on behalf of their HQ NPM;
2. usually has the lead role in coordinating the budget execution activities for their HQ RPIO;
3. reviews, approves, processes or forwards budget reprogrammings and coordinates with the Office of Budget (OB) as needed;4. reviews each Allowance Holder (AH) Operating Plan (Op Plan) and spending utilization to ensure that funds controls and program goals are being met; and,
5. manages the review of Headquarters current year unliquidated obligations to determine their validity and viability, as required by the CFO.
E. REGIONAL COMPTROLLERS
The Regional Comptroller serves as the Region’s manager on all matters related to budget and finance responsibilities and functions. This position is the primary point of contact for the OCFO (Office of Budget Office, Office of Financial Management, and Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability) and National Program Managers on regional budget and financial matters. This position is also analogous to the Senior Budget Officer, however, on the Regional level yet works with the Senior Budget Officer when addressing national environmental program issues.
The Regional Comptroller is responsible for:
1. coordinating budget formulation and execution processes and decisions on resources (dollars and FTEs) at the Regional level;
2. managing the execution of the budget at the Regional level following Agency fund control policies, guidelines, and procedures;
3. oversees utilization of Regional resources and prepares reprogramming requests as necessary;
4. ensuring resources are utilized according to government-wide and Agency budget and financial policies and procedures;
5. accounting and reporting on resource utilization according to Agency and government-wide financial accounting standards and policies;
6. manages Regional data systems to account for resources and coordinates with centralized Financial Servicing Offices (FSOs) on payments of payroll, contracts, grants, assistance agreements, and Superfund activities. Works with Headquarters Office of Financial Management (OFM) on IFMS financial policy and accounting issues.
7. maintains close working relationship with Regional Grants Management Offices to facilitate proper and timely award of Agency grants;
8. manages the review of unliquidated obligations with all Regional offices to facilitate timely expenditures of Regional resources.
9. serves as the Regional point of contact for budget and financial investigations audits on the use of Regional resources.
F. REGIONAL BUDGET OFFICERS
The Regional Budget Officer (RBO) serves as the Region's point of contact on all matters dealing with budget formulation, operating plan development, and budget execution. In both areas, the RBO must communicate with HQ NPMs and OB on all budget matters, especially with regard to furnishing information and advice on Regional programs and objectives.4. Special Accounts / Cashouts - This is funding that EPA receives from APotentially Responsible Parties@ through agreements or legal settlements in the Superfund program. The funding is intended to pay for future work at specific sites and EPA is authorized to A retain and use@ these funds by section 122(b)(3) of CERCLA. It should be noted that funds collected in these accounts that are used for performing reimbursable work count against the Agency’s FTE/work-year ceilings.
5. Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) - This is authority for Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) income and royalty payments from licensing agreements with private firms which will pay royalties to the Federal Government for an exclusive license to use Federally-developed technology. FTTA CRADA funds are held in trust for the co-operators and may be used solely for specified purposes. CRADA funds are subject to recertification and the same internal controls as appropriated funds.
FTTA royalty funds lapse at the end of the fiscal year following the one during which they were received.
6. Advance State Match/State Cost Share - This is the percentage of site response costs matched by the individual states either after-the-fact, or under rare circumstances, in advance in the Superfund program.
7. Reimbursable Workyears (FTEs) - Additional workyears to undertake the terms of an agreement can only be provided by OMB and FTEs should not be written into any agreement during budget execution. In the past, in the rare instances where OMB has agreed that reimbursable FTEs were appropriate and justifiable, the FTE were granted during the budget planning cycles (either the OMB submission or the Operating Plan development stage).
8. FIFRA IPAs - Intergovernmental Personnel Act employees under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972.
9. Recycling Fees - Collections from the Agency's recycling program.
Not all instances for which EPA uses the reimbursable allowance mechanism are situations of actual reimbursement. Many are up-front collections (such as fee programs, intergovernmental agreements, and cash outs) where the agency has statutory authority to retain and use funds, and it is the best mechanism for OMB to provide the obligational authority to the Agency. In all cases, however, where other organizations are providing funding, there is a net zero impact (the result is neither an increase nor decrease) upon EPA's Enacted Appropriations following disbursement and/or reimbursement. Also, the reimbursable apportionment authority is not a budgetary resource until an agreement is entered into (if an IAG) or funds are received (If a collection) and the apportionment authority is thereby funded.Reimbursable authority must be obtained from the Office of Budget (OB) in the form of a reimbursable Advice of Allowance prior to commitment or obligation of any of the resources described above. However, before authority can be issued, the OB must have received documentation that an IAG has been executed or that funds have been collected by the Agency. For example, an EPA office that has entered into an IAG cannot act upon the agreement until they have forwarded an official executed copy to the OB and receiveda reimbursable allowance to commit and obligate against. Reimbursable Advices of Allowance are issued through the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and are reflected in the Operating Plan as reimbursable appropriations.
Those appropriation accounts for which EPA receives Reimbursable Authority from OMB are: EPM, S&T, LUST, Superfund, OIG, and Oil Spills. Since reimbursable agreements may involve any of the budget object classes, authority will be issued in the appropriation for which the object class and/or work being performed is appropriate. Because there is a net zero impact upon EPA's enacted appropriations, ceilings and floors, if any, do not apply except in the case of Reimbursable work years (FTE).
Reimbursable work years (FTE) which accrue as a result of charging PC&B against a reimbursable agreement are subject to an RPIO's own direct FTE ceiling. In other words, an RPIO cannot exceed its work year ceiling (direct plus reimbursable FTE).
Not all unfunded Agency reimbursable authority and not all unobligated reimbursable allowances expire at year-end. If the reimbursing Agency's funding has not expired at year end, RPIOs can request a reimbursable allowance in the new fiscal year to cover any unobligated portion of their agreement(s).
For more on reimbursable interagency agreements and the reimbursable process, see Chapter 4 of RMDS 2550C entitled: Interagency Agreements.III.
COMMITTING AND OBLIGATING APPROPRIATED FUNDS
A Funds Control Officer's signature on a document signifies that the document has been personally reviewed for accuracy, that all accounting data is accurate and complete, that the transaction has been accepted in IFMS, and that the funds are available as to purpose, time, and amount. There may be rare exceptions when a transaction may not accepted into IFMS. These rare exceptions happen before IFMS is opened at the beginning of a fiscal year.
It is the FCO’s responsibility to ensure that all of these actions have taken place before forwarding the document to other Agency officials. These officials will be relying on the FCOs signature to indicate that the funds will not be altered, revised, or withdrawn prior to obligation without advance notice, or until the recipient of the document is notified in writing.
This section will cover the essential items on funding documents that an FCO should review, and common funding problems an FCO may encounter after committing the funds and how those problems are resolved. Since an FCO’s realm of responsibility may vary between depending on whether they are located in HQ or the Regions, not all of these functions may actually be performed by the FCO. However, in either location, the FCO is directly responsible for, or subject to, coordinating with other personnel on the following activities.
A. REVIEWING AND APPROVING FUNDING DOCUMENTS
A lack of attention to detail in properly reviewing a funding document could result in a violation of the Anti- Deficiency Act. Therefore, the FCO should ensure that the following information is correctly cited on the document before committing the funds in IFMS:
1. Correct Appropriation: Chapter 1 Part III describes the different appropriations used by the Agency and their purpose. The FCO must ensure that the funds cited are being used for the appropriate purpose. The FCO may also need to apply the "Pick and Stick” rule to determine whether or not the document is funding something from one appropriation that traditionally may have been funded from a different appropriation. This rule was covered in Chapter 1 (Part II, A 1).
2. Correct Account Number: See Chapter 3, Part I for description of the 6-Field IFMS Account Code and how to enter this information.
3. Correct Object Class Code: See Chapter 3, Part I for description. FCOs must ensure that the document cites the correct sub-object class code in terms of properly categorizing the item, coinciding with the appropriation cited and properly identifying the item as being administrative or programmatic in nature. For further information, FCOs should review RMDS 2590 which contains a description of all of the Agency's sub-object class codes.
4. Correct SFO Code: Chapter 2, Part II describes the roles and responsibilities of an SFO. The SFO closes out commitments and enters obligations into IFMS. Thus, all funding documents must cite the proper SFO code in order to reach their proper destination and be processed. The correct SFO code is based upon the FCO's geographic location and/or on the type of funding document being processed. See Exhibit 2520-2-3 for the correct SFO code to use for each type of funding document.
5. Accurate Mathematics: FCOs must ensure that, when more than one quantity of an item is being procured, the total cost of the purchase is correct. Thus, the estimated unit price multiplied by the quantity must equal the total price/cost shown on the document.
If the funding document is citing more than one appropriation and one of them is a Trust Fund appropriation, the FCO must make sure that the Trust Fund layoff percentages used in calculating the costs against each appropriation are correct, and that the document cites the appropriate corresponding accounting information. For more information on the concept of Trust Fund Layoffs, see Chapter 4(G).
6. Correct Signatures: FCOs must ensure that the document has all the proper signatures (Initiator and/or Approving Official). Actions sometimes require different levels of approval, such as international travel which requires higher level approvals than domestic travel. Based on the amount of an item being procured, Bankcard purchases might need a Contracting Officer‘s (who has a warrant) signature. FCOs should be familiar with all persons authorized to sign for their organization. By checking for signatures, the FCO is assured that the document has been reviewed by the appropriate individuals. (If multiple organizations are involved, all appropriate FCOs are responsible.) Also, OAM requires that some types of procurement have signatures from individuals outside of the FCO's office. For example, for the purchase of any Information Technology (IT) equipment, the funding document must have the SIRMO's (Senior Information Resource Management Official) signature. For the procurement of furniture or renting of conference space, the document must have a signature from the Facilities Management & Services Division (FMSD).
7. Proper Funding Vehicle: Most commonly used funding documents at EPA are fairly self-explanatory (i.e. Travel Authorization and Travel Voucher for travel related expenses). However, there are some instances where the FCO needs to apply policy guidance. Although the document may originate with the Contracting Officer Representative (COR), the FCO must also know when it is appropriate to use a contract but not a grant or cooperative agreement. The Federal Grant & Cooperative Agreement Act (FGCAA), 31 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq., provides that grant and cooperative agreements must be awarded when the principal purpose is to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by statute, rather than to acquire services or products which directly benefit the government. In interpreting the FGCAA, EPA Order 5700.1, states:
If an office or laboratory's principal purpose, in undertaking a project, is to obtain a product or service for the direct benefit or use of the Agency, or any part of the Federal government including the legislative and judicial branches, a contract, rather than a grant (assistance agreement), must be used.
There is one exception. It is when services -- for the direct benefit or use of the Agency -- are related to the Senior Environmental Employee (SEE) Program, which is authorized by the Environmental Programs Assistance Act. In this case it is more appropriate for this program that was established by Congressional legislation and is awarded through SEE grants.
B. RECORDING COMMITMENTS
Once the document has been properly reviewed, and all financial data is correct, the funds are ready to be committed. Committing funds reserves a specified amount for a specific purpose. Commitments help managers to estimate how much individual spending actions will cost and to predict overall expenditures based on actions that are not yet obligations. Since large procurements often take months to award, it is essential that FCOs ensure that committed funds remain available throughout the entire procurement
process.
1. Funds Availability Check
The first thing an FCO must do after reviewing the document is a funds availability check. A document cannot be committed if sufficient funds are not available. If allowances have been established at the RC level, the two key tables to observe in IFMS are the SASP and SAIN Tables. For those Allowance Holders whose funds are not distributed to a lower level, funds availability can be confirmed in the ALLT or ALST Tables. If funds are available, then the document can be committed. However, if there are insufficient funds, the commitment may not be processed and it may be necessary to submit a reprogramming request. Although IFMS will not lock out such a spending action unless the AH total is insufficient at the appropriation level, spending another RC's resources within the same Allowance violates Agency policy. If the Operating Plan has not been established at the RC level, an office must have alternate procedures in place to determine RC balances. See Section II of this chapter for more information on reprogrammings. The FCO initiates the reprogramming request based on their own organizational level. For example, an FCO at the RC level would contact the AH. An FCO at the AH level would contact the SBO. Remember, the type of reprogramming required (RR or RP) will determine the level of approvals needed. If there are insufficient funds and a reprogramming cannot be accomplished, then the spending action cannot be undertaken.
2.
Entering Documents into IFMS and Travel Manager
If funds are available, the FCO enters the funding document into IFMS as a Requisition (RQ) or into Travel Manager as a Travel Order (TO). While the RQ is entered as a commitment, TOs are entered as an obligation. The FCO (or IFMS) will assign the document a Document Control Number (DCN). The DCN is
then written on the funding document. A DCN should never be written on a funding document without having been entered into IFMS first. The number on the document and in IFMS must match. Putting the "next in line DCN" on a document without actually committing the funds into IFMS is poor fiscal management. It is essential that data on funding documents be accurate, legible and consistent with what is entered into IFMS. If any changes are made to the funding document after it has been sent forward, the FCO must immediately notify the obligating official of the changes.
It is critical that the FCO maintain organized and accurate records of all the funding documents processed throughout the fiscal year. According to EPA's Record Management Manual, all funding documents and records related to IFMS should be held for up to 3 years after they are filed and final payment has been made, then retired to the Federal Records Center. After the document has been entered into IFMS and the funds are committed, the FCO may choose to transmit the document or return it to the originator for transmittal to the obligating official, according to local office procedures.
Obligating officials are EPA employees who have been delegated authority to legally obligate the government to pay for goods and services. Obligating officials, including Contracting and Grants Officers, know how to process an obligation, and what constitutes evidence of the obligation. Obligating officials forward a copy of the obligating documents to the SFO to officially record the obligation of funds in IFMS. Obligating officials will also forward copies of the obligating document to the originator and/or to the FCO. The copies may be marked "Receiving Report" and "Originator". If the originator is someone other than the FCO, internal procedures should be established to ensure that the originator forwards a copy to the FCO. This is especially true with Training Requests, which are obligated as Purchase Orders on the same form and usually returned to the trainee for submission to the vendor. It is important that the FCO maintain a copy of all obligating documents in their files to facilitate any reconciliation that may be necessary.
3.
Unfunded Procurement Requests (PRs) for Planning Purposes
Many Federal Agencies use Planning Purpose PRs (PPPRs) in their procurement process. Traditionally, these types of PRs are non-funded actions that are used in initiating procurement efforts that will take a long time to award, as well as for procurement actions that must begin on, or soon after, the start of the next fiscal year (i.e., contracts for service-related contracts that an Agency uses every fiscal year).
Currently, in OAM, the Procurement Initiation Notice (PIN) has replaced the planning PR (PPPR) for new procurements using other than simplified acquisition procedures. Exercising options, renewing leases, maintenance agreements and other requirements submitted subject to the availability of funds are initiated by the Project Officer (PO) using a PPPR. In order to start the procurement process in a timely manner, a PPPR is necessary to help the procurement office determine how much money the Agency needs for a given good or service, and using that estimate as a base during the negotiating process with a contractor. Once a contract is negotiated in terms of cost, a Contracting Officer (CO) will then request a revised PR (from those offices that submitted PPPRs) that reflects the negotiated amount prior to obligating the contract.
When planning PRs are done for a service that will be required in a new fiscal year, federal procurement regulations require that the PR contain the following statement: "This PR is for planning purposes only, does not constitute a contract or a commitment to a contract, does not constitute a contract or a commitment to a contract, and is subject to the availability of funds at the time of award." This statement is placed on PRs to ensure compliance with the Antideficiency Act (no funds may be obligated on any government contract in advance of an appropriation) and the bona fide needs rule (an appropriation may only be obligated to meet a legitimate need that exists during the period of availability). See Chapter 1 for further information.
A good example of when the Agency uses planning PRs is with maintenance contracts. Maintenance is a service that is continually required every fiscal year. To negotiate a price with a contractor for maintenance, the Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) first determines how many program offices within the Agency will need the service. OAM will send out an annual call letter (during the summer months) requesting that those offices needing maintenance service send them a planning PR containing a cost estimate (based on previous years) for how much the office expects to pay for their maintenance costs. These planning PRs are then used by OAM as a base when negotiating with a contractor for the actual cost of the contract.
Offices that fail to provide a planning PR (or a revised PR after the contract costs have been negotiated) to OAM for a service or good, and then actually receive a service or good from a contractor may create an unauthorized procurement. See Section I for more on unauthorized procurements.
For more information on Planning PRs, see section 7.3.5.1, paragraphs C and E of the Contracts Management Manual at:
http://epawww.epa.gov/oamintra/policy/cmm.pdf
Water Use Restrictions under the Endangered Species Act Constitute
a Taking and Require CompensationEric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research AssociateSummary of Decision
In Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States , 49 Fed. Cl. 313 (Fed. Cl. 2001), the United States Court of Federal Claims granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs' contractually-conferred right to the use of water was taken when the government imposed water use restrictions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Background
In California, the distribution of water involves the transport of water from the water-rich areas in northern California to the more arid parts of the state. Id. at 314. Various water projects and aqueduct systems, including the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP), were built to facilitate that process. Id. Although the CVP was a federal project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the SWP was a state project managed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the two projects shared a common pumping system. Id. They were operated in concert pursuant to statute and subsequent agreements. Id. at 314-15. The BOR and the DWR were granted water permits by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and, in turn, they contracted with county water districts, conferring on the districts the right to withdraw prescribed quantities of water. Id. at 315.
The delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon were both determined to be in jeopardy of extinction according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Id. at 314. To protect the two species of fish, the agencies restricted water out-flows in California's primary water distribution system, causing water that would otherwise have been available for distribution by California water projects to be unavailable. Id. This decision, although in harmony with the purpose of the ESA, to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, conflicted with California's century-old regime of private water rights. Id. Despite the conflict, the agencies believed that restricting water flow to protect the two species of fish was a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to the traditional water rights program that threatened the species' existence. Id. at 315. Facing an impairment of their collective water rights, the plaintiffs, a group of California citizens, filed suit. Id. at 316.
Arguments
The plaintiffs claimed the imposition of the RPAs on their private water rights constituted an unconstitutional physical taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 318.
Arguing against the existence of a taking, the government asserted that: (1) the implementation of the RPAs merely frustrated the purpose of the water contracts and did not effectuate a taking; (2) the criteria for a regulatory taking had not been met; and (3) the federal government cannot be held liable for a taking when it does no more than impose a limit on the plaintiffs' title that the background principles of state law would otherwise require. Id. at 316-17.
Analysis and Holdings
The government first asserted that when contract expectations were merely frustrated by lawful government action not directed against the takings claimant, no taking had occurred. Id. at 317. It argued that the RPAs were lawful government action that frustrated, rather than appropriated, the plaintiffs' water rights. Id. The court disagreed, holding that California's water distribution system conferred "on plaintiffs a right to the exclusive use of prescribed quantities of water, consistent with the terms of the permits." Id. at 318. The plaintiffs' rights to the water were superior to all other competing interests. Id.
Although the government argued that the facts of the case were more akin to a regulatory takings analysis, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that a physical takings analysis was more appropriate. Id. at 318-19. A physical taking occurs when the government's action amounts to a physical occupation or invasion of property. Id. at 318. The court held that a deprivation of water amounted to a physical taking, but the court then needed to determine whether the plaintiffs owned the water for which they sought compensation. Id. at 320. Although the plaintiffs' water rights were subject to the doctrines of reasonable use and public trust, and the SWRCB could have modified the terms of the water permits to reflect the changing needs of various water users, in the case at bar, it had not done so. Id. at 324. The government was free to take the necessary steps to preserve the fish species, but it was required to pay for the water it took. Id.
The case was decided on April 30, 2001.
.
b. The placement of monitoring wells on private property is an example of a taking case under Superfund.
At $200 million, the settlement in the Whitney Benefits case is the most expensive takings payment that the government has made to date. 1 The claim involved the application of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to a coal lease owned by Whitney Benefits, Inc. The coal was located beneath an alluvial valley floor in the Powder River basin of Wyoming; SMCRA prohibits surface mining in such areas to protect agricultural resources. After unsuccessfully attempting to exchange the lease for certain federally owned resources, the lease's owner filed a taking claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
A series of trials and appeals led to a settlement that awarded the coal leaseholder $60 million plus interest from the date of the taking (1977--the date of passage of SMCRA). The court held that SMCRA eliminated the value of the lease, upsetting the owner's reasonable, investment-backed expectations about the property, and that the substantial public interest at stake did not outweigh the interest of the private owner. In addition, the court found that the taking occurred with the enactment of SMCRA rather than with its enforcement. The basis of that finding was a grandfather clause that was omitted from the final law but that appeared in an earlier version of the legislation. The clause excluded several properties, including the Whitney tract, from regulation and, according to the court, demonstrated that the Congress knew that SMCRA would adversely affect the mining rights associated with the Whitney Benefits property. Because the Congress willingly chose to let that happen, the court deemed the Whitney Benefits claim to be a taking and awarded compensation as of the date of SMCRA's enactment.
Most of the payment in the Whitney Benefits settlement--$140 million of the $200 million awarded--is interest because of the substantial delay between the date of the actual taking (1977) and the settlement date (1995). One reason for the delay was the difficulty of determining the value of the taken property. Valuing the lease required considering such issues as future coal prices, extraction costs, labor costs, demand for various grades of coal, transportation costs, capital costs, the amount of extractable coal, environmental cleanup costs, and the appropriate discount rate, to name only a few. Experts retained by each side in the dispute contested the values arrived at for those factors, which extended the litigation of the claim and delayed the award.
1. See Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
2. For more detail, see National Research Council, Wetlands Characteristics and Boundaries (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995), pp. 3-8; Army Corps of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual , Technical Report Y-87-1 (Vicksburg, Miss.: Army Corps of Engineers, 1987); and T.E. Dahl, Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's (Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990), p. 5.
3. Those decisions are complicated by a lack of information about the value of particular wetland properties. See Paul F. Scodari, Wetlands Protection: The Role of Economics (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute, 1990), pp. 17-18 and 45-46.
4. Data sources on wetlands losses are Department of the Interior, The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands , vol. 1, A Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior (October 1988), pp. 4-30 and 4-33; and Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97 , Agricultural Handbook No. 712 (September 1997), p. 319.
5. 33 U.S.C. 1344, 86 Stat. 884.
6. Those rulings came in National Resources Defense Council v. Calaway , 392 F. Supp. 685 (1975); and United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. , 474 U.S. 121 (1985). See also C. Peter Goplerud, "Water Pollution Law: Milestones from the Past and Anticipation of the Future," Natural Resources and the Environment , vol. 10, no. 2 (Fall 1995).
7. The Clean Water Act exempts ongoing farming, forestry, and ranching activities, minor drainage and drain maintenance, and maintenance of preexisting structures from the Section 404 permitting requirement. If a wetland is to be dredged or filled to begin such practices, however, a permit is required.
8. Statement of Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, April 29, 1997.
9. See Dennis King and Curtis Bohlen, "Estimating the Costs of Restoration," National Wetlands Newsletter (May/June 1994), pp. 3-5 and 8.
10. These programs are discussed in Ralph Heimlich and Linda Langner, Swampbusting: Wetland Conversion and Farm Programs (Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, August 1986), pp. 8-9; and Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators , p. 319.
11. Department of the Interior, The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands , pp. 55-73.
12. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, p. 316.
13. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Wetlands: Special Statistical Report (July 1995). More recent data are provided in the statement of Michael L. Davis, April 29, 1997.
14. Based on Army Corps of Engineers data and data reported in Virginia S. Albrecht and Bernard N. Goode, Wetland Regulation in the Real World (Washington, D.C.: Beveridge and Diamond, February 1994), p. 23.
15. A recent estimate of the average evaluation time for individual permits by the Corps is 104 days (see the statement of Michael L. Davis, April 29, 1997). Albrecht and Goode used a different method and found that the average time between the application and decision dates for a sample of individual permit applications processed in fiscal year 1992 was 373 days (see Wetland Regulation in the Real World , p. 16).
16. Two separate evaluations of the regulatory program reached similar conclusions: Office of Technology Assessment, Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation , OTA-O-206 (March 1984), pp. 142-144 and 152; and General Accounting Office, Wetlands: The Corps of Engineers' Administration of the Section 404 Program , GAO/RCED-88-110 (July 1988), pp. 20-22 and 33-34.
17. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Policy Legislation and Special Litigation Section, "The Regulatory Takings Docket of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, End of Fiscal Year 1997" (mimeo, October 1997).
18. Regulations regarding wetlands are the most significant cause of takings claims. Nevertheless, the number of such claims is minuscule when compared with the volume of permit applications that have been approved in recent years. See the statement of Michael L. Davis, April 29, 1997.
19. Barton H. Thompson Jr., "The Endangered Species Act: A Case Study in Takings and Incentives," Stanford Law Review , vol. 49, no. 2 (January 1997), pp. 305-380.
The EPA: 40 and past its prime
The Environmental Protection Agency is marking its 40th birthday, but its record gives little cause to celebrate.
guardian.co.uk , Saturday 11 December 2010 15.00 GMT
Touting the 40th birthday of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this month, its head, Lisa Jackson, penned a paean to the agency in a Wall Street Journal op-ed . But it contained far more than a recapitulation of her agency's supposed achievements or a defense against its critics.
In fact, it began in a way that, for the top executive of a government regulatory agency, was jarringly political – namely, with a pointed reference to November's elections having "strengthened the influence of groups and individuals who threaten to roll back the EPA's efforts". Jackson's article was filled with specious assertions and was devoid of any acknowledgement that regulation has costs, direct and indirect, and that the challenge for regulators is to strive for the amount of oversight and intrusion that is necessary and sufficient.
Jackson lauds the EPA's protecting the public from chemical pesticides. In fact, this is one of the agency's bêtes noirs. The testing required is excessively burdensome and the tolerances permitted by regulators overly conservative (low). What makes regulators' approach to chemical pesticides verge on the absurd is the fact that 99.99% of consumers' exposure to pesticides comes not from agricultural applications, but from substances that are naturally found in food.
EPA and the "environmentalists" to whom it continually panders regularly muddle the public with specious warnings about impending risk. One such alarm concerns the presence of trace amounts of certain chemicals that are present in our bodies. Activists perform "studies" that search for trace amounts of a variety of chemicals in blood or tissues – and find them. But given the sophistication and sensitivity of our modern analytical techniques, we can find infinitesimal amounts of almost anything we look for.
The mere presence of a synthetic chemical – even one known to be toxic at high levels – does not make it a health concern. Consider, for example, the potent toxin of the potentially lethal food-poisoning bacterium that causes botulism: in tiny amounts, the toxin is a useful pharmaceutical and cosmetic; its brand name is Botox.
The EPA's repeated failures should not come as a surprise, because the agency has long been a haven for scientifically insupportable policies perpetrated by anti-technology ideologues. Jackson herself is a veteran of 16 years at the agency, developing some of its unscientific, wasteful and dangerous regulations. She worked on Superfund (officially, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ), an ongoing EPA programme intended to clean up and reduce the risk of toxic-waste sites. It was originally conceived as a short-term project – $1.6bn over five years, to clean up some 400 sites (by law, at least one per state and, not coincidentally, about one per congressional district). But it has grown into one of the nation's largest public works projects: more than $30bn spent, on about 1,300 sites.
How could cleaning up toxic waste sites not be a good thing? Well, various studies have attempted to evaluate the impacts of Superfund's massive and costly cleanups, but the results are equivocal. Putting that another way, after the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars, no beneficial results have been demonstrable.
On the other hand, some Superfund projects have definitely caused harm. University of California economics professor J Paul Leigh has analysed the occupational hazards of environmental cleanup projects and concluded that the risk of fatality to the average cleanup worker – a dump-truck driver involved in a collision or a labourer run over by a bulldozer, for example – is considerably larger than the cancer risks to individual residents that might result from exposures to untreated sites.
EPA has a long history of failing to weigh costs and benefits or to make decisions based on science. In his book, Breaking the Vicious Circle , supreme court justice Steven Breyer cites the low cost-effectiveness of the EPA's ban of asbestos pipe, shingles, coating and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years – at a cost of approximately $250m. Breyer observes that such EPA actions are damaging in two ways: by diverting valuable resources from other, more effective public healthcare measures and by removing asbestos from existing structures in ways that make fibers airborne and pose even greater risks to human health.
In her Wall Street Journal article, Jackson defends her agency against charges that it is a jobkiller or otherwise harmful to the economy. In fact, unscientific and obstructionist policies toward once-promising R&D areas, such as the use of genetically engineered bacteria to clean up toxic wastes (including oil spills) and kill insect pests, have caused academics and corporations to abandon entire sectors that could have created jobs and wealth.
Notwithstanding Jackson's claims to the contrary, many critics – this writer included – believe that the 40-year experiment with a freestanding Environmental Protection Agency has been a failure and that the agency should be abolished, its essential functions reassigned to other, less scientifically-challenged government organisations. Over the years, though, the EPA has, in effect, bought the loyalty of a cadre of scientists and advocacy organisations that will defend it. For the foreseeable future, then, American companies and consumers – even our natural environment – will bear the scars of bureaucratic ambition and incompetence.
Court Denies Attempt to Block EPA Climate Rules
By REUTERS
Published: December 10, 2010
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal court on Friday denied an appeal by industry groups to block the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing greenhouse gas regulations early next year.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said opponents of EPA's planned regulations did not meet the "stringent standards" necessary for the court to stop the rules while various lawsuits proceed against the EPA's climate-related actions.
EPA rules to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, from major industrial sources are due to go into effect on January 2. The Obama administration is moving ahead with the rules after failing to pass a climate change law through Congress this year.
The rules face lawsuits from industry groups and states that question the federal government's authority to regulate ubiquitous greenhouse gases, and argue the EPA did not conduct enough of its own research when it made its finding that carbon is a danger to human health.
Critics of the regulations argue the EPA is not equipped to handle the enormous task of controlling emissions blamed for global warming, and onerous rules will damage the economy.
"In light of the substantial disagreement over whether federal, state and local regulators can be ready in time to impose preconstruction permit requirements by early January, the court may have ensured an effective construction moratorium for industrial and power projects," said Scott Segal of Bracewell Giuliani, a lobbying firm that represents utilities, refiners and manufacturers.
The court said in its ruling that opponents of the regulations did not prove that the negative consequences of allowing the regulations to forward were "certain" to occur and not "speculative."
Beginning in January, EPA will start requiring big emitters such as power plants, refineries and cement manufacturers to obtain permits for polluting greenhouse gases.
Companies will also have to adhere to EPA guidelines about the best technologies to use to control emissions when expanding or building new plants or factories.
Environmental groups lauded the court's decision to allow the regulations to move forward.
"We're glad the court rejected these baseless attempts by polluters to stall progress toward cleaner cars and safer air," David Baron, an attorney with Earthjustice, said in a statement.
EPA and Florida Fight Over Water Quality Standards
PENSACOLA, Fla. (CN) - Florida has filed a lawsuit to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from replacing certain state water quality regulations with its own. This is the first time the EPA has deemed a state's water quality regulations inadequate and imposed federal regulations in their place. The federal regulations replace Florida's narrative standards for permitting the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus waste into lakes and rivers with standards based on numeric thresholds.
The state's action comes on the same day that the EPA issued the first regulations that would impose federal standards under the Clean Water Act after determining that a state's regulatory framework is insufficient to protect the environment from harm.
In January 2009, the agency determined that Florida's use of a narrative standard that based permitting on whether or not a discharge would "cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna," had lead to expensive and time consuming studies for each discharge, which leads to disparate impact on waterways through out the state.
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is authorized to submit its own standards for controlling regulated pollutants if it determines that a state's standards or procedures are not up to the task.
The EPA's 2009 determination was a reversal of its previous position that Florida's ongoing development and implementation of its own numeric standards was sufficient to meet Clean Water Act standards.
Florida's attorney general, Bill McCollum, said in a press release announcing the state's bid to block the federal regulations that "the EPA numeric nutrient rule and its proposed criteria are not based on scientifically sound methodology, and were adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner just to settle a lawsuit."
The suit McCollum referred to was a 2008 action brought by several environmental groups that tried to force the EPA to impose federal standards while Florida developed its own standards. The January 2009 determination by the agency was issued as part of a settlement the agency reached with the environmental groups.
As evidence that the EPA is only imposing a federal standard to head off potential lawsuits by environmental groups in other states, Florida's complaint quotes an internal memo to the former administrator of the agency from an assistant administrator stating that "EPA does not agree with the plaintiffs' allegation that we made a CWA determination in our 1998 Strategy that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida to meet the requirements of the CWA. There is, however, some risk that the court could agree with the plaintiffs that the 1998 Strategy constitutes a CWA determination that nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida. Such a ruling could spur similar litigation in other states. Presently, 49 states have one or more 303(d) listings for waters impaired by nutrients."
In announcing the new standards the EPA recognized "that Florida has a comprehensive regulatory and non-regulatory administrative water quality program to address nitrogen/phosphorus pollution." However, the agency found that Florida's program has not dealt with the issue properly and that "water quality degradation from nitrogen/phosphorus over-enrichment remains a significant challenge in the State and conditions are likely to worsen with continued population growth and land-use changes."Treasury Will Sell Stake In AIG ‘As Soon As Practicable'
Published 12/10/2010
NU Online News Service, Dec. 10, 3:32 p.m. EST
A Treasury official said the government is still working on the timing to sell its interest in American International Group, but it wants to do it as soon as practicable.
In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Timothy Massad, acting assistant secretary for financial stability at the U.S. Treasury, said the definitive agreement filed Wednesday by AIG is a “major milestone” and the Treasury is “focused on completing this.”
“We'll dispose of our investments as soon as practicable, but in an orderly manner, and we'll decide how to do that in the days ahead,” Mr. Massad said.
Under the plan to sell the Treasury's holding, the government's stake will increase to about 92 percent of AIG—up from its original stake in the company of about 80 percent. Under that scenario the government could profit from its investments in the insurance giant.
The government's strategy to bailout AIG in September 2008 proved to be the right decision, as two years later the Treasury is “in the position to recover our entire investment,” he said.
A profit “depends on market price in the future,” Mr. Massad added, but at the current price of AIG shares, the Treasury would make a profit.
Recent reports citing unnamed sources have said the Treasury plans to offer between $10 billion and $15 billion of stock with AIG in the first half of 2011.
The agreement filed by AIG listed the sale of its common stock by the Treasury as a risk factor to its recapitalization plan due to a dilution effect.
According to the new deal, AIG has the right to raise up to $3 billion in a public offering by Aug. 15, 2011.
.
CALIFORNIA - EPA DELISTING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE!
CALIFORNIA - COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing;
Not one biota, not one iota; No further evidence required to facially apparent facts
Section 107 shifts joint and several liability to the defendants, unless a defendant can
affirmatively demonstrate that the harm is divisibleSee, e.g., United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 573 F. Supp. 802, 809-10 (S.D. Ohio 1983)
(stating that where the harm is indivisible, each liable party is responsible for the entire
harm).See In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litig., 994 F. Supp. 638, 662 n.34 (1998) (“[W]hile
a defendant in a Section 107 action can only avoid joint and several liability by demonstrating
that the harm at a given site is divisible, parties to a Section 113 action may
allocate among potentially responsible parties based on equitable considerations.”).See Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. Peck Iron & Metal Co. 814 F. Supp. 1285, 1288
(E.D. Va. 1993) (holding that the unclean hands defense is relevant to contribution phase
of litigation, but not to basic liability issue); In re Sundance Corp. 149 B.R. 641, 664 (Bankr.
E.D. Wash. 1993) (stating that the court is free to apply equitable factors).The committee emphasizes that courts are to resolve claims for apportionment
on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Federal common law,
taking relevant equitable considerations into account. Thus, after all
questions of liability and remedy have been resolved, courts may consider
any criteria relevant to determining whether there should be an
apportionment.Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act
Many courts have decided that one of these model state tort allocation
statutes, UCATA, is best suited to resolve cost allocation pursuant
to section 107 claims brought by government plaintiffs.100 Each party pays
a pro rata share, defined in the UCATA without consideration of relative
or proportionate degrees of fault or liability among the parties. Comparative
negligence principles play no part in an allocation pursuant to the
UCATA. Where there is a symbiotic confluence of factors causing indivisible
damage, liability is indivisible and is apportioned pro rata.101 This
application of UCATA results in a pro tanto scheme of allocation between
settlors and nonsettlors. The liability of nonsettling parties is reduced
only by the amount of the settlement, not by the settlors’ proportionate
share of liability.102 This makes the government whole without any excess
recovery by the government, which courts have held is implied by
section 113(f)(2).103 The UCATA prevents the effects of a plaintiff placing the entire
burden of a common injury on a single joint tortfeasor.104 To fairly distribute
the liability, the UCATA allows a liable party to seek contribution
from the other liable parties.105 The UCATA provides that no settling
tortfeasor is entitled to contribution from another tortfeasor unless the
former’s settlement is in excess of its share.106 The right of contribution
exists to a settling tortfeasor who pays more than her pro rata share of
common liability, and recovery is limited to the amount in excess of the
pro rata share that was paid.107 A pro rata share is the result of equally
dividing the liability by the number of responsible parties.108 For example,if there are five responsible parties, each party bears one-fifth of the
liability, regardless of her actual contribution to the harm.
Thus, the UCATA allocates liability without consideration of
relative or proportionate degrees of fault among the parties.109 Such an
allocation scheme, with its simple mathematical formula, greatly facilitates
the allocation of responsibility among all tortfeasors by the conclusion
of litigation. The concept of the UCATA, under which simple division
by the number of parties determines each individual’s share of liability,
is consistent with the commingled and indivisible nature of contamination
encountered at most multi-party Superfund sites.Id. at 418-19 (referring to the three defenses listed at 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b)). In this
matter, the plaintiff government agency was also potentially liable. Kramer, 757 F. Supp.
at 397-98. While the government as a prosecutor has discretion not to name itself as a
defendant in section 107 litigation, it remains potentially liable in a concurrent or subsequent
section 113 contribution claim. See CERCLA § 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1) (2000).
The liability of the defendants in a section 107(a) action is joint and several, while the
liability of third party defendants is several only. See id. § 9607(a); see also H.R. REP. NO.
99-253, pt.1, at 79-80 (1985), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2835, 2861-62.
141 Kramer, 757 F. Supp. at 405..
05/01/ 1986 P R C Environmental Management, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Endangerment assessment draft final rpt, w/TL to T Mix fr T Brisbin 51189
12/15/2000 C H 2 M Hill Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6FSP, QAPP, Health & Safety Plan for surface-water sampling 103636
03/17/1997 Charles Alpers / US Geological Survey Richard Sugarek / Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9Ltr: Transmits QAPP, draft workplan, & draft FSP, w/attchs
08/01/2001C H 2 M HillEnvironmental Protection Agency - Region 9Amended QAPP for air & surface-water sampling (QAPP & amendment 1)165834
Keswick dam to Cottonwood Creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;
EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
(EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004 )The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (James Madison, Federalist 45 )
Water: Initiation of Risk Assessments for Chemicals in Drinking Water [07/09/10]
Comparison of MCLs and PHGs for Regulated Contaminants in Drinking Water
Last Update: July 24, 2010 This page compares maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and public health goals (PHGs).
Draft Clean Water Strategy is released
Posted by the EPA on August 20th, 2010 - 11:58 AM
.
Iron Mountain Mine Institute nomination for Region 9 liaison
Regional Water Board Overreach Could Cost Region Billions
Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010 Good morning, A national panel of experts appears frustrated by gaping holes in a developing master plan for the Delta despite four years and $140 million in studies. The report provided the committee no straightforward description of the recovery goals for the ecosystem, no analysis of water demands and — perhaps most troubling — portions of a study on the environmental effects of the proposal were described as “woefully incomplete.” Central Coast and statewide agricultural interests are proposing a water quality coalition as an alternative to a plan by the state Water Resources Control Board, which growers say is too stringent. And take a closer look at the Elkhorn Slough Tidal Wetland Project, the fruit of years of research, planning and collaboration among nonprofit and governmental agencies, that seeks to slow down the tides that are eroding crucial habitat. Some other stories making news across the state:
- CALFED releases surface storage progress report
- Frosted vineyard threat makes for tough call
- Progress on Sacramento flood safety plan aired today
- Woodlake breaks ground on $19M wastewater project
- Signs of the tide: San Diego's water supply
Our new readers today include: Lynda Goldberg , government affairs, Metropolitan Water District. Have a great day! Ken Harlow
Editor, California Water News
Brown and Caldwell.
Regional Screening Levels (Formerly PRGs)
Regional Screening Level Resources
Online Screen Level Calculator
Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants
The Region 9 PRGs have been harmonized with similar risk-based screening levels used by Regions 3 and 6 into a single table: "Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites." These updated screening levels, along with a detailed user's guide and supplementary tables, can be accessed directly on-line or downloaded to your own computer. In addition, the web site contains a Screening Level Calculator to assist in calculating site-specific screening levels.
Region 9-specific information regarding the Regional Screening Level Table »
RSL Tables (Last updated November 2010)
The screening level (RSL) tables are available for download in Excel and PDF formats. These tables are considered ready for use. The tables contain both RSL calculations and the toxicity values that were used. For additional information please see the resources box at the the upper-right of this page.
PDF (Color) PDF (B+W) Excel (Color) Excel (B+W) Summary Table (PDF) (11 pp, 177K) (PDF) (11 pp, 173K) XLS XLS Residental Soil Supporting (PDF) (12 pp, 175) (PDF) (12 pp, 171K) XLS XLS Industrial Soil Supporting (PDF) (12 pp, 174K) (PDF) (12 pp, 170K) XLS XLS Residental Air Supporting (PDF) (12 pp, 142K) (PDF) (12 pp, 138K) XLS XLS Industrial Air Supporting (PDF) (12 pp, 143K) (PDF) (12 pp, 137K) XLS XLS Residental Tapwaters Supporting (PDF) (15 pp, 169K) (PDF) (15 pp, 164K) XLS XLS Residental Soil to Groundwater Supporting (PDF) (15 pp, 174K) (PDF) (15 pp, 168K) XLS XLS Chemical Specific Parameters (PDF) (11 pp, 157K) (PDF) (11 pp, 154K) XLS XLS Composite Table (PDF) (100 pp, 776K) (PDF) (100 p, 755K) XLS XLS You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.
See EPA's PDF page to learn more.NOTE: The 2004 version of the Region 9 PRG Table will remain at this web site in case users need to reference this historical document. However, the 2004 Table should no longer be used for contaminant screening of environmental media because it has been replaced with the more current Table above.
Region 9 PRGs 2004 Table (PDF) (16pp, 962 K)
Potential Problems
As with any risk-based tool, there exists the potential for misuse. We try to highlight potential problems in the User's Guide. However, the use of PRGs at an individual site becomes the responsibility of the user.
Regional Screening Table
You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.
Table of Contents
Welcome to the "Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites" screening level/preliminary remediation goal website. This website was developed with DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) under an Interagency Agreement as an update of the EPA Region 3 RBC Table, Region 6 HHMSSL Table and the Region 9 PRG Table. Here you will find tables of risk-based screening levels, calculated using the latest toxicity values, default exposure assumptions and physical and chemical properties, and a calculator where default parameters can be changed to reflect site-specific risks. To ensure proper use of the screening level tables and the calculator, please review the What's New , User's Guide , Frequently Asked Questions , and Download Area links. Below is a general description of screening levels for chemical contaminants. If the calculator is used with non-default inputs in a decision on a Superfund site, it is recommended that the inputs be clearly identified and justified by the user.
Introduction
Superfund sites are addressed under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, which was amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The purpose of this website is to provide a screening level calculation tool to assist risk assessors, remedial project managers, and others involved with risk assessment and decision-making at CERCLA sites in developing or refining screening levels.
This tool is based on Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals) (RAGs Part B) and Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide (PDF) , Technical Background Documenrt (PDF) and Supplemental Guidance . RAGs Part B provides guidance on using EPA toxicity values and exposure information to calculate risk-based Screening Levels (SLs). The relationship of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) to screening levels (SLs) is discussed in more detail in the User's Guide. The Soil Screening Guidance documents expand upon RAGS Part B. Initially used at the scoping phase of a project using readily available information, risk-based screening levels generally are modified based on site-specific data gathered during the RI/FS study. Screening level development and screening should assist staff in streamlining the consideration of remedial alternatives. Chemical-specific SLs are from two general sources: (1) concentrations based on potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and (2) concentrations based on risk assessment. ARARs include concentration limits set by other environmental regulations, such as Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The second source for SLs, and the focus of this database tool, is risk-based calculations that set concentration limits using carcinogenic or systemic toxicity values under specific exposure conditions.
The recommended approach for developing remediation goals is to identify screening levels at scoping, modify them as needed at the end of the RI or during the FS based on site-specific information from the baseline risk assessment, and ultimately select remediation levels in the ROD.
Screening levels are also used when a potential site is initially investigated to determine if potentially significant levels of contamination are present to warrant further investigation such as an RI/FS.
In order to set chemical-specific SLs in a site-specific context, however, assessors must answer fundamental questions about the site, such as information on the chemicals that are present onsite, the specific contaminated media, land-use assumptions, and the exposure assumptions behind pathways of individual exposure.
Once this web tool is used to retrieve standard screening levels or calculate site-specific screening levels, it is important to clearly demonstrate the equation inputs used in the calculations. Discussion of the assumptions that go into the screening level calculations should be included in the document where the screening levels are presented.
This tool presents standardized risk-based screening levels and variable risk-based screening level calculation equations for chemical contaminants. Screening levels are presented in the default tables for residential soil, outdoor worker soil, residential indoor air, worker indoor air and tap water. In addition, the calculator provides a fish ingestion equation. The risk-based screening levels for chemicals are based on the carcinogenicity and systemic toxicity of the analytes. The standardized or default screening levels used in the tables on this website are based on default exposure parameters and incorporate exposure factors that present RME conditions.
Radionuclides are not addressed on this website. For radionuclide PRGs please go to EPA's PRGs for Radionuclides.
Note: No consideration is given to ecological effects in the values presented in this database tool.
For assistance/questions please use the rbc table contact us page
TechLinks Technology Web Sites
This page provides links to government, academic and industry Web pages dedicated to both hazardous waste site characterization and remediation technologies. They are intended for use by Superfund and RCRA project managers, researchers, engineers, the public, or anyone who may be looking for technologies to solve site specific hazardous waste problems. Contact Mike Gill , ORD Hazardous Waste Technical Liaison, with any questions (gill.michael@epa.gov).
On this page :
- Innovative Technology Research and Development
- Technology Validation / Certification / Commercialization / Demonstration
- Technology Databases
- Technology Publications
- Technology Partnerships
- Specific Applications
- Monitored Natural Attenuation Policy
- Technology Transfer
Innovative Technology Research and Development
Los Alamos National Lab LANL's Environmental Science and Technology page shows results of research focusing on technical solutions of problems in the environment (remedial technologies, site characterization, etc.). Nanotechnology at EPA Nanotechnology has both applications and implications for the environment. EPA supports research in this quickly expanding field, while evaluating its regulatory responsibility to protect human health and the environment. This site highlights EPA's research in nanotechnology and provides useful information on related research at EPA and in other organizations. National Exposure Research Lab (NERL) (EPA) EPA's NERL provides scientific understanding, information and assessment tools to reduce and quantify the uncertainty in the Agency's exposure and risk assessments for all environmental stressors. NERL also demonstrates, field tests, evaluates and transfers scientific information and innovative exposure assessment technologies, and provides educational materials and technical support. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Known as NIEHS , this group out of Atlanta, GA (under the National Institutes of Health) administers funding to various universities nationwide under a program called the " Superfund Basic Research Program ". They fund basic research that applies to the Superfund realm of EPA. National Risk Management Research Lab (NRML) (EPA) EPA's NRMRL located in Cincinnati, Ohio advances the scientific understanding and the development and application of technological solutions to prevent, control, or remediate important environmental problems that threaten human health and the environment. Office of Research and Development (ORD) (EPA) The home page of EPA's Office of Research and Development. Office of Science and Technology (DOE) The Department of Energy's Office of Science and Technology (OST) manages and directs targeted basic research and focused, solution-oriented technology development programs. Some parts of this page require a password. Remedial Technologies Development Forum (RDTF) The purpose of the RTDF is to identify what government and industry can do together to develop and improve the environmental technologies needed to address their mutual cleanup problems in the safest, most cost-effective manner. The RTDF is operated by U.S. EPA and fosters public and private sector partnerships to undertake the research, development, demonstration, and evaluation efforts needed to achieve common cleanup goals. Sandia National Lab The Environmental Restoration Technologies Department of Sandia focuses on developing, demonstrating and transferring innovative environmental technologies to other government and the commercial sector. Sediments Research Web The Sediments Research Web grew out of the technology transfer program of the South & Southwest Hazardous Substance Research Centers (HSRC). Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) SERDP is the Department of Defense's technology development and transfer mechanism for environmental issues. Technology Innovation News Survey (EPA CLU-IN) Contains market/commercialization information; reports on demonstrations, feasibility studies and research; and other news relevant to the hazardous waste community interested in technology development. Western Region Hazardous Substance Research Center The Western Region Hazardous Substance Research Center develops treatment methods and provides technical assistance for cleanup of hazardous substances. The Center is a partnership between Oregon State University and Stanford University and was established in 1989 to address critical hazardous substance problems in the Western United States. The Center receives its base financial support from US EPA. It is headquartered at Oregon State University. Technology Validation/Certification/Commercialization/Demonstration
(Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team) BADCAT Although no longer active, the Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team (BADCAT) formed an Environmental Technology Partnership and worked hard to bring innovative technologies to closing military bases in the Bay Area, with an eye towards cleaning up contaminated closing military base sites faster, better, cheaper for expedited turnover to local communities for future use. California Environmental Technology Verification program (California EPA) Similar program to EPA's ETV program, this page describes the State of California's technology verification program . Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) (DOD) ESTCP is the Department of Defense's program to demonstrate and validate promising innovative environmental technologies. Environmental Technology Verification (EPA) EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program's (ETV) goal is to verify the performance of innovative technical solutions to problems that threaten human health or the environment. ETV was created to substantially accelerate the entrance of new environmental technologies into the domestic and international marketplace. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program (EPA) The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program encourages the development and implementation of 1) innovative treatment technologies for hazardous waste site remediation; and, 2) monitoring and measurement. In the SITE Demonstration Program, the technology is field-tested on hazardous waste materials. Technology Databases
Center For Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO) TechTree Tthis Web site lets you define a technology problem and get a short list of technologies, innovative and conventional, designed to solve it. Or you can look up a technology, learn about it, and then check to see what other technologies might do the job. Center for Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMoS) (EPA) From Ada, Oklahoma Center for Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMoS). You can download a variety of models for free . CERCLIS Database CERCLIS is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System and contains information on hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities across the nation, including sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or being considered for the NPL. CLU-IN Home Page (EPA) The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information Web site about innovative technologies, including associated programs, organizations, publications and other tools. It is one of the most comprehensive technology sites on the Web. If you would like to be notified via email once a month about new technical publications related to characterization and remediation technologies, you may subscribe to TIO's TechDirect email service on CLU-IN. CLU-IN Optimization Information Center This Web site provides information on EPA optimization efforts related to improving the design, long-term management, and closeout of remediation systems. The focus of the Web site is on optimization evaluations, technical fact sheets, demonstrations, and outreach efforts with which EPA has direct involvement but the Web site also provides links to other state and federal agency optimization resources. Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental Remediation This searchable online document from DOE (the Los Alamos National Lab) is designed to provide cost data on environmental remediation technologies. Consolidated CLU-IN Project Profile Search CLU-IN offers information on thousands of projects where innovative approaches have been used to deal with contamination problems. The Web site allows you to simultaneously search for and view project profiles from several collections containing over 1,200 of these profiles. Contaminant Focus Area (EPA CLU-IN) The CLU-IN Contaminant Focus area bundles information associated with the cleanup of individual contaminants and contaminant groups. This information is presented in categories such as Policy and Guidance, Chemistry and Behavior, Environmental Occurrence, Toxicology, Detection and Site Characterization, Treatment Technologies, and Conferences and Seminars. Sections currently exist for arsenic, chromium VI, and perchlorate. Earth Observation System Project Science Office (NASA) This remote sensing page from NASA describes a remote sensing program. EnviroMapper (EPA) EnviroMapper maps several types of environmental information, including drinking water, toxic and air releases, hazardous waste, water discharge permits, and Superfund sites. EnviroMapper also links to text reports, which provide even more information. Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) (EPA) The Environmental Technology Opportunities Portal (ETOP) helps those seeking funding opportunities, information, and links to programs that assist in environmental technology development and commercialization. ETOP is a “one-stop-shop” office to coordinate similar programs that foster private and public sector development of new, cost-effective environmental technologies. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundable: Remedial Technologies Matrix One of the most complete innovative remedial technologies matrices available. Put together by a consortia of agencies, including EPA, DOD, DOE, DOI and USACE. Federal Remediation Technologies Rountable: Site Characterization Matrix Just as comprehensive as the remedial technologies matrix, only this one is for field sampling and analysis technologies . Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia (FATE) (EPA CLU-IN) The FATE Web site provides information about technologies that can be used in the field: to characterize contaminated media, monitor the progress of remedial efforts, and in some cases, to conduct confirmation sampling and analysis for site close out. Global Network of Environment and Technology (GNET) GNET is an online environmental technology and business center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. Groundwater Central© This is a portal from the Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) and consists of a resource "links" database and several integrated communication components including on-line publications, to case studies, data repositories, vendors, and announcements for events. Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) GWRTAC compiles, analyzes and disseminates information on innovative groundwater technologies . Groundwater Software (USGS) This is a USGS Web site for groundwater modeling software . There are several programs available through this site that are not available elsewhere including a new version of the MODFLOW GUI (Graphical User Interface) for Argus ONE. Innovative Remediation Technologies: Field-Scale Demonstration Project and Report (EPA CLU-IN) This Web page adds new project data to its online, searchable database of on-going and completed field-scale demonstrations of innovative hazardous waste remediation technologies. Information on over 700 projects in the database can now be searched by media, technology type, contaminant type, and demonstration date. National Exposure Research Laboratory
Environmental Science Databases (EPA)Environmental Sciences Division's Web page that lists various databases and software . "ReachIt" Database (EPA) From TIP, it is an acronym for "REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies". Provides a unified database with information that also resides in the Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT), VendorFacts and the Innovative Treatment Technologies databases . Remediation Databases (EPA CLU-IN) Direct access is now provided to 17 remediation technology databases with information on topics ranging from dry cleaner site profiles to online phytoremediation bibliographies. Remediation Technology Project Demonstration Files This Web site provides information about remediation technology demonstration projects. New technologies or new applications of existing technologies that are under development are often tested at demonstration or field-scale, prior to use in full-scale cleanups. Superfund Presumptive Remedies (EPA) Superfund's Presumptive Remedies home page currently covers VOCs in soil, municipal landfills, wood treatment facilities, contaminated groundwater sites and metals in soils sites. TechKnow An online database built into Global Network of Environment and Technology (GNET) that provides profiles of environmental technologies which include summaries, development and intellectual property status, and cost. Technology Focus Area (EPA CLU-IN)
The CLU-IN Technology Focus area bundles information for particular technologies that may be used in a variety of applications. This information is presented in categories such as Overview, Guidance, Application, Training, and Additional Resources. CLU-IN presently provides a compilation of the most relevant information resources on 15 remediation technologies. Technology Innovation Program (TIP) (EPA) EPA's Technology Innovation Program (TIP) is an advocate for new technologies; contains links to many other technology pages. TerraServer MicroSoft's use of USGS/NASA aerial and satellite photography . Can get some interesting photos right at your desktop. Triad Project Profiles with Cost & Time Savings Online This Triad Resource Center (TRC) Web site documents 15 Triad projects. Each profile describes the primary objective(s) of the project, site history, team members and collaboration methods, realtime measurement technologies, data management techniques, project timelines, as well as discussions of the Triad elements applied. Triad Resource Center The Web site provides information describing how the Triad approach restructures projects from technical and project management perspectives. It includes overview information, project management, Triad case studies, detailed reference resources and frequently asked questions. Vendor Support Area (EPA CLU-IN) This EPA Web site was created to provide environmental technology developers and vendors with tools to help advance technologies through all stages of product development from bench scale to full commercialization. The resources collected for this site cover a broad range of topics that include business planning, marketing, financing, and technical issues. Technology Publications
Battelle Bookstore Contains some environmental technology publications . Environmental Science and Technology Publication This is a Web site connected to the publication ES&T. It provides a dozen or so links to other environmental technology Web sites from industry, government, nonprofits and academia. Groundwater Currents newsletters (EPA CLU-IN) Archive of EPA newsletters that provide information on innovative groundwater treatment technologies. Groundwater Guidance (EPA) This page provides a link to lists of key Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) groundwater guidance and selected other reports on ground water which are used frequently by Superfund Remedial Project Managers. Measurement and Monitoring Technology for the 21st Century (EPA CLU-IN) Measurement and Monitoring Technology for the 21st Century
This Web site provides literature on Open-Path Monitoring Technologies for primary waste program monitoring needs under EPA's 21M2 program.National Academy Press Reading Room Environmental Documents Contains many documents about groundwater protection and remediation. National Catalogue (EPA) Access to the EPA National Catalogue National Environmental Publications Internet Site (NEPIS) A database of over 6,000 EPA documents to browse/view, and print online. Office of Research and Development (ORD) Publications (EPA) This page contains all of the latest publications from ORD . Science Direct Designed to provide desktop access to the full text of more than 1000 scientific, medical and technical journals published by Elsevier Science. Superfund Remedy Decisions (EPA) This site was developed by EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. It provides a comprehensive compilation of all remedy-related guidance and policy documents that deal with CERCLA remedy decisions.
Superfund Resources (EPA) General Web page with links of Superfund resources , including technical resources. You can download technical publications and software, view numerous hazardous waste databases, look at Superfund training courses and materials, or access Superfund's analytical services. Technology News and Trends (EPA CLU-IN) This is an EPA newsletter about soil, groundwater and sediment characterization and remediation technologies. It replaces two former EPA newsletters, "TechTrends" and "Groundwater Currents". Technology Transfer (EPA) Formerly EPA's Center For Environmental Research Information, now the Technology Transfer Branch of NRMRL. You can order many EPA documents on this page for free, while supplies last. TechTrends newsletter archive (EPA CLU-IN) Archive of EPA newsletters that provide descriptions and performance data for innovative source control technologies that have been applied in the field. Technology Partnerships
Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team (BADCAT) Although no longer active, BADCAT worked hard to bring innovative technologies to closing military bases in the Bay Area, with an eye towards cleaning up contaminated closing military base sites faster, better, and cheaper for expedited turnover to local communities for future use. Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) (NATO) NATO's CCMS combines the expertise and technology available in member NATO countries . The CCMS Web site is also a tool for the multiple CCMS pilot studies and participating nations to acquire, organize, retrieve, and disseminate environmental information of common interest. It provides access to environmental data, reports, and studies. EPA "TechMatch" Web site This Web site contains more than 130 EPA scientific patents of technologies that benefit the environment. Entrepreneurs can view and license EPA technologies to develop new products that offer both environmental protection and economic growth. TechMatch was developed by EPA in coordination with the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation. Federal Remedial Technologies Roundtable A partnership set up to establish an exchange among federal agencies about remediation technologies . One very useful product of this group is a very comprehensive treatment technologies screening matrix (described above). A collaboration of EPA and the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Interior. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) ITRC is a national coalition that works to improve the acceptance and interstate deployment of innovative environmental technologies. Specific Technology Applications
Alternative Landfill Cover Profiles (EPA CLU-IN) This EPA TIP database contains information about proposed, tested, or installed alternative design covers at waste disposal sites, including municipal solid waste and hazardous waste landfills and radioactive waste sites. The majority of alternative design covers featured are evapotranspiration (ET) covers including monolithic and capillary barrier designs. API Interactive LNAPL Guide This tool, developed by the American Petroleum Institute, is a comprehensive and easy-to-use electronic information system and screening utility. The Guide is designed to provide an overall approach for evaluating light non-aqueous phase liquid (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons) at a site, assessing its potential risk, quantitatively defining mobility and recoverability, developing remedial strategies, and examining methods to enhance site closure opportunities. Bioremediation Resources BioLinks is an archive of Internet resources on bioremediation and related topics that are organized by topical categories. Put together by a Canadian consulting company - GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Composting (EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) Web page on composting as a remedial alternative . Case studies included. Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems (PDF) (EPA) This fact sheet summarizes key aspects of effective management for operating pump and treat (P&T) systems based on lessons learned from conducting optimization evaluations at 20 Superfund-financed P&T systems. Fully Integrated Environmental Location Decision Support (FIELDS) (EPA) The FIELDS system is a collection of technological tools and applications incorporating geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS) and in-field analytical techniques to inform decision makers about a variety of conditions at a particular site or geographic area. Modeling Subsurface Transport of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPA) This Web page provides a course whose objective is to provide the necessary background information for applying models to field sites, judging such applications, or for setting program-wide modeling requirements. MTBE (EPA) This Web page includes information on MTBE remediation technologies, testing, underground storage tank issues, etc. MTBE Treatment Profiles (EPA CLU-IN) This Web site contains information about completed and ongoing applications for treatment of MTBE in drinking water and media at contaminated sites. It is put together by EPA's Technology Innovation Program and the Office of Underground Storage Tanks. New Phytotechnologies Profiles This EPA Web site summarizes timely information about full-scale, field-scale and large greenhouse-scale applications of phytotechnology. Projects for this website are collected using information from technical journals, conference proceedings as well as information obtained from technology vendors and site managers. Perchlorate Remediation Information (EPA CLU-IN) This page is devoted to perchlorate remediation and provides access to over 40 technical reports, journal articles, Web pages, and other materials from public and private sources on the latest advancements in the research and application of perchlorate treatment technologies. PPCPs - Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products PPCPs are not items that one typically associates with hazardous waste sites. But they are just as pervasive and can impact the same water resources that industrial sites do when hazardous waste is released. EPA's web site provides information on PPCPs as environmental pollutants. Sediment Sites With Substantial Contamination EPA has assembled this web-based listing of Superfund sites for which: 1) the agency has signed a record of decision or action memorandum for sediment cleanup; and 2) the remedy involves more than 10,000 cubic yards of sediments to be dredged or excavated or more than five acres to be capped or monitored for natural recovery. The listings are organized by Region, and most have links to other information on the web about remediation activities undertaken at the site. Sensors Technology Information Exchange (SenTIX) This Web site, supported by EPA, provides a forum for communication and exchange of information related to the application, development, and use of today's high-tech sensors. SenTIX focuses primarily on sensors used in environmental cleanup and includes information from diverse, but also related technical fields. Superfund Comprehensive Five-Year Guidance (EPA) This guidance is intended to promote consistent implementation of the five-year review process. (OWSER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, dated June 2001) Superfund: Contaminated Sediments (EPA CLU-IN) This Web site from EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response contains recent EPA guidance on sediment sites and direct links to NPL fact sheets for 66 EPA sites where RODS have been signed. Superfund Institutional Controls (EPA) Also called "Long term Stewardship" and "Land Use Controls" by other agencies, this link provides EPA guidance on technologies and issues to consider when making cleanup decisions that require future restrictions to the land. Superfund Presumptive Remedies (EPA) Superfund's Presumptive Remedies home page currently covers VOCs in soil, municipal landfills, wood treatment facilities, contaminated groundwater sites and metals in soils sites. EPA has developed an online system for Records of Decision (RODS) that provides full-text RODs in searchable format. This replaces a CD-ROM version. RODS Online includes the full-text of all ROD documents currently available, including abstracts, ROD Amendments, and Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs). There are a variety of search options, using EPA ID, keyword or site name, that work across the entire set of documents. Underground Storage Tanks Alternative Technologies (EPA) This Web page highlights a 1995 Office of USTs guidance manual on alternative technologies entitled "How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers". (EPA 510-B-95-007). This page provides detailed descriptions of 10 technologies . Waste Treatment: Solidification/ Stabilization This industry Web site is dedicated to information on solidification/stabilization technology. A key feature of the site is a list of important EPA and Army Corps of Engineer publications on solidification/stabilization. Monitored Natural Attenuation Policy
Monitored Natural Attenuation Directive (EPA) Text of the OSWER Directive on MNA, 12/1/97 Monitored Natural Attenuation Protocol (EPA) The " Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water"; from the Ada Research Laboratory Web site Technology Transfer
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence This page is directed at Air Force employees and therefore contains lots of AF guidance, but it also contains links to EPA and Department of Energy technology sites. Argonne National Lab This page provides links to many Argonne Lab environmental technology programs and projects. Army Technology Transfer This Army Web page provides a summary of environmental restoration technologies used by the Army. Center for Environmental Industry and Technology (CEIT) (EPA Region 1) EPA Region 1's Center for Environmental Industry and Technology (CEIT) is a catalyst for bringing new environmental technologies to the marketplace and addressing the concerns of New England's envirotech industry. The site includes an innovative technology inventory. TRAINEX: Environmental Training Courses Contains EPA and other training course descriptions, dates, and registration information. EUGRIS The EUGRIS portal is a web-based European information portal for soil and water management in Europe. EUGRIS provides access to information on soil and groundwater management from throughout the European Union, including research projects, technical information, available training, legislation, guidance and support tools. HSTL Public Homepage
HSTL Intranet (within EPA) HomepageORD technical support is available to Regional Superfund and RCRA staff through your local technical liaison. ORD's Hazardous Substances Technical Liaisons (HSTLs) have been working to increase their visibility online with improved web sites, both on the internet and the intranet. Learn more about the program on these web pages. International Innovative Environmental Solutions This EPA web site offers environmental policies and best practices from countries around the world including Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Australia. The online global library provides links to journals, databases, guidelines, programs and case studies involving innovations in air, toxics, waste and water issues, as well as multi-media approaches, such as Environmental Management Systems, sustainable transport, smart growth and industrial ecology. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) LBNL's Technology Transfer page Lawrence Berkeley National Lab's Current Technologies LBNL's Index of Current Environmental Technologies Available for Licensing and Collaboration. Naval Facilities Engineering Support Center Technical information from the Department of the Navy's Environmental Restoration Program. Covers Analysis, Methodologies and Technologies. Click on "Restoration." Site Remediation (USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program)
This Web page provides links to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information on projects and activities related to the remediation of contaminated sites. The projects are categorized by type (e.g., testing of remediation technologies, natural attenuation evaluation, performance monitoring, site characterization) and contaminant. Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area The Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area (SCFA) mission is to develop, demonstrate, and deploy step-change solutions to users' problems involving containment and long-term isolation of leaking buried waste areas and remediation of source term contamination including dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS), metals, and radionuclides as well as dispersed contamination in the subsurface. Technology Transfer Highlights (EPA) Formerly EPA's Center For Environmental Research Information, now the Technology Transfer Branch of NRMRL. You can order many EPA documents on this page for free, while supplies last. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Fiscal Year 2010 End of the Year ReportIntegrating the Life-Cycle Stages of Materials from Extraction to End-of-Life
Sustainable materials management is a core element of RCRA's resource conservation mandate. By considering the life cycle of materials from how they are extracted, manufactured, distributed, used, reused, recycled and finally disposed, we are casting a far broader net than our traditional approaches which considered waste and use phases of chemicals and materials. This represents an evolution in how we think about environmental protection. Consistent with this approach, in FY11 EPA will continue to advance its efforts from waste management to materials management. Efforts involve developing a materials management framework and strategy that implements EPA's recommendations in Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead (2009), senior leadership and stakeholder discussions, messaging efforts, and efforts to evolve existing work to include "upstream" elements.Holy smoking bee gun, Batman!
Leaked document shows EPA allowed bee-toxic pesticide despite own scientists' red flags
It's not just the State and Defense departments that are reeling this month from leaked documents. The Environmental Protection Agency now has some explaining to do, too. In place of dodgy dealings with foreign leaders, this case involves the German agrichemical giant Bayer; a pesticide with an unpronounceable name, clothianidin; and an insect species crucial to food production (as well as a food producer itself), the honeybee. And in lieu of a memo leaked to a globetrotting Australian, this one features a document delivered to a long-time Colorado beekeeper.
All of that, plus my favorite crop to fixate on: industrial corn, which blankets 88 million acres of farmland nationwide and produces a bounty of protein-rich pollen on which honeybees love to feast.
It's The Agency Who Kicked the Beehive, as written by Jonathan Franzen !
Hive talking
An internal EPA memo released Wednesday confirms that the very agency charged with protecting the environment is ignoring the warnings of its own scientists about clothianidin, a pesticide from which Bayer racked up €183 million (about $262 million) in sales in 2009.
Clothianidin has been widely used on corn, the largest U.S. crop, since 2003. Suppliers sell seeds pre-treated with it. Like other members of the neonicotinoid family of pesticides, clothianidin gets "taken up by a plant's vascular system and expressed through pollen and nectar," according to Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), which leaked the document along with Beyond Pesticides. That effect makes it highly toxic to a crop's pests -- and also harmful to pollen-hoarding honeybees, which have experienced mysterious annual massive die-offs (known as "colony collapse disorder") here in the United States at least since 2006.
The colony-collapse phenomenon is complex and still not completely understood. While there appears to be no single cause for the annual die-offs, mounting evidence points to pesticides , and specifically neonicotinoids (derived from nicotine), as a key factor. And neonicotinoids are a relatively new factor in ecosystems frequented by honeybees -- introduced in the late 1990s, these systemic insecticides have gained a steadily rising share of the seed-treatment market. It does not seem unfair to observe that the health of the honeybee population has steadily declined over the same period.
According to PANNA, other crops commonly treated with clothianidin include canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat -- all among the most widely planted U.S. crops. Bayer is now petitioning the EPA to register it for use with cotton and mustard seed.
The document [PDF], leaked to Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald, reveals that EPA scientists have declared essentially rejected the findings of a study conducted on behalf of Bayer that the agency had used to justify the registration of clothianidin. And they reiterated concerns that widespread use of clothianidin imperils the health of the nation's honeybees.
On Thursday, I asked an EPA press spokesperson via email if the scientists' opinion would inspire the agency to remove clothianidin from the market. The spokesperson, who asked not to be named but who communicated on the record on behalf of the agency, replied that clothianidin would retain its registration and be available for use in the spring.Wimpy watchdogging
Before we dig deeper into the leaked memo, it's important to understand the sorry story of how an insecticide known to harm honeybee populations came to blanket a huge swath of U.S. farmland in the first place. It's nearly impossible not to read it as a tale of a key public watchdog instead heeling to the industry it's supposed to regulate.
In the EPA's dealings with Bayer on this particular insecticide, the agency charged with protecting the environment has consistently made industry-friendly decisions that contradict the conclusions of its own scientists -- and threaten to do monumental harm to our food system by wiping out its key pollinators.
According to a time line provided by PANNA, the sordid story begins when Bayer first applied for registration of clothianidin in 2003. (All of the documents to which I link below were provided to me by PANNA.) By 2003, U.S. beekeepers were reporting difficulties in keeping hives healthy through the winter, but not yet on the scale of colony collapse disorder. In February of this year, the EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) withheld registration of clothianidin, declaring that it wanted more evidence that it wouldn't harm bee populations.
In a memo [PDF], an EFAD scientist explained the decision:The possibility of toxic exposure to nontarget pollinators [e.g., honeybees] through the translocation of clothianidin residues that result from seed treatment (corn and canola) has prompted EFED to require field testing that can evaluate the possible chronic exposure to honeybee larvae and the queen. In order to fully evaluate the possibility of this toxic effect, a complete worker bee life cycle study (about 63 days) must be conducted, as well as an evaluation of exposure to the queen.
So, no selling clothianidin until a close, expert examination of how pollen infused with it would affect worker bees and Her Majesty the queen.
Again, that was in February of 2003. But in April of that year, just two months later, the agency backtracked. "After further consideration," the agency wrote in another memo , the EPA has decided to grant clothianidin "conditional registration" -- meaning that Bayer was free to sell it, and seed processors were free to apply it to their products. (Don't get me started on the EPA's habit of granting dodgy chemicals "conditional registration," before allowing their unregulated use for years and even decades. That's another story.)
The EPA's one condition reflected the concerns of its scientists about how it would affect honeybees: that Bayer complete the "chronic life cycle study" the agency had already requested by December of 2004. The scientists minced no words in reiterating their concerns. They called clothianidin's effects "persistent" and "toxic to honeybees" and noted the the "potential for expression in pollen and nectar of flowering crops."
These concerns aside and "conditional registration" in hand, Bayer introduced clothianidin to the U.S. market in spring 2003. Farmers throughout the corn belt planted seeds treated with clothianidin, and billions -- if not trillions -- of plants began producing pollen rich with the bee-killing stuff.
A bee does what it does best -- thankfully, not in a corn field. Photo: Purplekey In March of 2004, Bayer requested an extension on its December deadline for delivering the life-cycle study. In a March 11 memo [PDF], the EPA agreed, giving the chemical giant until May 2005 to complete the research. Clothianidin continued flowing from Bayer's factories and from corn plants into pollen.
But the EPA also relayed a crucial decision in this memo: It granted Bayer the permission it had sought to conduct its study on canola in Canada, instead of on corn in the United States. The EPA justified the decision as follows:[Canola] is attractive to bee [sic] and will provide bee exposure from both pollen and nectar. An alternative crop, such as corn, which is less attractive to bees as a forage crop, would provide exposure from pollen, only.
Bee experts cite three problems with this decision:
- Corn produces much more pollen than does canola;
- its pollen is more attractive to honey bees; and
- canola is a minor crop in the United States, while corn is the single most widely planted crop.
What happened next was ... not much. Bayer let the deadline for completing the study lapse; and the EPA let Bayer keep selling clothianidin, which continued to be deposited into tens of millions of acres of farmland.
Not until August of 2007, more than a year after its deadline, did Bayer deliver its study. In a November 2007 memo [PDF], EPA scientists declared the study "scientifically sound," adding that it, "satisfies the guideline requirements for a field toxicity test with honeybees."
Beeing and nothingness
So what were the details of that study, on which the health of our little pollinator friends depended?
Well, the EPA initially refused to release it publicly, prompting a Freedom of Information Act by the Natural Resources Defense Council. When the EPA still refused to release it, NRDC filed suit in response. Eventually, the study was released. Here it is [PDF].
Prepared for Bayer by researchers at Canada's University of Guelph, the study is a bit of a joke. The researchers created several 2.47-acre fields planted with clothianidin-treated seeds and matching untreated control fields, and placed hives at the center of each. Bees were allowed to roam freely. The problem is that bees forage in a range of 1.24 to 6.2 miles -- meaning that the test bees most likely dined outside of the test fields. Worse, the test and control fields were planted as closely as 968 feet apart, meaning test and control bees had access to each other's fields.
Not surprisingly, the researchers found "no differences in bee mortality, worker longevity, or brood development occurred between control and treatment groups throughout the study."
Tom Theobald, the Colorado beekeeper who obtained the leaked memo, assessed the study harshly on the phone to me Thursday. "Imagine you're a rancher trying to figure out if a noxious weed is harming your cows," he said. "If you plant the weed on two acres and let your cows roam free over 50 acres of lush Montana grass, you're not going to learn much about that weed."James Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State, concurred. Frazier has been studying colony-collapse disorder since 2006. "When I looked at the study," he told me in a phone interview, "I immediately thought it was invalid."
Meanwhile, Bayer continued selling clothianidin under its conditional registration. Then, on April 22 of this year, the EPA finally ended clothianidin's long period of "conditional" purgatory -- by granting it full registration.
The agency gifted the bee-killing pesticide with its new status quietly; to my knowledge, the only public acknowledgment of it came through the efforts of Theobald, who is extremely worried about the fate of his own bee-keeping business in Colorado's corn country. Theobald forwarded me a Nov. 29 email exchange with Meredith Laws, the acting chief of the EPA's herbicide division in the Office of Pesticide Programs, to whom he'd written to enquire about clothianidin's registration status. Laws' reply is worth quoting in its entirety:Clothianidin was granted an unconditional registration for use as a seed treatment for corn and canola on April 22, 2010. EPA issued a new registration notice, [but] there is no document that acknowledges the change from conditional to unconditional. This was a risk management decision based on the fulfillment of data requirements and reviews accepting or acknowledging the submittal of the data.
So, the EPA gave Bayer and its dubious pesticide a full pass without even bothering to let the public know.
Just bee very careful, please
Now we get to the leaked memo [PDF]. It is dated Nov. 2 -- three weeks before Laws' reply to Theobald. It relates to Bayer's efforts to expand clothianidin's approved use into cotton and mustard. Authored by two scientists in the EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects Division -- ecologist Joseph DeCant and chemist Michael Barrett -- the memo expresses grave concern about clothianidin's effect on honeybees:Clothianidin's major risk concern is to nontarget insects (that is, honey bees).
Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic. Acute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis. Although EFED does not conduct ... risk assessments on non-target insects, information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.The real kicker is that the researchers essentially invalidated the Bayer-funded study -- i.e., the study on which the EPA based clothianidin's registration as an fully registered chemical. Referring to the pesticide, the authors write:
A previous field study [i.e., the Bayer study] investigated the effects of clothianidin on whole hive parameters and was classified as acceptable. However, after another review of this field study in light of additional information, deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental. It does not satisfy the guideline 850.3040, and another field study is needed to evaluate the effects of clothianidin on bees through contaminated pollen and nectar. Exposure through contaminated pollen and nectar and potential toxic effects therefore remain an uncertainty for pollinators. [Emphasis mine.]
So, here we have EPA researchers explicitly invalidating the study on which clothianidin gained registration for corn. But as I wrote above, despite this information's being made public, the EPA has signaled that it has no plans to change the chemical's status.
In the 2011 growing season, tens of millions of acres of farmland will bloom with clothianidin-laced pollen -- honeybees, and sound science, be damned.
Now, in my correspondence with the EPA, the agency has denied that the downgrading of the Bayer study from "acceptable" to "supplemental" meant that the agency should be compelled to clothianidin's approval. In a Thursday email to me, the agency delivered a limp defense of the Bayer study, contradicting its own scientists and addressing none of the critiques of it:EPA's evaluation of the study determined that it contains information useful to the agency's risk assessment. The study revealed the majority of hives monitored, including those exposed to clothianidin during the previous season, survived the over-wintering period.
And it downplayed the study's importance to Bayer's application to register clothianidin: The study in question is "not a 'core' study for EPA as claimed," the agency insisted. "It is not a study routinely required to support the registration of a pesticide."
I ran that response by Jay Feldman of Beyond Pesticides, the group that collaborated with PANNA in publicizing the leaked document. "I find the EPA response either misinformed or misleading," he told me. "The paper trail on this is clear. We're talking about a bad study required by EPA [that is central] to the registration of this chemical."
Feldman's assessment appears to bear out. He pointed me back to the above-linked Nov. 27 document in which EPA originally accepted the Bayer study. There, on page 5, we find this statement:Specifically, the test was conducted in response to a request by the Canadian PMRA [Pesticides and Pest Management Agency] and the U.S. EPA; as a condition for Poncho@ [clothianidin] registration in these countries, Bayer CropScience was asked to investigate the long-term toxicity of clothianidin-treated canola to foraging honey bees.
So evidently, the discredited Bayer study does lie at the heart of clothianidin's acceptance. (I have requested an interview with an EPA official who can talk knowledgeably and on the record about these matters; the anonymous-by-request spokesperson is, at the time of publication, still looking for the "right person," I was informed via email.)
A stinging assessment
At the very least, we have ample evidence that the EPA has been ignoring the warnings of its own staff scientists and green-lighting the mass deployment of a chemical widely understood to harm pollinators -- at a time when honeybees are in grave shape.
But why? Tom Theobald, the Colorado beekeeper who broke this story, ventured an answer. "It's corporatism, the flip side of fascism," he said. "I'm not against corporations, I think they have a good model. But they're like children -- we have to rein them in or they get out of hand. The EPA's supposed to do that."
When regime change came to Washington in 2008, many of us hoped that an EPA under Barack Obama would be a better parent. EPA Director Lisa Jackson inherited quite a mess from her predecessor, and she faces the Herculean challenge of regulating greenhouse gases against fierce Republican and industry opposition.
But as concern mounts -- from her own staff and elsewhere -- that clothianidin is harming honeybees, there's no excuse for Jackson's agency to keep coddling Bayer. Frazier, the Penn State entomologist, put it to me like this: "If the Bayer study is the core study the EPA used to register clothianidin, then there's no basis for registering it." He urged the EPA to withdraw registration to avoid unnecessary risk to a critical player in our ecosystem -- as have the governments of Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia.Tom Philpott is Grist's senior food and agriculture writer.
Beekeeper Who Leaked EPA Documents: "I Don't Think We Can Survive This Winter"
BY Ariel Schwartz Today
Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald never expected to become embroiled in a controversy between the EPA and the pesticide industry. But that's exactly what happened when Theobald got hold of an EPA document revealing that the agency is allowing the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, in spite of warnings from EPA scientists.
So how did Theobald end up with such a contentious document?
Bayer, the corporation behind clothianidin (the pesticide in question), published a life cycle study about it in 2006 at the EPA's request. The study was flawed--test and control fields were, for example, planted as close as 968 feet apart. But the EPA continued to allow the use of clothianidin, which has been on the market since 2003 (and which has been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects on bees, birds, and other species).
Fast forward to this year. Theabald wrote an article in the July issue of Bee Culture about clothianidin. Then an employee at the EPA called Theobald to tell him the article had led the EPA to review the pesticide's original life cycle study before approving clothianidin for use on cotton and mustard.
"They told me that EPA scientists had reviewed the originally lifecycle study and determined it wasn't scientifically sound, and I asked if it had been documented, if there was a hard copy," he says, "The [employee] said yes, and I asked if I could get a copy." And just like that, he had the proof he needed that the EPA had overlooked something that could be killing America's bees.
"Everybody is keyed on the leaked memo, but basically it's a public document," adds Theobald. He just happened to be the first one to learn about it and ask for it. "The shock was that they did the study at all."
Theobald has been concerned about clothianidin since it was first released in 2003. The pesticide is a neonicotinoid--a type of insecticide that disrupts the central nervous system of insects. Imidacloprid, the first neonicotinoid to be released in the U.S., came on the market in 1994, and began raising red flags soon after. France banned imidacloprid in 2003 due to concerns of bee die-off triggered by the substance.
Now the stakes are higher than ever. Tom Theobald's honey crop this year is the smallest he's seen in 35 years of beekeeping. "This is the critical winter for the beekeeping industry. I don't think we can survive," he says. "If the beekeeping industry collapses, it jeopardizes a third of American agriculture."
That's because the giant agriculture industry couldn't produce nearly as much with native bee pollinators alone; instead, the industry relies on beekeepers, who rent out their bees to pollinate everything from strawberries and blueberries to squash and cucumbers.
As of today, the EPA has no plans to ban clothianidin in the U.S. Theobald hopes that all the press surrounding the issue will trigger the agency to change its mind. It has to, he says. "The EPA management needs to step forward, face the music, take its lumps and do things right. If they continue to try to bury this, they're going to continue to look more pathetic than they do already."
.
Dentistry without License?
Superfund money to clean 'mouth of the beast'
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle June 12, 2009 04:00 AM Copyright San Francisco Chronicle. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Links
Iron Mountain Mine in the press!
Record Searchlight (Redding newspaper, includes video) - June 2009
San Francisco Chronicle - June 2009
What is eminent domain?
"Eminent domain" - also called "condemnation" - is the power of local, state or federal government agencies to take private property for "public use" so long as the government pays "just compensation." The government can exercise its power of eminent domain even if the owner does not wish to sell his or her property.
Center for Nonprofit Resources
EWD at Shasta College is the home of the Northern California Center for Nonprofit Resources.
Center Services Available to Your Organization
The Nonprofit Resource Center at Shasta College provides services to all nonprofit & philanthropic organizations by providing information, education, and consulting services. The Center is a one-stop resource for board members, staff, and volunteers of nonprofit organizations.
Get the most out of the Center by attending the "Center Orientation"!
First time users/non-members are required to attend the Center Orientation prior to using the Center:
1) Register online for one of the Center Orientation classes
2) OR sign up as a member and receive a one-on-one orientation at time of sign up(during normal Center hours).
As a member of the Center for Nonprofit Resources your organization has access to the Foundation Center Online resource during our regular office hours. In addition, your membership fee ensures this service continues. The Nonprofit Center is fully financially self supported.
Non-member hours - Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Closed for lunch 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Please note: first time users/non-members are required to attend the Center Orientation prior to using the center.
Member hours - Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Closed for lunch 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., priority access, first-come first-serve basis. Saturday's(by appointment only) for Foundation Directory Online.
Register as a member! The Nonprofit Resource Center at Shasta College provides services to all nonprofit & philanthropic organizations by providing information, education, and consulting services. The Center is a one-stop resource for board members, staff, and volunteers of nonprofit organizations. Please note: members are given priority access, first-come first-serve basis.
Schedule your Center Orientation!
Sign-up for classes!
For general information on how to start a Nonprofit Corporation, select this link .
Starting a Nonprofit - Get Ready, Get Set.. (Published by the Center for Nonprofit Management )
Download the Center for Nonoprofit Consultant referal list : Update 10-2009 (PDF file).
.
December 9, 2010 Mining legislation rejected by House
By Mannix Porterfield Register-Herald Reporter
US House Sends Senate Stop-Gap Bill To Fund Gov For All FY'11
The House approved Wednesday a stop-gap spending bill that would fund the federal government for the rest of the 2011 fiscal year. The $1.1 trillion bill was approved on a 212-to-206 vote. Wed, 12/08/2010 - 21:00
Beginning in fiscal year 2010, EPA has initiated a three-year strategy, called the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, to identify and implement improvements to the Agency's land cleanup programs. The Initiative will identify and implement opportunities to integrate and leverage the Agency's land cleanup authorities to accelerate cleanups, address a greater number of contaminated sites, and put these sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. The Initiative will seek to provide affected communities with the transparency of information they need to understand the progress of cleanup activities at local sites and to hold those responsible for cleanup accountable. EPA will be working closely with state and tribal partners and affected local partners as the Initiative is further developed.
Integrated Cleanup Initiative
The challenges to the nation's land cleanup programs have changed since they began in the 1980s. Communities today are not only focused on getting sites cleaned up, but also want to have an active role in putting sites back to productive use. Communities today want to better understand and engage with EPA on cleanup decisions; they want greater transparency and accountability in the cleanup of sites that affect their lives. Communities are also interested in a range of contaminated sites, including Superfund, brownfields, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action, federal facility and underground storage tank sites. Large, complex sites demand a much larger portion of EPA's Superfund resources today than was the case in earlier years. Some large, complex sites take decades to cleanup.
To better serve communities, the Integrated Cleanup Initiative will seek to identify and implement strategic changes to the land cleanup process, which will allow EPA to accelerate cleanups and provide more information to communities about cleanup progress. As one of the first steps in the Initiative, starting in FY 2011, EPA will begin reporting on a new measure of Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) site cleanup progress, called “remedial action project completions.” Remedial action projects represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup. They are defined to address discrete problems, such as specific media (e.g., ground water contamination), areas of a site (e.g., discrete areas of contamination, building demolition), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction). While EPA will continue to report on the completion of site-wide cleanup construction, the remedial action project completion measure will provide communities with a valuable new tool to evaluate and hold EPA accountable for ongoing progress and risk reduction at Superfund sites. It will also allow EPA to focus and manage the program at a level that more closely aligns with the real work in the field and to hold our selves accountable for this work.
The Integrated Cleanup Initiative is examining opportunities for improvements across all of EPA's land cleanup programs, including the Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facilities, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Underground Storage Tanks programs. In addition, the Initiative will include a focus on enforcement activities that are critical to ensuring that responsible parties are compelled to clean up contaminated sites, thereby preserving Superfund monies to be used to clean up other sites where viable responsible parties do not exist. During FY 2010-FY 2012, EPA is examining a number of opportunities for improvements to our land cleanup programs that support the goals of the Initiative. By examining and identifying opportunities for improvements at all stages of the cleanup process, from assessment through cleanup completion, EPA expects to focus and in some cases accelerate the cleanup process as a whole. The chart below describes some of the opportunities that will result from the Initiative and relates them to stages in the cleanup process.
Starting Cleanups
- Evaluate performance metrics
- Evaluate Increasing the annual number of Superfund site assessments
- Advance the assessment needs of sites on the Federal Facilities Waste Docket
- Enhance ability to search and identify potentially responsible parties
- Improve site assessment process
- Evaluate Superfund National Priorities listing
Advancing Cleanups
- Evaluate performance metrics
- Provide public reports on EPA cleanup progress
- Evaluate leveraging Superfund removal and Brownfield authorities to advance cleanup and reuse
- Improve efficiency of administrative and contracting processes
- Evaluate strategy to hold potentially responsible parties accountable
- Evaluate strategy to increase enforcement at removal sites
- Evaluate leveraging more brownfields site assessments into cleanup and reuse
- Partner with states, territories and tribes to address the backlog of underground storage tank sites
- Evaluate and streamline as appropriate Superfund remedial boards and panels
Completing Cleanups
- Evaluate performance metrics
- Report reuse and revitalization benefits from land cleanup programs
- Improve cleanup program coordination with other federal agencies
- Link cleanup and revitalization efforts for contaminated sites, including petroleum brownfields
EPA will implement improvements identified through this Initiative and will make results from the Initiative publicly available. EPA expects to make an implementation plan for the Initiative publicly available for comment within a few months. EPA will also continue to provide updates as we proceed with the Initiative and will seek the public's input and feedback. EPA will report on progress in meeting the goals of this Initiative of accelerating the cleanup process, while providing communities with greater transparency and accountability on site cleanup progress.
Accidents, spills, leaks, and past improper disposal and handling of hazardous materials and wastes have resulted in tens of thousands of sites across our country that have contaminated our land, water (groundwater and surface water), and air (indoor and outdoor). Some of the more common categories of contaminants include: industrial solvents, petroleum products, metals, pesticides, bacteria, and radiological materials. These contaminated sites can threaten human health as well as the environment, in addition to hampering economic growth and the vitality of local communities. EPA and its state and territorial partners have developed a variety of cleanup programs to assess and, where necessary, clean up these contaminated sites. Cleanups may be done by EPA, other federal agencies, states or municipalities, or the company or party responsible for the contamination. Click the following links for more cleanup-related information and resources.
Find out about:
- Cleanups in your area - information about specific cleanup sites
- What you can do to help with cleanups?
- Upcoming events on the Cleanup calendar
- Technologies used to clean up sites or specific types of contaminants
- Long Term Stewardship (PDF) (6 pp, 444K, About PDF Files ) of sites to protect human health and the environment after cleanup remedies are put in place
- Partners we work with during the cleanup process
- National cleanup laws, statutes , regulations and standards , and policies and guidance .
- What is being done regarding cleanup enforcement and complying with cleanup orders
- Cleanup grants and funding available to support cleanups
- Cleanup publications and other related information pertaining to cleanups
- Terms related to cleanup in the EPA glossary
- EPA's greener cleanup initiative makes the cleanup process itself more environmentally friendly.
- Basic information about cleaning up our land, water and air
- OSWER Home | Customer Satisfaction Survey
Published December 09 2010
Feds target growing monopolies in big agriculture and food processing
The workshop, led by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, focused on the margins at various levels of the agricultural supply chain. Featured were four panels composed of producers, academics and other industry stakeholders.
Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice held the last in a series of five joint public workshops to explore the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in American agriculture.
The workshop, led by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, focused on the margins at various levels of the agricultural supply chain. Featured were four panels composed of producers, academics and other industry stakeholders.
The workshop was held in Washington D.C. at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and opened with statements from Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder, then a discussion with participants representing each level of the agricultural supply chain, followed by a panel consisting of dairy farmers and academics and discussing dairy margins. In the afternoon a third panel looked at issues in the retail sector, examining concentration, margins and similar trends. The final panel discussed margins in the livestock and poultry industries.
"Today's open and transparent dialogue with farmers, ranchers, industry and academics is resulting in a clearer understanding of the complex competitive issues facing American agriculture," said Secretary Vilsack. "A fair and competitive marketplace is important not only for producers, but also for consumers."
Throughout the year workshops have bee held around the country to explore the appropriate role for antitrust or regulatory enforcement in the agricultural industry. In March, a workshop was held in Ankeny, Iowa to discuss seed concentration and hog market issues. In May, poultry issues were examined in Normal, Alabama. Dairy issues were discussed in Madison, Wisconsin in June. And in August, competition in livestock markets was explored in Fort Collins, Colorado.
"In these workshops, and in my travels across the country, a number of themes have emerged: Producers want to have or maintain marketing options, they want transparency, they want access to markets, they have fewer buyers with whom to do business with, they struggle with debt and face challenges accessing capital, and last, they just want to be treated fairly and be respected," commented Secretary Vilsack. "But most importantly, they all care about the future of agriculture and want it to succeed, which is why we have seen such overwhelming response and attendance at these workshops."
Vilsack continued, "America's mid-sized farms are not always profitable enough to sustain a family."
"The farmers' and ranchers' share of the food dollar has continued to shrink, decade after decade. If current trend lines continue, in another 20 years the farm and ranch share of the consumer dollar would reach zero," said John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs, who attended the workshop in Washington, D.C.
According to Crabtree, in 1980 there were over 1.3 million ranches and farms with cattle across the country. Today, fewer than 950,000 are still in operation. In 1980 there were over 666,000 hog farms but according to the last USDA Hogs and Pigs Report [USDA NASS Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report - September 2010] that number has declined by approximately 90% to fewer than 67,000. The Center for Rural Affairs has, for nearly 15 years, pointed out that these ever-increasing gaps between retail food prices and farm- and ranch-gate prices is due in the largest part to unchecked concentration and vertical integration of the production of crops, livestock, dairy and virtually all other agricultural products.
"Standing up to industry and stopping the headlong rush toward concentration and vertical integration in farming, ranching, livestock production and meatpacking is a long row to hoe, but crucial to revitalizing family farms and ranches across much of rural America. If Attorney General Holder and Secretary Vilsack continue to take up that challenge, family farmers, ranchers and rural communities will stand with them," Crabtree concluded.
According to Crabtree, USDA's GIPSA rule has been under attack from meatpackers and other industry groups such as the National Pork Council, but the Center for Rural Affairs has and will continue to urge USDA to hold their ground and end the volume-based, "sweetheart" deals that packers routinely give to the nation's largest corporate hog and cattle producers. "USDA has written a strong rule that will improve enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and challenge the price discrimination against family farmers and ranchers that has driven tens of thousands of them out of the livestock business," Crabtree concluded.
A copy of the Center for Rural Affairs comments on the GIPSA rule and other related materials can be downloaded at www.cfra.org/competition .
The Center for Rural Affairs was established in 1973 as an unaffiliated nonprofit corporation under IRS code 501(c)3. The Center for Rural Affairs was formed by rural Nebraskans concerned about family farms and rural communities, and we work to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities.
Chairman End the Fed
Posted by Adam Sorensen Thursday, December 9, 2010
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/09/chairman-end-the-fed/#ixzz17fNYsuBLIt's official: Ron Paul, libertarian standard bearer, will chair the House Financial Services subcommittee on monetary policy that oversees the Federal Reserve. It's a big step for the Texas congressman who's spent much of his career leveling harsh criticism at the central banking system and, in its own way, a sign of the times. Populist (especially conservative populist) backlash against the Fed is ascendant and Paul now has a platform from which to challenge Bernanke et al. on the transparency, autonomy and, yes, existence of the institution.
Spencer Bachus's full statement after the jump:
BACHUS ANNOUNCES FINANCIAL SERVICES LEADERSHIP TEAM
WASHINGTON (December 9) - Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6), Chairman-elect of the House Financial Services Committee, today announced his appointments for committee leadership positions in the 112th Congress. In addition to naming the vice chairman and subcommittee leaders, Bachus announced plans to modify subcommittee jurisdictions to promote a more efficient and balanced work-load for committee members.“This is the leadership team that crafted the first comprehensive financial reform bill to put an end to the bailouts, wind down the taxpayer funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and enforce a strong audit of the Federal Reserve,” Bachus said. “By working together, we will honor our commitment to aggressive oversight, reform of the GSEs, and monitoring the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure more jobs aren't lost to unnecessary regulations on community banks and businesses. We are ready to hit the ground running, and I look forward to continuing our work in the next Congress.”
Bachus said the jurisdictional adjustments will augment the housing policy related subcommittee to include all insurance issues, formerly under the purview of the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee. “Our first priority is to end the taxpayer funded bailout of Fannie and Freddie. This adjustment frees up more resources for the subcommittee chairmen and expands the jurisdictional mandate of the housing-related subcommittee to include insurance issues.”
The 112th Congress Financial Services Committee Leadership is as follows:
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Vice Chairman, Financial Services Committee
Rep. Judy Biggert, Chairman, Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity
Jurisdiction: Insurance generally, housing, urban development, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, Chairwoman, Financial Institutions Subcommittee
Jurisdiction: Banks and banking, depository institutions, federal deposit insurance, and safety and soundness.
Rep. Scott Garrett, Chairman, Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee
Jurisdiction: Capital markets, securities, and government sponsored enterprises.
Rep. Ron Paul, Chairman, Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee
Jurisdiction: Domestic monetary policy, currency, precious metals, valuation of the dollar, economic stabilization, defense production, commodity prices, financial aid to commerce and industry.
Rep. Gary Miller, Chairman, International Monetary Policy Subcommittee
Jurisdiction: International monetary policy, international finance and banking, international financial and monetary organizations, including the IMF and World Bank, and the promotion of international trade in financial services.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, Chairman, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Jurisdiction: Oversight of all matters within the jurisdiction of the full Committee.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/09/chairman-end-the-fed/#ixzz17fMihbGnBrattle Group Study Estimates EPA Regulations May Result in Over 50,000 MW of Coal Plant Retirements and up to $180 Billion in Compliance Costs
Regional Public Liaisons - Region 9 Vacant - U.S. EPA ? Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (800) 231-3075National Program Manager Karen L. Martin U.S. EPA Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation
Mail Code: 5204G 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-9925 martin.karenl@epa.gov 703 603-8711 Lois GartenerIron Mountain Mine begins radioisotope testing of Brick Flat Sludge - New Scintillator ordered.
Justice Pursuing Antitrust Leads in Agribusiness, Varney Says
By Alan Bjerga
The Justice Department is pursuing several leads on possible anti-competition cases in agribusiness after a series of hearings on the issue, according to Christine Varney , the head of the agency's antitrust division.
The public sessions on consolidation in agriculture have opened communication between farmers and Justice, Varney said today at a news conference during the final hearing in Washington. The hearings, conducted with the Department of Agriculture, have explored how big-company dominance affects the prices farmers get for their products and what consumers pay for food.
“We have several leads that came out of these workshops that we are following up on,” Varney said, without being more specific.
Farmers and their lobbyists have asked regulators to examine whether meatpackers such as Tyson Foods Inc. and agribusinesses including Cargill Inc. can control the prices they pay for commodities. A USDA regulation proposed in June would prohibit meatpackers from selling livestock to each other and require them to justify their choice of one farmer-supplier over another.
Farmers also said they are concerned that market power is driving down the amount of the U.S. food dollar farmers receive.
Hearings were previously held in Iowa, Alabama, Wisconsin and Colorado.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Bjerga in Washington at abjerga@bloomberg.net ;
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steve Stroth at sstroth@bloomberg.net .
.
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
"I cannot believe that the historic powers of our courts . . . or the rights of citizens, confirmed as these have been for so long by an unbroken line of decisions, have been or can be overthrown and subverted, merely by the fact that the question of the court's power to issue the order violated may be doubtful and not merely frivolous. . . ." (67 S.Ct. 726, 91 L.Ed. 945.) (See also 60 Harv. L. Rev. 811, noting the weak background of authority supporting the doctrine and discussing the policies for and against it; 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1569; 76 Harv. L. Rev. 106.)
In explaining why the Administrator did not engage in the ―normal process of ―marshaling conclusive evidence of necessity for promulgating federal water quality criteria in that specific circumstance, EPA emphasized that Congress had mandated promulgation of criteria for certain toxic constituents through amendments to the Clean Water Act. 57 Fed. Reg. 60848. EPA is operating under no such Congressional mandate in regard to numeric nutrient criteria.
What is Environmental Justice?
Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Polluters Get Stimulus Funds, Escape Environmental Oversight
By Jessica Roberts on November 30, 2010
Billions of dollars in stimulus funds from the Obama administration, designed to promote clean energy and create jobs, have been doled out to some of the nation's biggest polluters while exempting them from basic environmental oversight, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity .
ISS - Stimulus freed big polluters from following key ...
By Sue Sturgis
The Energy Department granted a NEPA waiver to North Carolina-based Duke Energy for a wind farm project in Texas and an electrical grid update project in five other states. For the past decade Duke Energy has been embroiled in two of ...
Facing South - http://www.southernstudies.org/Regulatory Flexibility Act / Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
- You are here: EPA Home
- RFA / SBREFA
- Small Business Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Small Business Panel on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
- What is the implication of the proposed rulemaking on small entities?
- What is a Small Business Advocacy Panel?
- How can I get involved?
- Who should I contact?
Office of Regulatory Policy and Management | Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation | RFA/SBREFA Home
Local Navigation
- RFA/SBREFA Home
- Small Businesses
- Small Governments
- Small Organizations
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Documents
- Links
- Who Are We?
- RFA/SBREFA Statute
Nationally acclaimed scientist Wilma Subra agrees that the process lacks valid community participation. “Complete, adequate, timely and on-going community participation in the Superfund Remedial process is desperately needed.” According to Dr. Subra, “The current process exposes the community to unacceptable risks.”
“We need full and equitable community oversight and involvement in the remediation process to ensure our own health and protection.” says Marie Harrison of Greenaction.
The World Gets Even Flatter: Fourth Circuit Applies English Law And Enforces English Forum Selection Clause
Posted on December 8, 2010 by Mack Sperling
The Fourth Circuit ruled today in Albemarle Corp. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd. , that it was required to interpret the forum selection clause negotiated by the parties under English law, which meant that the clause would be read as requiring litigation to be brought in an English court , even though the clause would have been deemed permissive under American law and would have allowed the lawsuit at issue to be filed in the South Carolina court where it had in fact been filed.
The contract, which required AstraZeneca to buy an ingredient for an anesthetic from Albemarle, contained a forum selection clause which said that the contract "shall be subject to English Law and the jurisdiction of the English High Court ."
In affirming the dismissal of the case, the Fourth Circuit aligned itself with six other circuits and held that "a federal court interpreting a forum selection clause must apply federal law in doing so." Federal law on this subject is that ‘an agreement conferring jurisdiction in one forum will not be interpreted as excluding jurisdiction elsewhere unless it contains specific language of exclusion.'"
English law? In this case it is as different from federal law as my breakfast this morning was from bangers and mash. '"Under English law, when the parties designate the English High Court as an appropriate forum, the designation is mandatory and exclusive ." Thus, litigation in the High Court was required per English law.
The only issue remaining for the Court was whether it would be unreasonable to enforce the English forum selection clause, an inquiry required by a 1972 Supreme Court decision, The Bremen , 407 U.S. 1 (1972). In The Bremen, the Supreme Court upheld an English forum selection clause ""in the light of present-day commercial realities and expanding international trade.. . ." unless it could be shown that such enforcement might violate "a strong public policy" of the unselected forum in which the case had been brought.
In the Albemarle case, Judge Niemeyer rejected the argument that South Carolina had a strong puplic policy against the enforcement of forum selection clauses because of a state statute disfavoring such clauses. Quoting The Bremen , he said that the federal policy enforcing such clauses made them "an almost indispensable precondition to achievement of the orderliness and predictability essential to any international business transaction." Id. at 13-14.
The North Carolina Business Court has previously enforced a forum selection clause specifying a foreign jurisdiction in Speedway Motorsports International Ltd. v. Bronwen Energy Trading, Ltd., 2009 NCBC 3 (N.C. Super. Ct., February 18, 2009)(Diaz)
Freeminers petition to restore dignity and title to Messrs. T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens and Iron Mountain Mines, Ltd. under the common law; and they "shall be subject to English Law and the jurisdiction of the English High Court ."
Beekeepers Ask EPA to Remove Pesticide Linked to Colony Collapse Disorder, Citing Leaked Agency Memo
Pesticide Already Illegal in Germany , Italy & France Based on Scientific Findings
SAN FRANCISCO and WASHINGTON , Dec. 8, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Beekeepers and environmentalists today called on EPA to remove a pesticide linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), citing a leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific support study. The November 2nd memo identifies a core study underpinning the registration of the insecticide clothianidin as unsound after EPA quietly re-evaluated the pesticide just as it was getting ready to allow a further expansion of its use. Clothianidin (product name "Poncho") has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country's major crops for eight growing seasons under a "conditional registration" granted while EPA waited for Bayer Crop Science, the pesticide's maker, to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide's threat to bee colony health.
Bayer's field study was the contingency on which clothianidin's conditional registration was granted in 2003. The groups are calling for an immediate stop-use order on the pesticide while the science is redone in partnership with practicing beekeepers. They claim that the initial field study guidelines, which the Bayer study failed to satisfy, were insufficiently rigorous to test whether or not clothianidin contributes to CCD in a real-world scenario: the field test evaluated the wrong crop, over an insufficient time period and with inadequate controls.
According to James Frazier , Ph.D., professor of entomology at Penn State , "Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees, and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices. Our own research indicates that systemic pesticides occur in pollen and nectar in much greater quantities than has been previously thought, and that interactions among pesticides occurs often and should be of wide concern." Dr. Frazier said that the most prudent course of action would be to take the pesticide off the market while the flawed study is being redone.
With a soil half-life of up to 19 years in heavy soils, and over a year in the lightest of soils, commercial beekeepers are concerned that even an immediate stop-use of clothianidin will not save their livelihoods or hives in time.
"We are losing more than a third of our colonies each winter, but beekeepers are a stubborn, industrious bunch. We split hives, rebound as much as we can each summer, and then just eat our losses. So even these big loss numbers understate the problem," says 50-year beekeeper, David Hackenberg . "What folks need to understand is that the beekeeping industry, which is responsible for a third of the food we eat, is at a critical threshold."
For background, beekeepers available for interviews and more, go to Beyond Pesticides' Pollinators and Pesticides page: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators .
Heather Pilatic , Pesticide Action Network, http://www.panna.org/ , cell: +1-415-694-8596, Heather@panna.org
Jay Feldman , Beyond Pesticides, http://www.beyondpesticides.org , +1-202-543-5450, ext 15, jfeldman@beyondpesticides.org
SOURCE Beyond Pesticides
RELATED LINKS
http://www.beyondpesticides.org.
How EPA's Regulatory Surge Missed a Primary Target
By GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire
Published: December 8, 2010
NEW EVIDENCE: Bee-Killing Pesticide Never Should Have Been Registered
Wed, Dec 8, 2010
Environmental working groups across the United States are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency pull pesticides containing synthetic nicotine off the market due to proof of a bogus test run by the pesticide manufacturer. Stating: “Our nation cannot afford, and the environment cannot tolerate another growing season of clothianindin use,” a group of beekeepers and activists sent a letter to EPA Director Lisa Jackson.
Probably most significantly, Penn State scientist James Frazier joined the beekeeping community in calling for a ban on this pesticide — which SafeLawns has been implicating in bee decline for the past four years. The professor of entomology at Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences said, “Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees; and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices. Our own research indicates that systemic pesticides occur in pollen and nectar in much greater quantities than has been previously thought, and that interactions among pesticides occurs often and should be of wide concern.” Dr. Frazier said that the most prudent course of action would be to take the pesticide off the market while the flawed study is being redone.
Please forward this press release to all elected officials to your states and local districts and let them know that you demand that these products be taken off the shelves.
HERE IS THE RELEASE
Contacts:
Heather Pilatic, Pesticide Action Network
cell: 415.694.8596Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides
202.543.5450, ext 15Beekeepers Ask EPA to Remove Pesticide Linked to Colony Collapse Disorder,
Citing Leaked Agency MemoPesticide Already Illegal in Germany, Italy & France Based on Scientific Findings
SAN FRANCISCO and WASHINGTON, D.C – Beekeepers and environmentalists today called on EPA to remove a pesticide linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), citing a leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific support study. The November 2nd memo identifies a core study underpinning the registration of the insecticide clothianidin as unsound after EPA quietly re-evaluated the pesticide just as it was getting ready to allow a further expansion of its use. Clothianidin (product name “Poncho”) has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country's major crops for eight growing seasons under a “conditional registration” granted while EPA waited for Bayer Crop Science, the pesticide's maker, to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide's threat to bee colony health.
Bayer's field study was the contingency on which clothianidin's conditional registration was granted in 2003. As such, the groups are calling for an immediate stop-use order on the pesticide while the science is redone, and redesigned in partnership with practicing beekeepers. They claim that the initial field study guidelines, which the Bayer study failed to satisfy, were insufficiently rigorous to test whether or not clothianidin contributes to CCD in a real-world scenario: the field test evaluated the wrong crop, over an insufficient time period and with inadequate controls.
According to beekeeper Jeff Anderson, who has testified before EPA on the topic, “The Bayer study is fatally flawed. It was an open field study with control and test plots of about 2 acres each. Bees typically forage at least 2 miles out from the hive, so it is likely they didn't ingest much of the treated crops. And corn, not canola, is the major pollen-producing crop that bees rely on for winter nutrition. This is a critical point because we see hive losses mainly after over-wintering, so there is something going on in these winter cycles. It's as if they designed the study to avoid seeing clothianidin's effects on hive health.”
Clothianidin is of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides, which are taken up by a plant's vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees then forage and drink. Scientists are concerned about the mix and cumulative effects of the multiple pesticides bees are exposed to in these ways. Neonicotinoids are of particular concern because they have cumulative, sublethal effects on insect pollinators that correspond to CCD symptoms – namely, neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions.
According to James Frazier, PhD., professor of entomology at Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences, “Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bees; and this combined with its systemic movement in plants has produced a troubling mix of scientific results pointing to its potential risk for honey bees through current agricultural practices. Our own research indicates that systemic pesticides occur in pollen and nectar in much greater quantities than has been previously thought, and that interactions among pesticides occurs often and should be of wide concern.”
Dr. Frazier said that the most prudent course of action would be to take the pesticide off the market while the flawed study is being redone.
Clothianidin has been on the market since 2003. With a soil half-life of up to 19 years in heavy soils, and over a year in the lightest of soils, commercial beekeepers are concerned that even an immediate stop-use of clothianidin won't save their livelihoods or hives in time.
“We are losing more than a third of our colonies each winter; but beekeepers are a stubborn, industrious bunch. We split hives, rebound as much as we can each summer, and then just take it on the chin – eat our losses. So even these big loss numbers understate the problem,” says 50-year beekeeper, David Hackenberg. “What folks need to understand is that the beekeeping industry, which is responsible for a third of the food we all eat, is at a critical threshold for economic reasons and reasons to do with bee population dynamics. Our bees are living for 30 days instead of 42, nursing bees are having to forage because there aren't enough foragers and at a certain point a colony just doesn't have the critical mass to keep going. The bees are at that point, and we are at that point. We are losing our livelihoods at a time when there just isn't other work. Another winter of ‘more studies are needed' so Bayer can keep their blockbuster products on the market and EPA can avoid a difficult decision, is unacceptable.”
Citing the imminent economic and environmental hazards posed by the continued use of clothianidin, the National Honey Bee Advisory Board, Beekeeping Federation, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network, North America and Center for Biological Diversity are asking EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to exercise the Agency's emergency powers to take the pesticide off the market.
“The environment has become the experiment and all of us – not just bees and beekeepers – have become the experimental subjects,” said Tom Theobald, a 35-year beekeeper. “In an apparent rush to get products to the market, chemicals have been routinely granted “conditional” registrations. Of 94 pesticide active ingredients released since 1997, 70% have been given conditional registrations, with unanswered questions of unknown magnitude. In the case of clothianidin those questions were huge. The EPA's basic charge is “the prevention of unreasonable risk to man and the environment” and these practices hardly satisfy that obligation. We must do better, there is too much at stake.”
Superfund researchers propose exposome paradigm
By Rebecca Wilson December 2010
Is the EPA Necessary?
Hint: It's a government bureaucracy.
William Anderson is an associate professor of economics at Frostburg State University. Posted December 08, 2010
A repeated myth is that government intervention comes only after private markets have clearly failed and the bureaucracy must step in to stop the abuse. For example, we hear that Congress created the Food and Drug Administration in 1906 because conditions in American meatpacking plants had become progressively dangerous as corporate bosses put “profits ahead of people.”
So it is with the Environmental Protection Agency, created by Congress and President Richard Nixon in 1970. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed , EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson painted the same gloomy picture that is given for creation of any federal agency: American life had become too intolerable without it. She writes:
Last month's elections were not a vote for dirtier air or more pollution in our water. No one was sent to Congress with a mandate to increase health threats to our children or return us to the era before the EPA's existence when, for example, nearly every meal in America contained elements of pesticides linked to nerve damage, cancer and sometimes death. In Los Angeles, smog-thick air was a daily fact of life, while in New York 21,000 tons of toxic waste awaited discovery beneath the small community of Love Canal. Six months before the EPA's creation, flames erupted from pollution coating the surface of Cleveland's Cuyahoga River, nearly reaching high enough to destroy two rail bridges.
Coverage of the Cuyahoga River fire featured a Time Magazine photo from a 1952 fire on the river with claims it was taken during the June 1969 fire. However, as Stacie Thomas pointed out in this article , the real fire was brief, no photos were taken, and damage to the bridges was minimal.
Furthermore, notes law professor Jonathan H. Adler , the “pollution-was-progressively-becoming-worse” scenario Jackson paints is not true:
Contrary to common perceptions, many measures of environmental quality were already improving prior to the advent of federal environmental laws. The Environmental Protection Agency's first national water quality inventory, conducted in 1973, found that there had been substantial improvement in water quality in major waterways during the decade before adoption of the federal Clean Water Act, at least for the pollutants of greatest concern at the time, organic waste and bacteria.
Unfortunately, Jackson is not satisfied with rewriting environmental history. She also commits the venerable broken-window fallacy , failing to account for what did not happen because of government intervention. She writes:
We have seen GDP grow by 207% since 1970, and America remains the proud home of storied companies that continue to create opportunities. Instead of cutting productivity, we've cut pollution while the number of American cars, buildings and power plants has increased. Alleged “job-killing” regulations have, according to the Commerce Department, sparked a homegrown environmental protection industry that employs more than 1.5 million Americans.
She's also guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Moreover, Jackson confuses jobs with the creation of real wealth. For example, many of the new “green jobs” are created via government subsidies, which means that the government is cannibalizing profitable entities to prop up those firms that are unprofitable. Far from creating wealth, this activity is economically destructive.
One wonders how much economic growth would have taken place had the EPA not existed. Obviously, that is a calculation no one is able to perform, but I suspect that some readers of this site who have had to deal with EPA bureaucrats can tell a few horror tales.
My only contact with the EPA came more than 30 years ago when I was a news reporter covering a story about a fertilizer plant's discharges into Chickamauga Lake. Although Tennessee state water-quality authorities were willing to work with the firm, given there was no immediate health or aquatic hazards, the EPA was utterly rigid and the plant was shuttered. It was the bureaucratic mind at work.
Jackson wants us to believe that without the EPA we'd all be dead. I doubt that seriously, but I don't doubt that EPA is a destructive enterprise killer. While Jackson calls for “common-sense solutions,” I submit that common sense tells us to do away with the agency.
Killer in the Attic: EPA Still Evades Zonolite Warnings
EPA to allow using Superfund costs for river dredging
Sheboygan Press Dec 9 2010
The Environmental Protection Agency has given a huge boost to local efforts to dredge the Sheboygan River deep enough to be navigable for boating, recreation and economic development. EPA officials have approved the use of the $12 million being spent for a Superfund cleanup of the river to remove polychlorinated byphenyls — or PCBs — from a portion of the river as matching funds that will allow local officials to tap into other federal money to complete the dredging of the river to a depth of at least 10 feet.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Jointly with The National Nuclear Security Administration, Defense Programs-High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas
Synopsis Full Announcement Application
The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 12/06/2010 . If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.
Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.
Document Type: Grants Notice Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0000431 Opportunity Category: Discretionary Posted Date: Dec 06, 2010 Creation Date: Dec 06, 2010 Original Closing Date for Applications: Jan 31, 2011 Current Closing Date for Applications: Jan 31, 2011 Archive Date: Apr 30, 2011 Funding Instrument Type: Grant Category of Funding Activity: Science and Technology and other Research and Development Category Explanation: Expected Number of Awards: 15 Estimated Total Program Funding: $12,500,000 Award Ceiling: $300,000 Award Floor: $25,000 CFDA Number(s): 81.049 -- Office of Science Financial Assistance Program Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No Eligible Applicants
Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"
Additional Information on Eligibility:
DOE Eligibility Criteria: All types of applicants are eligible to apply, except other Federal agencies, Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) contractors, and nonprofit organizations described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engaged in lobbying activities after December 31, 1995.
Agency Name
Chicago Service Center
Description
The Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) of the Office of Science (SC) and the Defense Program (DP) of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), both of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), jointly announce their interests in receiving grant applications for new awards and grant renewals for research in the SC-NNSA Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP). Applications for renewals of all grants funded by FES in HEDLP that expire in FY 2011 should be made to this solicitation. This FOA is directed at researchers who are not affiliated with DOE national laboratories and government laboratories. IMPORTANT SUBMISSION INFORMATION: The full text of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is located on FedConnect. Instructions for completing the Grant Application Package are contained in the full text of the FOA which can be obtained at: https://www.fedconnect.net/FedConnect/?doc=DE-FOA-0000431&agency=DOE.
Link to Full Announcement
If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:
Marilyn M. Oyler, Grants and Contracts Analyst, 301-903-3604
marilyn.oyler@science.doe.gov
Samuel J. Barish, DOE Technical-Scientific Program Contact, 301-903-2917
sam.barish@science.doe.gov
marilyn.oyler@science.doe.govSynopsis Modification History
There are currently no modifications for this opportunity.
Will EPA Admit Economic Impact of Regulations? | Print |
Written by James Heiser Thursday, 09 December 2010 12:40 0 A bipartisan group of Senators are charging the Obama administration with knowing that the latest round of proposed regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will cost many Americans their jobs, while suppressing that information from the public.
According to a report by Margaret Kriz Hobson for Congressional Quarterly , the Senators are appealing to the EPA to release the study information:A bipartisan group of Senators is pressuring the Obama administration to release a study that they say predicts significant job loss from a proposed EPA regulation that would restrict air pollution from boilers used to heat and power a wide variety of U.S. buildings, from factories to schools.
Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Mark Pryor, D-Ark., Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, and David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to the Commerce Department and EPA asking for release of all studies conducted on the environmental proposal.
The senators claim that EPA officials have refused to release a Commerce Department analysis that, they say, shows the boiler rule would cause significant economic harm. EPA is under a court order to complete work on the regulation by Jan. 14; the proposed controls were released in April.
Environmental regulators have acknowledged that the proposal issued in April, which would require boiler owners to install tough new pollution control equipment, was excessively strict. But they have continued to keep the Commerce Department report under wraps.
“I see no reason why Secretary Locke should not make this report available to Congress so that we can fully understand the economic impact of this proposed rule,” Pryor said in a statement announcing the letter. “I have heard from several Arkansas companies that the regulation cannot be met at a reasonable cost.”
Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, the EPA has given the appearance of becoming increasingly dismissive of the constitutional authority of the legislative branch of government. Jackson has developed a pattern of simply enacting sweeping changes to entire industries, despite the threat which such changes pose to the entire economy.
However, the EPA may soon find that legislators are less inclined to allow the agency to run rampant; many Democratic Senators who are facing the voters in 2012 and who witnessed the decisive action of the American people at the ballot box this past November are discovering the necessity of taking action to restrain the agencies running rogue under President Obama.
An article at EnvironmentalNewsstand.com (“Inhofe Sees ‘Endangered' Democrats Helping to Block Rush of EPA Rules”) details the "foxhole conversion" of nearly a dozen Democrat Senators from the perspective of a Republican Senator, James Inhofe:Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member on the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), says at least 11 “endangered” Democrats up for re-election in 2012 could try to bolster their reelection bids by voting with Republicans in the 112th Congress to help resist a rush of Obama EPA rules expected in the next two years....
Some unnamed Democrats on the environment committee — if they choose to stay on the panel in the 112th Congress — “are the ones that are going to be in tight races in 2012. They might become a lot more cooperative on having hearings that would rein [in] the bureaucracy” on some of the work EPA is doing, Inhofe said.
However, Inhofe said he is “a little more worried” that the Obama administration and some liberal Democrats in the Senate might try to rush through a slew of strict EPA regulations in the next two years ahead of the 2012 presidential election. “The handwriting's on the wall and there's going to be a level of desperation among the more liberal members of the Senate and the Obama administration to get things done,” the senator said. “I know people don't like to talk about it, but Republicans will take over the Senate [beginning in 2013], and I hope the White House too, and they will say, ‘This is it, this is our last shot.' So with that level of desperation they'll try to hurry things out.”
By way of example, Inhofe cited EPA's proposed tightening of the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Bush EPA tightened the standard in 2008, but the Obama EPA reviewed it and in 2009 proposed a stricter limit. The agency has vowed to issue the final standard by Dec. 31, but Inhofe noted that “we haven't even met the last one yet and they're supposed to wait five years,” referring to a Clean Air Act requirement that EPA need only review its NAAQS ever five years. The Obama EPA ozone review is “100 percent political,” Inhofe said.
From the UN Climate Conferences at Copenhagen and Cancun to the infamous carbon dioxide regulation undertaken by the EPA, the Obama administration has shown a willful disregard for the profoundly troubled American economy virtually every time one of the concerns of the environmental extremists has been at stake. The question is whether even more Democrat Senators are prepared to end their careers trying to enact the agenda of a failed presidency, or whether they will rein in an executive branch which has continuously undermined their constitutional responsibilities. If the Commerce Department and the EPA will not disclose the threat which EPA regulations pose to the financial well-being of the Republic, it may fall to the House and Senate to demonstrate the “power of the purse” over the agencies' actions. Better still, they could act to rein in the regulatory activities of the federal government to those which are (a) in keeping with the enumerated powers specified in the Constitution and (b) those which, in keeping the Constitution, have been authorized under law.
.
WEB EXCLUSIVE: Nine Things You're Not Destroying But Should Be
December 8th, 2010
WEB EXCLUSIVE: Keep Facilities Illuminated, Efficient, And Safe
This Web Exclusive comes from Lisa Brosseau, ScD, CIH, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Sciences.
Today's facility managers are tasked not only with keeping management expenses low, but also with ensuring energy efficiency and, of course, a safe work environment for the facility's employees. When it comes to selecting lighting, all of these aspects must be factored in.
Fluorescent lamps have long been the best lighting option for small to large facilities, due to their significant energy savings—providing four to six times higher efficiency than incandescent lights—and long working life. However, these lamps contain hazardous mercury and, from installation to disposal, they must be carefully handled, stored, and transported.
While the amount of mercury used in an individual fluorescent bulb has decreased over the years, one broken, four-foot fluorescent lamp in a small room or vehicle can release enough mercury vapor to exceed the OSHA mercury exposure eight-hour limit—posing a significant occupational health risk. Plus, mercury vapor can be emitted for weeks after a single bulb is broken.
In their lifetime, fragile fluorescent lamps are handled by manufacturers, transporters, distributors, retailers, consumers, and installers (along with recycling or waste handlers). Although the lamps could break anywhere down this line and expose workers and the environment to hazardous mercury vapors, there are no universally enforced packaging standards designed to protect these people.
Recent legislation has begun to address the issue of safe packaging for fluorescent lamps and other mercury-containing products, and facility managers must not only work to comply with these regulations, but also ensure the safety of all personnel in addition to protecting the environment.
Selecting a package to contain mercury vapor
Universal waste containers that could be transported by common carrier were first introduced in 1998, and the first containers were primarily used to ship fluorescent lamps. Initially, these containers were simple corrugated boxes, with some including a plastic bag inside the box.Since the contents were made of glass, they were designed primarily to contain the contents within the shipping container. However, since mercury begins to vaporize at 70°F, packaging improvements were needed to address the issue of potential mercury vapor release in the event of breakage during accumulation and transport.
A study conducted by the research team from the University of Minnesota indicated that emissions from packages not designed to contain mercury vapor represent a real health and safety concern. In the study, which was published in the March 2009 issue of the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association , the team tested single-layer cardboard boxes, packages that added a plastic bag to this design, as well as packages that added a second layer of cardboard along with the plastic bag. ["Preventing Mercury Vapor Release from Broken Fluorescent Lamps during Shipping," by Tracy T. Glenz, Lisa M. Brosseau, and Richard W. Hoffbeck, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 59 (2009): 266-72.] A package design that featured a double box with a thicker, tape sealed plastic bag performed better than the previous configurations, but the only package that kept mercury vapor emissions below permissible exposure levels, as defined by state and federal authorities, was a double box with a zip closure foil-plastic laminate bag between the cardboard layers.
These findings indicated that all three layers of the last packaging configuration were important in effectively containing mercury vapor. The first cardboard layer provided structure to the configuration, protecting contents from outside elements. The inner layer of cardboard prevented glass shards from puncturing the bag, which actually contains the mercury vapor.
Safety and health risks, and additional concerns
Containing mercury vapor is important because, although it is one of the most useful heavy metals, it is also one of the most deadly. When carelessly handled or improperly disposed of, mercury can get into drinking water, lakes, rivers, and streams, posing a critical threat to human health and the environment. Recent studies have linked mercury exposure to increased risk of heart attack in men, to mental retardation and neurological disorders in children, and dangerous levels of mercury in the blood of women of childbearing age.Despite these health concerns, the EPA estimates that approximately 75% to 80% of fluorescent lamps are not recycled and are usually placed in dumpsters or trash containers, presenting a considerable risk. One study found that mercury is “strongly and persistently” emitted from dumpsters that contain broken fluorescent lamps. [Pathways of Mercury in Solid Waste Disposal, by S.E. Lindberg, and J. Owens, PaMSWaD, Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation (LMER) (1999) 6.]
The data indicate a preliminary mercury loss rate of ~25µg/hr from one bulb contained in a closed dumpster. The bulb continued to emit mercury at this rate for more than a week, and at ~50 µg/hr on the eighth day following breakage.
If not properly recycled, mercury is not only a threat to quality of life, but it can also be a significant threat to the overall health of businesses. Local and state environmental regulations and EPA enforcement of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulate the generation, treatment, storage, handling, cleanup, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes, including products which contain mercury.
The EPA permits common carrier shipment to recycling facilities, and the federal Universal Waste Rule requires packaging to be compatible with the contents of lamps, structurally sound, and adequate to prevent breakage—but this rule does not specifically address mercury vapor release. In 2005, a provision was added that requires packaging for mercury containing products to be “reasonably designed to prevent the escape of mercury into the environment by volatilization or any other means.” However, fluorescent lamps were excluded from this rule.
Stricter state regulations
While recycling fluorescent lamps is important, many states are realizing that if proper precautions are not taken, the lamps can emit mercury vapor en route and negate many recycling benefits. Most notably, a new law in the State of Washington requires that many lamps be managed in containers that prevent the loss of mercury vapors. This new legislation is set to be the precursor of future state and federal legislation as awareness of mercury vapor dangers increases.Due to deficiencies of most current packaging configurations utilized for shipping used fluorescent lamps, the new law requires that lights and other mercury containing devices are packaged and shipped in material that will minimize the release of mercury into the environment. The law also states that packages should include mercury vapor barrier materials—such as the foil-plastic laminate bag with a zip closure tested in the University of Minnesota study—if lamps are transported by the United States postal service or a common carrier or collected via curbside programs and mail-back businesses.
Additionally, the State of Wisconsin has debated new legislation that would apply newer mercury containing equipment packaging standards to used lamps from households. If adopted, the law would require those lamps to be managed in containers “designed to prevent the escape of mercury into the environment by volatilization or other means.”
Plus, several other states have tackled this health issue with their own, more stringent regulations regarding fluorescent lamp disposal. Minnesota, Massachusetts, California, and Vermont disallow disposal of all mercury product waste in landfills. New York has a comparable ban, with an exemption for households and businesses with 100 or less employees disposing of 15 or less non-hazardous waste lamps per month.
While these new regulations help to encourage proper recycling of used fluorescent lamps, there is still a need for a more universal set of packaging standards to ensure safety of personnel and the environment. It is up to facility managers not only to select energy efficient lights, but also to make certain they remain a safe and green solution by ensuring proper storage and transportation of fluorescent lamps.
Dr. Lisa M. Brosseau has conducted research and published in the areas of respiratory protection, aerosol exposures, hazardous materials and safety interventions in small businesses. She serves on the editorial review board of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene and is currently the vice chair of ACGIH, a globally recognized organization committed to developing scientific guidelines for workplace safety and health.
McCollum sues the feds over new water rules
Flanked by the incoming attorney general and incoming agriculture commission, Attorney General Bill McCollum announced Tuesday that the state is suing the federal government for imposing an "unfair" and "capricious" water quality rule.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Pensacola, alleges that the rule by the federal Environmental Protection Agency is "not based on scientifically sound methodology" and were adopted "just to settle a lawsuit" by environmental groups and citizens.
Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi and the newly-elected Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam said they will continue to lawsuit because they view the newly announced rules a violation of Florida's rights.
The federal government announced in November new water pollution standards that set specific numeric caps on pollutant levels for Florida lakes and rivers. Earthjustice attorney David Guest , who filed the original lawsuit against the federal government for failing to enforce the federal Clean Water Act, said the challenged by the Republican attorney general on behalf of landowners and agricultural interests was expected.
"The lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars,'' Guest said in a statement. "Instead of protecting public health, the state is usuing our tax dollars to side with polluters."
He said that the standards are designed to keep "poorly treated sewage, fertilizer and animal waste out of public waters."
But Putnam, and current Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson , said that the new rules will be too expensive.
"It's going to cost the taxpayerse of this state billions and billions,'' Bronson said. He said the rules appeared to single out Florida for toughter water quality standards than other state and were based on inaccurate science.
The suit was filed in the same court that McCollum hand selected for another lawsuit against the federal government, the state's challenge to the federal health care reform plan.
Regulators raid AstraZeneca and Nycomed | Find Prescription Drugs
By admin
Regulators raid AstraZeneca and Nycomed European antitrust regulators have launched a fresh series of raids this week on pharmaceutical companies, including.Florida sues EPA over new water pollution controls
MIAMI (Reuters) - Florida filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to block new water pollution controls in the recession-hit state.
All Appropriate Inquiries
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.
General Information
- Fact Sheet on EPA Brownfields Grants, CERCLA Liability, and All Appropriate Inquiries (PDF) (3 pp, 191K)
- The Final Rule on All Appropriate Inquiries
- Response to Public Comments
- Comparison of Final Rule to Interim Standard (ASTM E1527-00)
- Background
- The Proposed Rule
- FACA Committee Information
- Summary of EPA Listening Session on All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (PDF) (31 pp, 1.1M)
On March 17, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency held a listening session on EPA's All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule, as promulgated on November 1, 2005. The purpose of the March 17 listening session was for EPA to listen to the views of stakeholders and the general public on the current standards and practices for all appropriate inquiries. A summary of the discussions held during the listening session that includes copies of written comments that EPA received in response to the listening session is attached here.
- Fact Sheet on EPA Brownfields Grants, CERCLA Liability, and All Appropriate Inquiries (PDF) (3 pp, 191K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-09-026
April 2009
- EPA Recognizes Two ASTM Standards as Compliant with All Appropriate Inquiries
EPA now recognizes both ASTM International's E1527-05 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process" and ASTM E2247-08 "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland and Rural Property" as compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation. Either of these ASTM International Phase I standards may be used to satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
- EPA Published Final Rule on All Appropriate Inquiries
The Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule setting federal standards for the conduct of all appropriate inquiries. The rule was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005. The final rule and preamble is available below.
The final rule establishes specific regulatory requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership, uses, and environmental conditions of a property for the purposes of qualifying for certain landowner liability protections under CERCLA. The final rule went into effect on November 1, 2006, one year following the date of publication.
As of November 1, 2006, parties must comply with the requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule, or follow the standards set forth in the ASTM E1527-05 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, to satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries. All appropriate inquiries must be conducted in compliance with either of these standards to obtain protection from potential liability under CERCLA as an innocent landowner, a contiguous property owner, or a bona fide prospective purchaser.
- Federal Register Notice
November 1, 2005
- Fact Sheet on All Appropriate Inquiries Final Rule (PDF) (2 pgs, 113K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-05-240
November 2005
- En Español (PDF) (2 pgs, 302K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-07-209
June 2007
- Fact Sheet on Lender Liability and Applicability of AAI (PDF) (2 pgs, 29.8K) ]
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-07-234
April 2007
- Fact Sheet on Definition of Environmental Professional included in the Final Rule (PDF) (2 pgs, 106K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-05-2401
November 2005
- En Español (PDF) (2 pgs, 296K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-07-210
June 2007
- Fact Sheet on Guidelines for Hiring an Environmental Professional (PDF) (2 pgs, 38K)
Publication Number: EPA-560-F-06-243
October 2006
- Fact Sheet on AAI Reporting Requirements (PDF) (4 pgs, 46K)
Publication Number: EPA 560- F-06-244
October 2006
- Response to Public Comments
The preamble to the final rule setting federal standards for the conduct of all appropriate inquiries includes a summary of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule, which was published on August 26, 2004 (see below for information on the proposed rule). The preamble to the final rule also includes a summary of EPA's responses to many of the issues raised in public comments. Specific responses to individual comments are provided in the document "Response to Comment Document," October 2005.
- Response to Comment Document, October 2005
- Part 1 (PDF) (380 pgs, 1.9MB)
- Part 2 (PDF) (321 pgs, 1.4MB)
- Part 3 (PDF) (120 pgs, 584K)
- Comparison of Final Rule to Interim Standard (ASTM E1527-00)
The new final regulation is not significantly different from the interim standard established by Congress in the Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA. The interim standard was the ASTM E1527-00 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The final rule differs in such areas as the definition of environmental professional, certain interviewing requirements, and the documentation of data gaps that may affect an environmental professional's ability to render an opinion regarding the environmental conditions of a property. A comparison of the requirements established in the final rule and the requirements of the interim standard are provided in a document titled "Comparison of the Final All Appropriate Inquiries Standard and the ASTM E1527-00 Environmental Site Assessment Standard."
- Comparison of the Final All Appropriate Inquiries Standard and the ASTM E1527-00 Environmental Site Assessment Standard (PDF) (14 pgs, 227K)
Publication Number: EPA 560-F-05-242
November 2005
- Background
The Small Business Liability Relief and Revitalization Act (the Brownfields Amendments) clarifies CERCLA liability provisions for certain landowners and potential property owners. The Brownfields Amendments provide liability protections for certain property owners, if the property owners comply with specific provisions outlined in the statute, including conducting all appropriate inquiries into present and past uses of the property and the potential presence of environmental contamination on the property. The Brownfields Amendments amend Section 101(35)(B) of CERCLA and require EPA to promulgate regulations that establish federal standards and practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries. The all appropriate inquiries standards and practices are relevant to:
- the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability (§101 (35));
- the contiguous property exemption to CERCLA liability (§107 (q));
- the bona fide prospective purchaser exemption to CERCLA liability (§107 (r)(1) and (§101 (40)); and
- the brownfields site characterization and assessment grant programs (§104 (k)(2)).
All Appropriate Inquiries Statutory Language from the Small Business Liability Relief and Revitalization Act
- January 2002
All Appropriate Inquiries Criteria Analysis/Comparison to State, Federal, and Commercial Assessment Approaches (PDF) (168 pgs, 935K)
- Publication Number: EPA-500-F-03-229
June 10, 2003AIG Role Still Haunts James Cole's Chances to be Deputy Attorney General
by Beatrice Edwards on December 07, 2010 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )
As the 111th Congress draws to a close, the heat is on to confirm James Cole as Deputy Attorney General. Despite the last-minute push, Cole still has serious problems that haunt and disqualify him from taking a senior position at the Justice Department.
From 2005 through December 2009, James Cole served as an independent monitor in the Compliance Office of the American International Group (AIG), placed there by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as part of a deal that allowed AIG to escape prosecution for fraud.
While Americans and their elected representatives are notorious for their short attention spans, it's worth remembering, in this case, that AIG was the corporation that nearly drove the US economy off a cliff in September 2008. AIG's Financial Products Division (AIG-FP), based in London, wrote credit default swaps involving staggering amounts of money that had to be covered with a US government bailout in the range of $180 billion.
The AIG rescue, courtesy of US taxpayers, was the single largest bailout of any corporation that went belly up in the Great Recession. In the aftermath, Congressional investigators found that Cole had specifically exempted AIG-FP from his oversight. When Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked him for a written explanation of the lapse, Cole replied that AIG-FP was doing too many of these deals for him to monitor (Question h, p. 5). He allowed the division to design its own risk analysis model to assess the viability of the swaps AIG-FP itself was writing. He left it at that.
Nor was Cole forthcoming in answering Grassley about what he had done at AIG. As we reported at the time:Cole's entire response set to Grassley's questions about his role at AIG before, during and after the financial collapse that nearly took out the international economic system is reminiscent of NPR's “Not My Job” segment (also known as “Someone Else's Problem”) .
As markets around the world still struggle to recover, and the cold light of day hits the epidemic of financial crime still eating away at economic stability , the US Justice Department needs a new Deputy Attorney General who is more responsible than James Cole.
Beatrice Edwards is International Reform Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
.
NASA is responsible for the environmental cleanup of the federal real property at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. The NASA-held (federal) portion of the site has been used historically for the research, development and testing of rocket engines associated with the Apollo and Space Shuttle Programs. Under NASA's AOC, the agency will work with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to determine the chemical background for each potential chemical constituent, based on its on-going chemical background study. The agency also will work with DTSC to determine the nature and extent of any remaining chemical contamination based on the previously submitted chemical sampling results, and any DTSC-determined necessary additional sampling.
Originally developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research, the 2,850-acre SSFL, located in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley, is owned primarily by the Boeing Company, with small portions administered by NASA. The former Atomic Energy Commission conducted nuclear research on nuclear-powered space vehicles and sodium coolant mediums at 10 small reactors at the Energy Technology Engineering Center -- 90 acres within SSFL Area IV -- from the 1950s until 1988.
Several EPA documents are available that can provide more
information on the RFA/SBREFA, the Agency’s small entity
compliance assistance efforts and the elements of a regulatory
flexibility analysis. These documents and further assistance with any
RFA/SBREFA questions are available from the SBAC, SBAC Staff,
or from the RFA/SBREFA website, listed below.
Small Business Advocacy Chair
Alexander Cristofaro
Small Business Advocacy Chair Staff
Lanelle Wiggins, Team Leader
(202) 566-2372; wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov
Lakeshia Walker
(202) 564-6571; walker.lakeshia@epa.gov
Caryn Muellerleile
(202) 564-2855; muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov
Nathaniel Jutras
(202) 564-0301; jutras.nathaniel@epa.gov
RFA/SBREFA Website
www.epa.gov/sbrefaRegulatory Flexibility Act / Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
What is a "Small Business"?
The RFA/SBREFA references the definition of "small business" found in the Small Business Act. The Small Business Act further authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define "small business" by regulation.
What is a "Small Government"?
The RFA/SBREFA defines "small governmental jurisdiction" as the government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000.
What is a "Small Organization"?
The RFA/SBREFA defines "small organization" as any "not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."
ParticipateEPA is developing a regulation that would require financial responsibility for clean-up of contaminated sites within the hard rock mining industry. Find out if you are eligible to nominate yourself to serve as a Small Entity Representative (SER) for an upcoming panel to explore potential small business impacts.
- Organization
- SBREFA Staff & Contact Information
- You are here: EPA Home
- RFA / SBREFA
- Who Are We
Who Are They
EPA Small Business Advocacy Chair (SBAC)
Alexander Cristofaro, SBAC
Office of Policy
The position of the Small Business Advocacy Chair (SBAC) was created by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The SBAC is responsible for guidance and oversight of the Agency's implementation of the RFA as amended by SBREFA and serves as the permanent chair of all Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panels. The SBAC is responsible for all aspects of the SBAR Panel process. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator designated Alexander Cristofaro to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities in this regard.
SBAC Staff
Name Phone Email Lanelle Wiggins (202) 566-2372 wiggins.lanelle@epa.gov Nathaniel Jutras (202) 564-0301 jutras.nathaniel@epa.gov Caryn Muellerleile (202) 564-2855 muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov Lucinda Power (202) 566-0356 power.lucinda@epa.gov The SBAC staff provides guidance, training, recordkeeping, reporting and general support in EPA's implementation of the RFA/SBREFA. They provide coordination and support for the SBAR Panel process to make each SBAR Panel as efficient and productive as possible. They also advise EPA's program offices on how the RFA/SBREFA Panel process can fit into their rulemaking schedule, how to involve SBA and OMB in the process, and the implications of the results of their screening analysis, among other things.
EPA's SBREFA Web site is managed by the Office of Policy (OP)
Office of Regulatory Policy and Management | Office of Policy | RFA/SBREFA Home
- You are here: EPA Home
- RFA / SBREFA
- Statute
RFA/SBREFA Statute
Regulatory Flexibility Act
as amended by
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ActThe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq , was signed into law on September 19, 1980. The RFA imposes both analytical and procedural requirements on EPA and on other federal agencies. The analytical requirements call for EPA to carefully consider the economic impacts rules will have on small entities. The procedural requirements are intended to ensure that small entities have a voice when EPA makes policy determinations in shaping its rules.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), Pub Law No. 104-121, was signed into law on March 29, 1996. SBREFA enacted a variety of provisions, including several amendments to the RFA. In short, SBREFA amended the RFA to require EPA to convene a small business advocacy review panel prior to proposing any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It also added a provision that allows small entities adversely affected by a final rule to challenge the agency's compliance with the RFA's requirements in court.
For the purposes of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process, small entity includes small businesses, small governments and small organizations. The term "small business" is defined by law in the Small Business Act and the term "small government and small organization" are defined by law in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
- Individual sections of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act are available on the U.S. Government Printing Office (specifically, under Title 5, Part 1, Chapter 6).
- Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II of Public Law 104-121; Page 11) (PDF format 100KB)
- Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(PDF format 29KB)
Small Entity Definitions: Small Business Small Government Small Organization .
Office of Whistleblower Protection Program – Federal Statutes
Holy war looming over Iron Mountain?
“EPA messed up my business.”
- Ted Arman
EPA Really Cares About Stormwater Enforcement
Posted on December 3, 2010 by Seth Jaffe
When EPA creates a web page solely addressing one stormwater settlement , you can safely assume that EPA thinks it is important and is trying to send a message. Thus, EPA's announcement earlier this week of a settlement with Beazer Homes to resolve allegations that Beazer Homes violated federal stormwater requirements at construction sites in 21 – count ‘em, 21 – states should make everyone in the construction industry sit up and take notice.
The settlement requires Beazer Homes to pay a penalty of $925,000 (mostly to EPA, but some to each of the states). EPA estimated a price tag for the injunctive relief of almost $9,487,384. Basically, the consent decree simply requires Beazer Homes to comply with stormwater regulations, but EPA has imposed certain management requirements on Beazer Homes to ensure that compliance really will happen. Beazer Homes must develop an overall stormwater compliance program, designate a nationwide stormwater compliance manager, and also identify division-level compliance managers who must inspect every construction site within their jurisdiction at least quarterly to ensure that individual sites are in compliance.
Stormwater is clearly one of EPA's top priorities. The press release for the Beazer Homes settlement states so explicitly:
Keeping contaminated stormwater out of America's waters is one of EPA's national enforcement initiatives.
As concerns about nutrients increase, and EPA faces pressure from citizen groups regarding TMDLs for nutrients, we should only expect more such announcements. An ounce of prevention might be worth $9,487,384 of cure (not including a penalty).
FOUNTAINHEAD
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE PLAN TO VAPORIZE ACID MINE DRAINAGE
[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 73700-73708] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de07-31] [[Page 73700]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 302 and 355 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469; FRL-8511-4] RIN 2050-AG37 CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking provides notice of, and requests comments, including any relevant data, on a proposed administrative reporting exemption from particular notification requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Specifically, the proposed administrative reporting exemption applies to releases of hazardous substances to the air where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste at farms. Nothing in this proposed rule, however, would change the notification requirements if hazardous substances are released to the air from any other source other than animal waste at farms (i.e., ammonia tanks), as well as releases of any hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental media, (i.e., soil, ground water, surface water) when the release of those hazardous substances is at or above its reportable quantity per 24 hours. This administrative reporting exemption is protective of human health and the environment and consistent with the Agency's goal to reduce reporting burden where there would likely be no Federal, state or local emergency response to such release reports. Eliminating such reporting will allow emergency response officials to better focus on releases where the Agency is more likely to take a response action. Finally, in proposing this administrative reporting exemption from the notification requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, section 103(a) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, section 304, EPA is not proposing to limit any of its authorities under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act in this rulemaking. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2007-0469, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov . Fax: (202) 566-9744. Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: [2822T], 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand Delivery: EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2007-0469. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e- mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Beasley, Regulation and Policy Development Division, Office of Emergency Management (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1965; fax number: (202) 564-2625; e-mail address: Beasley.lynn@epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA? C. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? D. Which Hazardous Substances Are We Proposing to Exempt From the Notification Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA? II. Background III. Summary of This Action A. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule? B. Proposed Definitions C. What Is Not Included Within the Scope of This Proposed Rule? D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption? E. What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting Exemption? IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) [[Page 73701]] F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'') J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Type of entity Examples of affected entities ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Industry................................. NAICS Code 111--Crop Production. NAICS Code 112--Animal Production. State and/or Local Governments........... State Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees. Federal Government....................... National Response Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the criteria in section III.A of this proposed rule and the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 302.6 and 355.40 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? In an effort to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) more efficiently, EPA is proposing to establish an administrative reporting exemption from the notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA for releases of hazardous substances, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, to the air where the source of the release is animal waste at farms. The Agency believes that a federal response to such notifications is impractical and unlikely. In addition, nothing in this proposal would limit EPA's authority to take action under its various authorities under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any of provisions of CERCLA or EPCRA (other than ECPCRA section 304) through this rulemaking. Therefore, when submitting comments, remember to: Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Rulemaking? Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, gives the Federal government broad authority to respond to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels and facilities. The term ``hazardous substance'' is defined in section 101(14) of CERCLA primarily by reference to other Federal environmental statutes. Section 102 of CERCLA gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to designate additional hazardous substances. Currently there are approximately 760 CERCLA hazardous substances, exclusive of Radionuclides, F-, K-, and Unlisted Characteristic Hazardous Wastes. CERCLA Section 103(a) calls for immediate notification to the National Response Center (NRC) when the person in charge of a facility has knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance equal to or greater than the reportable quantity (RQ) established by EPA for that substance. In addition to the notification requirements established pursuant to CERCLA section 103, section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., requires the owner or operator of certain facilities to immediately report to State and local authorities releases of CERCLA hazardous substances or any extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) if they exceed their RQ (see 40 CFR 355.40). This proposed rule only applies to CERCLA section 103 notification requirements, including the provisions that allow for continuous release reporting found in paragraph (f)(2) of CERCLA section 103, and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements. The Agency has previously granted such administrative reporting exemptions (AREs) where the Agency has determined that a federal response to such a release is impracticable or unlikely. For example, on March 19, 1998, the Agency issued a final rule (see 63 FR 13459) that granted exemptions for releases of naturally occurring radionuclides. The rule entitled, Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Releases (``Radionuclide ARE''), granted exemptions for releases of hazardous substances that pose little or no risk or to which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate (see 63 FR 13461). The Agency relies on CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 (the general rulemaking authority under CERCLA) as authority to issue regulations governing section 103 notification requirements. The Agency relies on EPCRA section 304 as authority to issue regulations governing EPCRA section 304 notification requirements, and EPCRA section 328 for general rulemaking authority. D. Which Hazardous Substances Are We Proposing to Exempt From the Notification Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA? EPA proposes to exempt certain releases of hazardous substances to the air from the notification requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA, as implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 40 CFR 355.40, respectively. Specifically, we are proposing to exempt those hazardous substance releases which are emitted to the air (typically during digestion, break-down or decomposition) from animal waste at farms. Although ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are the most recognized hazardous substances that are emitted from animal waste, there may also be some amounts of additional hazardous substances released. Ammonia is a by-product of the break-down of urea and proteins that are [[Page 73702]] contained in animal waste. Hydrogen sulfide is another by-product of the break-down of animal waste. These hazardous substances can be emitted when animal waste is contained in a lagoon or stored in under- floor manure pits in some animal housing, manure stockpiles, or in the open where animals congregate. Open air or dry manure stockpiles are not generally associated with significant hydrogen sulfide emissions. Additional hazardous substances may be emitted to the air from animal waste.\1\ These hazardous substances would typically be subject to the notification requirements of CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 once their RQ is met or exceeded. However, this proposed rule will extend the administrative reporting exemption to all hazardous substances emitted to the air from animal waste at farms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2003), p. 54. Additional hazardous substances may include nitrous oxide (NO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The major constituents of VOC emissions could include organic sulfides, disulfides, C 4 to C 7 aldehydes, trimethylamines, C 4 amines, quinoline (RQ = 5000 pounds), dimethylpyrazine, and C 3 to C 6 organic acids, along with lesser amounts of aromatic compounds and C 4 to C 7 alcohols, ketones, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Background Under CERCLA section 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel or facility from which a CERCLA hazardous substance has been released into the environment in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the NRC of the release. A release is reportable if an RQ or more is released into the environment within a 24-hour period (see 40 CFR 302.6). This reporting requirement serves as a trigger for informing the Federal government of a release so that Federal personnel can evaluate the need for a response in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and undertake any necessary response action in a timely fashion. The NRC is located at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) headquarters and is the national communications center for the receipt of all pollution incidents reporting. The NRC is continuously manned for processing activities related to receipt of the notifications. NCP regulations, 40 CFR 300.125, require that notifications of discharges and releases be made telephonically and state that the NRC will immediately relay telephone notices of discharges (i.e., oil) or releases (i.e., hazardous substances) to the appropriate predesignated federal on-scene coordinator (OSC). The NRC receives an average of approximately 34,000 \2\ notifications per year. Of those notifications, averages of approximately 33,700 \3\ discharge or release notifications are relayed to EPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Average number of notifications from years 2000-2006, National Response Center statistics available at, http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/incident97-02.html . See Superfund Docket EPA-HQ- SFUND-2007-0469 for a summary table. \3\ Average number of notifications made to EPA from years 2000- 2006, National Response Center statistics available at, http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/epa97-02.html . The average was calculated from those notifications that went to the EPA Regions 1 through 10, including notifications to the EPA Regions for Continuous Releases. See Superfund Docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469 for a summary table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under EPCRA section 304(a), three release scenarios require notification. First, if a release of an extremely hazardous substance occurs from a facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used, or stored, and such release requires a notification under section 103(a) of CERCLA, the owner or operator of a facility shall immediately provide notice to the community emergency coordinator for the local emergency planning committees (LEPC) for any area likely to be affected by the release and to the State emergency planning commission (SERC) of any State likely to be affected by the release. (EPCRA section 304(a)(1)) EPCRA section 304(a) also requires the owner or operator of the facility to immediately provide notice under EPCRA section 304(b) for either of the following two scenarios: [cir] If the release is an extremely hazardous substance, but not subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA section 304(a)(2)) [cir] If the release is not an extremely hazardous substance and only subject to the notifications under section 103(a) of CERCLA. (EPCRA section 304(a)(3)) EPCRA notification is to be given to the community emergency coordinator for each LEPC for any area likely to be affected by the release, and the SERC of any state likely to be affected by the release. Through this notification, state and local officials can assess whether a response action to the release is appropriate. EPCRA section 304 notification requirements apply only to releases that have the potential for off-site exposure and that are from facilities that produce, use, or store a ``hazardous chemical,'' as defined by regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.1200(c)) and by section 311 of EPCRA. In establishing the RQs for the various hazardous substances, EPA adjusted the statutory RQs of CERCLA hazardous substances based on specific scientific and technical criteria that relate to the possibility of harm from the release of a hazardous substance in a reportable quantity. (See 50 FR 13456, April 4, 1985.) The adjusted RQs did not reflect the determination that a release of a substance will be hazardous at the RQ level and not hazardous below that level. EPA did not, at the time, make such a determination because the actual hazard will vary with the unique circumstances of the release. Instead, the RQs reflect the Agency's judgment of which releases should trigger notification to the federal government so that the government may assess to what extent, if any, a federal removal or remedial action may be necessary. (See 50 FR 13465.) For the purposes of making RQ adjustments under CERCLA, EPA adopted the five RQ levels of 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 5000 pounds originally established pursuant to CWA section 311 (see 40 CFR part 117). The Agency adopted the five-level system primarily because: (1) It has been successfully used pursuant to the CWA, (2) the regulated community was familiar with these five levels, and (3) it provided a relatively high degree of discrimination among the potential hazards posed by different CERCLA hazardous substances. The methodology used for adjusting RQs begins with an evaluation of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of each designated hazardous substance. The intrinsic properties examined-- called ``primary criteria''--are aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, and chronic toxicity.\4\ In addition, substances that were identified as potential carcinogens were evaluated for their relative activity as potential carcinogens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Chronic toxicity was defined as toxicity resulting from repeated or continuous exposure to either a single release or multiple releases of a hazardous substance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Agency ranks each intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological property on a five-tier scale, associating a specific range of values on each scale with a particular RQ value. Thus, each substance receives several tentative RQ values based on its particular properties. For example, ammonia received a tentative RQ of 100 pounds based on its aquatic toxicity levels; however, for the intrinsic property, mammalian toxicity (inhalation), ammonia received a tentative RQ value of 1000 pounds. The lowest of all of the tentative RQs for [[Page 73703]] each hazardous substance becomes the ``primary criteria RQ'' for that substance. After the primary criteria RQs are assigned, substances are further evaluated for their susceptibility to certain extrinsic degradation processes. These ``secondary criteria'' are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis, or ``BHP.'' If the hazardous substance degrades relatively rapidly to a less harmful compound through one or more of these processes when it is released into the environment, the primary criteria RQ is raised one level. The single RQ assigned to each hazardous substance on the basis of the primary criteria and BHP becomes the adjusted RQ for that substance. The single RQ approach was adopted to provide a relatively simple reporting system that does not unduly burden either EPA or the regulated community. Since releases into more than one medium often occur, the single RQ approach prevents confusion. Section 102(a) of CERCLA expressly authorizes the Administrator to set a single quantity for each hazardous substance, and the legislative history emphasizes the virtues of simplicity and administrative convenience. (For a more detailed discussion of the methodology that was used to establish the RQs for hazardous substances, see 50 FR 13465, Apr. 4, 1985.) Owners and operators of farms, like all other facilities, are required to report the release of hazardous substances into the environment \5\ in accordance with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 when it meets or exceeds the RQ of the hazardous substance. For example, releases into the environment of ammonia or any other hazardous substance, from tanks located on a farm, at or above an RQ are reportable under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Environment means, ``(A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, and the ocean waters for which the natural resources are under the exclusive management authority of the United States * * *, and (B) any other surface water, ground water, drinking water supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air within the United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States.'' See CERCLA section 101(8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2005, EPA received a petition from the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, seeking an exemption from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements for ammonia emissions from poultry operations. The Agency published a notice in the Federal Register on December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76452) that acknowledged receipt of the petition and requested public comment. The comment period closed on March 27, 2006. Also, in 2005, EPA offered the owners and operators of animal agricultural operations an opportunity to sign up for an air monitoring study. The purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop emissions estimating methodologies for all animal agricultural operations.\6\ Over 2600 animal feeding operations, representing over 14,000 farms, signed up for the study. The monitoring study which began in the spring of 2007 includes 25 representative sites (lagoons or barns) on 21 different farms in 10 states (NC, NY, IA, WI, CA, KY, TX, WA, IN, and OK). The sites will be monitored for two years, allowing the Agency to account for emissions variability by season, and for the effect of any seasonal operational changes (such as pumping out lagoons), that could have an effect on emission levels. At the end of the monitoring study, EPA will use the data along with any other relevant, available data to develop emissions estimating methodologies. The monitoring study results will be publicly available upon completion of the study. In addition, EPA will publish the emissions estimating methodologies based on these results, within 18 months of the study's conclusion. Thus, such information will be widely available to the public. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The National Academy of Sciences, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources appointed a 16-person ad hoc committee, the Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, to evaluate the scientific information needed to address issues raised by EPA regarding CAA regulation of air emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture aid to farmers in mitigating the effects of air emissions with modified agricultural practices. One of the findings of that Committee was, in part, direct measurements of air emissions at all AFOs are not feasible. Nevertheless, measurements on a statistically representative subset of AFOs are needed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Summary of This Action A. What Is the Scope of This Proposed Rule? The scope of this proposed rule is limited to releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. Specifically, the Agency is proposing an administrative reporting exemption from the CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements as implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 302.8 and 40 CFR 355.40, respectively. The scope of this proposed rule is intended to include all hazardous substances that may be emitted to the air from animal waste at farms. (See Section I.D. for further discussion of which hazardous substances we are proposing to include within the administrative reporting exemption.) B. Proposed Definitions In proposing this rule, the Agency believes it is important to provide clarity with respect to the scope of the proposed reporting exemption. Therefore, the Agency is proposing definitions for animal waste and farm (to be added to the Code of Federal Regulations) that only pertains to regulations promulgated pursuant to CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304, specifically 40 CFR 302.3 (definitions) and 40 CFR 355.20 (definitions). Animal Waste--means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other materials typically found with animal waste. The Agency is not aware of any existing definition for animal waste and thus, seeks comment from the public on the appropriateness, clarity and completeness of this definition. The Agency also is limiting the proposed reporting exemption to animal waste that is generated on farms, and is proposing a specific definition for farm under this proposal. For this proposed exemption only, EPA defines farm, by using the definition found in the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture, and adopting it. Also, the Agency recognizes that Federal and state research farms utilizing farm animals are subject to the conditions experienced on other farms; therefore, EPA proposes to include Federal and state poultry, swine, dairy and livestock research farms. Farm--means (a.) any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or, (b.) a Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm. EPA seeks comment on the proposed definition for a farm, and whether an alternative definition may be more appropriate. In addition, the Agency is aware that animal waste also is generated at other facilities, such as zoos and circuses. Because the focus of this proposal is on animal waste generated or found at farms, we are not proposing to expand the reporting [[Page 73704]] exemption beyond such facilities. However, the Agency requests comment on whether the reporting exemption should be expanded to other types of facilities that also generate animal waste, and if so, what other types of facilities should be included in the reporting exemption. Any alternative approaches presented must include an appropriate rationale and supporting data in order for the Agency to be able to consider them for final action. C. What Is Not Included Within the Scope of This Proposed Rule? As noted previously, this administrative reporting exemption is limited in scope to those releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. EPA is not proposing to exempt from CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements for releases of hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental media or at any other facilities other than farms (i.e., meat processing plants, slaughter houses, tanneries). In addition, EPA is not proposing to exempt from CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 notification requirements of any release of hazardous substances to the air from any source other than animal waste at farms. The Agency believes that there could be releases to the air from other sources of hazardous substances at farms where an emergency response to that release may be possible. For example, EPA is not proposing to exempt ammonia releases from ammonia storage tanks at farms. In addition, notification of a release of a hazardous substance, which meets or exceeds its RQ, from animal waste to any environmental media (other than air) is still required under this proposal. Thus, notification that there was a release of a hazardous substance that meets or exceeds the RQ where stored animal waste is released into water (i.e., a lagoon burst) would still be required under this proposal. Such notifications would alert the government to an emergency situation that could pose serious environmental consequences if not immediately addressed. Hence, those releases to the environment would still be reportable at or above their RQ as they are more likely to result in a response action from Federal, state or local governments. No EPCRA statutory requirements, other than the emergency hazardous substance notification requirements under EPCRA section 304, are included within this proposal. The proposal does not limit the Agency's authority under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA and EPCRA to address releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. D. What Is EPA's Rationale for This Administrative Reporting Exemption? EPA's rationale for this administrative reporting exemption is based on the purpose of notifying the NRC, and SERCs and LEPCs when a hazardous substance is released, and then the likelihood that a response to that release would be taken by any government agency. Upon receipt of a notification from the NRC, EPA determines whether a response is appropriate. See 40 CFR 300.130(c). If it is determined that a response is appropriate, the NCP regulations describe the roles and responsibilities for responding to the release. Thus, the question that EPA considered is whether the Agency would ever take a response action, as a result of such notification, for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. We believe not and, thus, are proposing to no longer require such reporting. This conclusion is based in part on EPA's experience.\7\ Specifically, to date, EPA has not initiated a response to any NRC notifications of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or any other hazardous substances released to the air where animal waste at farms is the source of that release. Moreover, we cannot foresee a situation where the Agency would take any future response action as a result of such notification of releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms because in all instances the source (animal waste) and nature (to the air over a broad area) are such that on-going releases makes an emergency response unnecessary, impractical and unlikely. Typically, if a response is taken as a result of a release notification, the government may require monitoring or make recommendations to local officials regarding evacuations and shelter-in-place. While this may be an appropriate response to hazardous substances releases from tanks, pipes, vents or in train derailment situations where the emergency may result in acute exposures, the Agency does not believe that this is a necessary or appropriate response to the release of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Notifications must still be made when and if hazardous substances are released to the air at farms from any other source (other than animal waste), as well as releases of any hazardous substances from animal waste to any other environmental media (i.e., soil, groundwater and surface water). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several states have indicated that such response actions are unlikely to be taken as a result of a notification of releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. EPA received 26 comment letters from state and/or local emergency response agencies in its request for public comment on the 2005 petition from the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (``poultry petition''). All of those commenters supported granting the poultry petition--that is, exempting from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements for ammonia emissions from poultry operations. Generally, those agencies supported the petition because they are aware of the operations in their jurisdictions, were concerned about the resource implications of receiving the notifications (i.e., having to process the notifications), and would not conduct an emergency response as a result of the notifications. Thus, the comments received from state and/or local emergency response agencies is consistent with EPA's view. Furthermore, the Agency does not need to receive such notifications in order to enforce applicable CWA, CAA, RCRA, and/or other applicable CERCLA and EPCRA regulations at farms. EPA still retains those enforcement authorities to address threats to human health and the environment. We estimate that the private sector, state and local, and the Federal governments spend approximately three hours per release to prepare and process episodic notifications and 24.5 hours to process continuous release notifications.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ For episodic releases, this estimate was calculated using the burden hours described in the Information Collection Requests 1049.10 and 1395.06 for episodic releases of hazardous substances to the NRC and emergency notifications to SERCs and LEPCs. For continuous releases, this estimate was calculated using the burden hours described in the Information Collection Request 1445.06 for continuous release reporting requirements. Supporting statements for both information collection requests are available in the Superfund Docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on these reasons, the Agency believes it is appropriate to propose to eliminate the reporting requirement under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances released to the air at farms where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste. Nevertheless, the Agency solicits comments on whether there might be a situation where a response would be triggered by such a notification of the release of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste [[Page 73705]] at farms, and if so, what an appropriate response would be. Any comments that would support such an action should include an appropriate rationale in order for the Agency to be able to consider it for final action. E. What Are the Economic Impacts of This Administrative Reporting Exemption? This proposed administrative reporting exemption will reduce the costs of complying with CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 for those farms that release hazardous substances to air from animal waste. Entities that are expected to experience a reduction in burden and cost include both the farms that are no longer required to report those releases, as well as the Federal, state and local governments responsible for receiving the reports. The economic analysis completed for this proposed rule is available in the docket for this rulemaking and is based on the underlying economic analyses that were completed for the regulations that established the notification requirements.\9\ We estimate that this proposed rule will reduce burden on farms associated with making notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 by approximately 3,432,000 hours over the ten year period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately $160,173,000 over the same period. We estimate that this proposed rule will also reduce burden on Federal, State and local governments responsible for receiving and processing the notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 by approximately 161,000 hours over the ten year period beginning in 2009 and associated costs by approximately $8,109,000 over the same period. In evaluating the potential burden and cost savings to those farms that would no longer be required to make notifications under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 and the government entities that are no longer required to receive and process such notifications, we used the same universe as used in the 2003 CAFO Rule (see 68 FR 7176, Feb 12, 2003). We also assumed that over the ten year period (2009-2018) that there would be a declining number of CAFOs; however, some of those operations would increase in size. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The following documents are available in the Superfund Docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-00469: Regulatory Impact Analysis of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under Sections 102 and 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Volume 1 (March 1985); Regulatory Impact Analysis in Support of Rulemaking Under Sections 302, 303, and 304 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (April 1987); and Economic Analysis in Support of the Continuous Release Reporting Regulation Under Section 103(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (April 1990). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Rather, this proposed rule represents a reduction in burden for both industry and the government by administratively exempting the reporting requirement for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 302 and 40 CFR part 355 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0046, EPA ICR number 1049.10 for 40 CFR 302.6 (Episodic releases of oil and hazardous substances), OMB control number 2050-0086, EPA ICR number 1445.06 for 40 CFR 302.8 (Continuous release reporting requirements) and OMB control number 2050-0092, EPA ICR number 1395.06 for 40 CFR 355 (Emergency planning and notification). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained by writing to: Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1700. EPA ICR number 1049.10 covers collection requirements for notification of episodic releases of oil and hazardous substances; EPA ICR number 1445.06 covers collection requirements for the continuous release reporting requirements; and EPA ICR number 1395.06 covers collection requirements for the notification requirements for releases of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances to both SERCs and LEPCs. Each of these information collections are affected by this proposed rule. However, this proposed rule represents a reduction in the burden for both industry and the government through an administrative reporting exemption from those reporting requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies [[Page 73706]] that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This rulemaking will relieve regulatory burden because we propose to eliminate the reporting requirement for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms. We expect the net reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with reporting air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 to decrease. This reduction in burden will be realized by small and large businesses. We have therefore concluded that this proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. That is, the proposal imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector; rather, this proposed rule will result in burden reduction in the receipt of notifications of the release to the air of hazardous substances, primarily ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, from animal waste at farms. Additionally, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule reduces regulatory burden and the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. Thus, the proposal is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. There are no state and local government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this proposed rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks) The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically [[Page 73707]] significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule will reduce the burden associated with the notification of releases to air of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'') Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in the Background section of the preamble for this proposed rule, the adjusted RQs do not reflect the determination that a release of a substance will be hazardous at the RQ level and not hazardous below that level. Instead, the RQs reflect the Agency's judgment of which releases should trigger notification to the federal government so that the government may assess to what extent, if any, a federal removal or remedial action may be necessary. In addition, the requirement to notify the government under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 does not require the notifying entity to take any specific action to address the release. Therefore because the notification is not specifically designed to protect human health or the environment and EPA has determined that a response action would be unlikely, EPA does not believe that exempting these releases from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements will have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income populations. This proposed rule addresses information collection requirements for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304. No EPCRA programs, other than the emergency notification program under EPCRA section 304, are included in this proposal and the Agency is not proposing to limit CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA through this proposed rulemaking. The Agency also retains its authority to apply existing statutory provisions in its efforts to prevent minority and or low-income communities from being subject to disproportionately high and adverse impacts and environmental effects. We therefore have determined that this proposal does not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low- income populations. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 302 Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 355 Air pollution control, Chemicals, Disaster assistance, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: December 20, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION 1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 2. Section 302.3 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows: Sec. 302.3 Definitions. * * * * * Animal Waste means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical materials found with animal waste. * * * * * Farm means: (1) Any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or (2) A Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm. * * * * * 3. Section 302.6 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows: [[Page 73708]] Sec. 302.6 Notification requirements. * * * * * (e) * * * (3) Releases to the air of any hazardous substance from animal waste at farms. * * * * * PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION 4. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 11048. 5. Section 355.20 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows: Sec. 355.20 Definitions. * * * * * Animal Waste as used in Sec. 355.40 only, animal waste means manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by livestock that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea. The definition includes animal waste when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil and other typical materials found with animal waste. * * * * * Farm as used in Sec. 355.40 only, farm means: (1) Any place whose operation is agricultural and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Operations receiving $1,000 or more in Federal government payments are counted as farms, even if they have no sales and otherwise lack the potential to have $1,000 or more in sales; or (2) A Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm. * * * * * 6. Section 355.40 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(viii) to read as follows: Sec. 355.40 Emergency release notification. (a) * * * (2) * * * (viii) Any release to the air of a hazardous substance from animal waste at farms. * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-25231 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
What to Expect from TSCA Reform Now
12/04/2010 — By jeanmariec
The new Safe Chemicals Act 2010, introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), this year, to the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, is a long-overdue reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. If passed, the Safe Chemicals Act will compel manufacturers to develop and submit safety-testing data on chemicals produced. Only those chemicals shown to be safe, according to the EPA's classification regimen, will be allowed on the market. This is where costs can rise for the small business owner and also put a dent in larger businesses.
Cal Dooley, CEO of ACC, Interviewed
After the lame-duck session of Congress convened, on November 15, 2010, Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemical Council, gave an interview in which he stated that the new, more Republican Congress will influence how TSCA reform and other bills affecting the chemical industry will be positioned. From the ACC perspective, a commitment to safety must be balanced with ensuring that any policies that are developed by the EPA and other agencies allow the US chemical industry to be at the forefront of developing innovations and technologies. Dooley explained that this approach is crucial to maintaining the chemical manufacturing base in the United States.
The ACC Board of Directors considers TSCA reform one of their highest priorities and the ACC is building a strong alliance of stakeholders committed to advancing the principles of the Safe Chemical Act and others that are proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the same time, in citing EPA reform, Dooley said that the ACC will urge the agency to not produced rules so onerous that they impede investment in the United States. In light of the Safe Chemicals Act, ACC has some concerns that EPA perhaps has not yet struck the right balance.
Safe Chemicals Act 2010 and the 111 th Congress
This year, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works headed by Senator Lautenberg, collected testimony to support the passage of Safe Chemicals Act 2010 by the 111th Congress. Among other topics discussed was that of CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta and other panel members titled: “Risks of Toxic Chemicals to Children's Health.” The overall impetus of the TSCA reform bill is to take preventative measures against the detrimental consequences of ubiquitous chemical use. One of the key mandates of the Safe Chemicals Act is to encourage progress in the green chemistry arena towards minimizing toxic risk from chemicals.
Minimizing toxic risk from chemicals will require incentives to businesses with innovative technology, which is good news for all parties in the chemical industry.
The lame-duck session of the 111th Congress is to consider several pieces of legislation before the entry of the new 112th Congress this coming January. For energy and environment legislation, the House has already passed a cap-and-trade bill and an oil spill response bill. Another energy-related bill that is likely to pass during the lame-duck session is a proposal to encourage the production of electric and natural gas vehicles, because the bill has bipartisan support. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a cloture vote for Wednesday on the bill promoting the Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act of 2010.
But it appears that other major bills, including the Safe Chemicals Act, TSCA reform, will be left for next year's Congressional sessions. Until it is passed, it is difficult for us to estimate the financial burden for meeting the amended TSCA legislation, but it could range from thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the size of the manufacturer and the amount of chemicals in the inventory of the specific industry.
The Six Key Mandates of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010:
1- Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical that they produce to the EPA.
2- The EPA will identify and prioritize chemicals by their likely risk, based on their use in production.
3- Besides setting up a chemical risk triage system (described above), the bill allows the EPA to manage and ban high-risk chemicals.
4- The burden of proving the safety of a chemical rests on chemical manufacturers and users rather than on the government. The chemical cannot be sold unless EPA's safety standards are met.
5- The bill establishes a public database to house the chemical information submitted to the EPA and the decisions made by the EPA about chemicals.
6- The bill requires the EPA to establish a program to develop incentives for safer alternatives. A network of research centers will be established to conduct green chemistry research and alternatives analysis. The bill will allow new, “green” chemicals into the market using an expedited safety review process.
By JeanMarie Calvillo, Ph.D., Safetec Regulatory Specialist
Home > NASPAA Initiatives > Community Engagement Projects >
Small Community Outreach Project for Environmental Issues (SCOPe).
SCOPe is a community-based initiative to engage elected officials and staff of local governments in discussions contributing to early regulatory development. SCOPe was created to bridge the gap between small entities and federal regulators, and findings are widely disseminated to policy makers, rule writers and other interested organizations. SCOPe meetings and discussions are led by faculty in NASPAA graduate programs of public affairs and administration and/or local government institutes. These programs and institutes regularly provide development, training, and evaluation services to local governments. The SCOPe outreach network is built on this extraordinary resource and the trusted relationships that exist between local governments and NASPAA programs. As neutral experts with a public service mission SCOPe teams bring the highest caliber of professional expertise to the early consultation process.
From 1998 until 2004, SCOPe was funded through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation and NASPAA. Current SCOPe activity is funded by a contract between the EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, and NASPAA, and focuses on e-rulemaking capabilities in small communities.Project Reports [ view/download in Acrobat Reader Format ]
(2002)
EPA Delivers Holiday ‘Sucker Punch' to U.S. Economy
Warner Todd Huston | December 4, 2010
From the Heartland Institute…
While we were all preparing to see family and friends over the Thanksgiving, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency was exploiting the holiday lull to sneak through new regulatory “guidance” that threatens to inflict further damage to the U.S. economy. The Heartland Institute has been on the case since the EPA gave the public just 15 days (with a long holiday weekend smack dab in the middle) to weigh in on the process. You can see all of Heartland's coverage at this link .
A post at Heartland's policy blog, Somewhat Reasonable , also outlines the situation. I pass this information along in case you want to share with your readers this attempt to get “cap” without the “trade” implemented by bureaucratic fiat, after the real bill flopped in Congress. You can also get a sense of what's happening by reading below my signature.
Jim Lakely
Communications Director
The Heartland Institute
heartland.org/Heartland Institute Explains the Unconstitutional Power Grab
While you were getting ready for the Thanksgiving holiday, the Environmental Protection Agency was cooking up a turkey of its own — a new “permitting guidance for greenhouse gases” that is unconstitutional and would extend the reach of Obama's EPA into how nearly every American business may operate. It's nothing less than a sucker punch to the U.S. economy, and an end-run around failed “cap-and-trade” bills that would deliver cap without the trade.
The Heartland Institute worked over the holiday weekend to draw attention to this outrage, and will continue to do so in the days and weeks ahead.
Check out Heartland's coverage of this issue by clicking here .
Heartland's senior fellow for legal affairs, Maureen Martin, summarizes this bureaucratic power grab:
On November 15, Obama's EPA issued a 100-page, highly technical “guidance” document proposing that as of January 2, 2011, large sources of greenhouse gas emissions—such as power plants, steel operations, and petroleum refineries—be required to obtain preconstruction and operating permits limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and to install the “best available” technology to do so.
Comments on these new rules are due on or before December 1, 2010, a 14-day period interrupted by the four-day Thanksgiving holiday. And EPA says it will review only comments on technical aspects of the new rule.
Previously, no such permits were needed, and no greenhouse gas limits existed. It is widely agreed such new rules will drive up the costs of electricity, iron and steel, gasoline, and anything else produced by large operations, with these costs passed along to consumers already staggered by a jobless “recovery” from the recession.
James M. Taylor, Heartland's senior fellow for environmental policy, has also weighed in:
Forcing power plants to purchase and implement the “best available” technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions every time a plant is built or any kind of significant maintenance or renovations occur, however, means by definition that electricity prices are going to start rising in a manner that will make the economy-shocking energy price spikes during the summer of 2008 seem downright wimpy by comparison.
For more information on this subject, click here. If you'd like to interview any of Heartland's environmental policy experts for a story, please contact Tammy Nash ( tnash@heartland.org ) or Jim Lakely ( jlakely@heartland.org ) via email, or call 312/377-4000.
The Heartland Institute is a 26-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago. Our mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
EPA Releases Interim Guidance on Institutional Controls for Public Comment
December 3, 2010
On November 30, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notice of its interim final
guidance, “Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing
Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites” (Guidance). The Guidance provides agency personnel with
information and recommendations for planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional
controls (ICs) for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Brownfields, federal facility, underground storage tank (UST), and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) site cleanups. This Guidance has the potential to affect both ongoing and
completed cleanups done under these federal programs. Comments on this interim final Guidance are
due to EPA by January 14, 2011.
ICs are nonengineered instruments used to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination
and to protect the integrity of a response action. ICs include administrative and legal controls such as
easements, zoning controls, and deed notices.
This Guidance seeks to clarify the roles and responsibilities of government agencies and private parties
in implementing and maintaining ICs at contaminated properties. To that end, the Guidance contains
recommendations for full life-cycle planning of ICs; an evaluation of their effectiveness; language
drafting considerations; implementation of specific proprietary, governmental, and informational
controls; monitoring and reporting to maintain ICs; and the enforcement of proprietary and
governmental controls.
The Guidance spans 27 pages and discusses a myriad of considerations.1 The following are highlights
from the Guidance:
Full life-cycle planning recommendations. The Guidance recommends full life-cycle planning
during remedy selection that should include input from outside sources in order to ensure that the
most appropriate response, including any ICs, is selected. Site leads are encouraged to document,
in writing, any arrangements between parties for the implementation, maintenance, and
1 The full version of the Guidance is located online at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ba9030.[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 74045-74046] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no10-78] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0894; FRL-9233-7] Guidance on Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is interested in soliciting individual stakeholder input regarding the issues addressed in the EPA interim final guidance, titled Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites. The Agency will consider the information gathered from this notice and other sources before finalizing this guidance. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2011, 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2010-0894 by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov Fax: (202) 566-9744 Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room; EPA West Building, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND- 2010-0894. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any [[Page 74046]] personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or superfund.docket@epa.gov . The http:// www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center--Public Reading Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund docket is (202) 566-0276. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chip Love, phone: (703) 603-0695, e- mail: love.chip@epa.gov , Construction and Post Construction Management Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA's interim final guidance on Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites addresses some of the common issues that may be encountered during the cleanup process and provides recommendations on how ICs can complement other response actions (such as engineered response action components) at a site. This interim final guidance also provides an overview of EPA's policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the various aspects of planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls. The guidance is available at http:// www.regulations.gov . This guidance does not represent a regulation, and is not subject to the formal provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. However, EPA recognizes the potential importance of this guidance to its Federal, state, local, and tribal partners, to the regulated community, and to the public, and therefore through this Federal Register notice seeks public input on the topics addressed in this interim final guidance and its implementation. This public input opportunity will be available until January 14, 2011. EPA intends to evaluate whether any changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate and expects to issue a final version of this guidance. For purposes of this Federal Register notice, EPA in particular seeks input on the following: Are there ways EPA can better evaluate the capacity, willingness, and financial assurance of state, tribal and local governments to assist with ICs and engineering controls when such controls are necessary at a site? What potential barriers exist with respect to state, local, and tribal government involvement with ICs and what tools or possible solutions could EPA promote to improve the awareness of and involvement in IC activities? How can site managers better engage and involve affected community stakeholders and local land use decision-makers concerning ICs that may be needed and relied upon to complement other response actions (i.e., engineered response action components) at cleanup sites? How can information concerning ICs and the underlying land and/or resource use restrictions be made more available to local land use decision-makers? How can EPA better identify and account for the full life cycle costs of ICs? EPA intends to accept input on the interim final guidance until January 14, 2011. EPA also intends to fully consider all public input in evaluating whether changes to the interim final guidance are appropriate, and to issue a final version of this guidance. Dated: November 23, 2010. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 2010-30111 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Ninth Circuit: Anti-Injunction Act, CERCLA Do Not Bar State Court Environmental Claims
Posted on December 2, 2010 by Teeple Leonard & Erdman
In a recent case out of Montana, the question was raised whether, in an environmental case, a purported polluter can obtain an injunction in Federal Court against a subsequently filed State Court proceeding. The Ninth Circuit's answer was a resounding “no.” ( Montana v. BNSF Railway Company )
BNSF Railway Company and its predecessors in interest operated a railroad maintenance and fueling facility near Livingston, Montana. In 1988, the State of Montana, alleging that the land upon which the facility was located was contaminated with diesel fuel and other contaminants, filed an environmental suit against BNSF in Federal Court, which included a claim under the Montana “little CERCLA” law. (“CECRA”, Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 75-10-705, et. seq.)
In 1990, BNSF and the State entered into a consent decree requiring BNSF to conduct a remedial investigation, and laying out a plan for implementation of a final remedy. The consent decree did not apply to any claims by persons or parties other than those named in the decree. As late as November 2010, the State of Montana continues to pursue remediation under the consent decree.
In 2007, 152 private plaintiffs filed claims against BNSF in Montana state court alleging contamination of private property and seeking various remedies. BNSF then moved in Federal court to enjoin the prosecution of the private parties' state court actions. The state court plaintiffs opposed BNSF's motion, citing the Federal Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits Federal courts from entering injunctions restraining state court proceedings, with the exception that Federal Courts may enjoin state court proceedings in order to protect or effectuate the Federal court's judgments.
In this case, BNSF argued that the private parties' investigation and restoration claim was identical to the State's earlier claim in the consent decree litigation, and since those claims and issues had already been decided, a conflict between the Federal court and the state court cases was possible. In the event of such a conflict, or possible conflict, the exception to the anti-injunction prohibition could be applicable.
The Ninth Circuit panel held, however, that there was no conflict between the Federal consent decree case and the state court cases. Nothing in CERCLA, the Court said, pre-empts a state court cause of action for environmental cleanup and/or damages. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Federal and state court actions were not identical, therefore the Federal action did not decide the issues presented by the subsequent state court claim.
While the ruling in this case is not remarkable, it represents another in a long string of cases that hold that, in most situations, state court actions for environmental clean-up and/or monetary damages are not pre-empted or precluded by prior or contemporaneous Federal cases involving the same sites and parties.
Agency Name
National Science Foundation
Description
The Environmental Sustainability program supports engineering research with the goal of promoting sustainable engineered systems that support human well-being and that are also compatible with sustaining natural (environmental) systems. These systems provide ecological services vital for human survival. The long-term viability of natural capital is critical for many areas of human endeavor. Research in Environmental Sustainability typically considers long time horizons and may incorporate contributions from the social sciences and ethics.This program supports engineering research that seeks to balance society's need to provide ecological protection and maintain stable economic conditions. There are four principal general research areas which are supported, but others can be proposed: * Industrial Ecology * Green Engineering * Ecological Engineering * Earth Systems EngineeringTopics of interest in Industrial Ecology include advancements in modeling such as life cycle assessment, materials flow analysis, input/output economic models, and novel metrics for measuring sustainable systems. Understanding materials flow and taking advantage of such understanding to substitute less toxic, longer lived materials are important areas for consideration. The effects of substituted materials on waste streams can be explored. Innovations in industrial ecology are encouraged. Engineering tools for estimating costs and ramifications of sustainable development must be developed, tested, and evaluated.In Green Engineering, research is encouraged to advance the sustainability of chemical processes, other manufacturing processes, green buildings, and infrastructure. Many programs in the Engineering Directorate support research in environmentally benign manufacturing or chemical processes. The Environmental Sustainability program supports research that would affect more than one chemical or manufacturing process or that takes a systems or holistic approach to green engineering for infrastructure or green buildings. Of particular interest is the next generation of water and wastewater treatment that will dramatically decrease material and energy use, consider new paradigms for delivery of services, and promote longer life for engineered systems. Improvements in distribution and collection systems that will advance smart growth strategies and ameliorate effects of growth are research areas that are supported by Environmental Sustainability. Innovations in prevention and management of storm water, wastewater technology, indoor air quality, recycling and reuse of drinking water, and other green engineering techniques to support sustainable construction projects may also be fruitful areas for research.Ecological Engineering topics should focus on the engineering aspects of restoring ecological function to natural systems. Engineering research in enhancement of natural capital to foster sustainable development is encouraged. Many communities are involved in stream restoration, revitalization of urban rivers, and rehabilitation of wetlands that require engineering input. What is the fundamental engineering knowledge that is necessary for ecological engineering to function sustainability?Earth Systems Engineering considers aspects of large scale engineering research that involve mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to climate change, and other global scale concerns.All proposed research should be driven by engineering principles, and be presented explicitly in an environmental sustainability context. Proposals should include involvement in engineering research of at least one graduate student, as well as undergraduates. Incorporation of aspects of social, behavioral, and economic sciences is welcomed.The duration of unsolicited awards is generally one to three years. The average annual award size for the program is $100,000. Any proposal received outside the announced dates will be returned without review.The duration of CAREER awards is five years. The submission deadline for Engineering CAREER proposals is in July every year. Please see the following URL for more information: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08051/nsf08051.jsp.Proposals for Conferences, Workshops, and Supplements may be submitted at any time, but must be discussed with the program director before submission.Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) replace the SGER program. Please note that proposals of these types must be discussed with the program director before submission. Further details are available in the PAPPG download, available below. Please refer to the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), January 2009, (NSF 09-1) when you prepare your proposal.
Link to Full Announcement
NSF Program Description 09-7643
Bill Ruckelshaus on EPA: 'Battered Agency Syndrome?'
Dec 4 2010, 4:45 PM ET
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- With an angry crop of conservative Republicans about to grab the reins of power in the House of Representatives, the Environmental Protection Agency is once again in danger of "battered agency syndrome," said Bill Ruckelshaus, the moderate Republican who headed the 40-year-old agency during the Nixon and Reagan administrations.
As the respected granddaddy and founding administrator of EPA, Ruckelshaus, now 78-years-old, is worried about his offspring at a time when some members of his own party ran for Congress on a platform of abolishing the controversial regulatory agency. Incoming House committee chairs plan endless oversight hearings to rake EPA over the coals on the hot button issue of climate change. With congressional gridlock over greenhouse gas legislation, the Obama administration is under scrutiny as to how far it will go in regulating the problem using EPA's existing powers under the Clean Air Act.
EPA seems to be a lightning rod for the anti-government fervor that strikes Washington on a regular basis, Ruckelshaus said in an interview Friday at a Harvard University conference on the agency's 40th birthday. For veterans of environmental battles of yore, to some degree "it's déjà vu all over again" (thanks Yogi!). "It's cyclical. The more active EPA is, the more controversy," said Ruckelshaus, who was appointed by President Nixon as the first administrator when the agency opened for business on December 3, 1970.
Later, after a Newt Gingrich-led backlash against the Clinton administration ushered in a Republican-controlled House with anti-regulatory sentiments in the 1994 mid-term elections, Ruckelshaus expressed concern that "violent swings" in power were having a "devastating effect on EPA."
His warnings, in a 1995 essay published on the agency's 25th birthday, are highly reminiscent of where we are today:
"We should be able to recognize certain repeating patterns. And so we do. We recognize, as perhaps the newer members of Congress do not, that the current rhetorical excess is yet another phase in a dismaying pattern. The anti-environmental push of the nineties is prompted by the pro-environmental excess of the late eighties, which was prompted by the anti-environmental excess of the early eighties, which was prompted by the pro-environmental excess of the seventies, which was prompted.... But why go on. The pattern is quite clear. The new Congress may believe that it is the vanguard of a permanent change in attitude toward regulation, but unless the past is no longer prologue, the pendulum will swing back, and we will see a new era of pro-environmental movement in the future."
As he said then, the constant pendulum swings take their toll: "The impact of all this on the agency is devastating. EPA suffers from battered agency syndrome.... Why is EPA now the agency everyone loves to hate?"
In his talk Friday, Ruckelshaus recalled the environmental fervor of 1970, when "we had the smell, touch, and feel type of pollution" with visibly dirty air and water that compelled both the Nixon administration and Congress to act. He noted that Nixon talked about "making peace with nature" in his 1970 State of the Union address, adding, "Can you imagine a conservative Republican saying that today?"
Sixteen major pieces of environmental legislation to clean up the air, water, solid waste, protect endangered species, and so forth, were enacted during the Nixon administration, said Ruckelshaus, all with strong bipartisan support. EPA was created to carry them out. "Citizens were demanding something be done, and the government was responding," he said.
But Nixon himself was hardly an environmentalist. In fact, Ruckelshaus said, Nixon became increasingly disillusioned with his own environmental initiatives as the 1972 election neared and felt Congress was going too far. At a celebration of Earth Day's 40th anniversary last spring at the Nixon library, Ruckelshaus saw some of the presidential papers from that era, including a Clean Water Act document on which Nixon had handwritten "bullshit" in a marginal note. Nonetheless, Nixon "had the most extraordinary record any President has ever had," he said.
It is Ruckelshaus himself, however, who has gained rock star status in the environmental world for his steady and constant leadership over the past four decades and his record of high integrity and bipartisanship in times of crisis. At the end of the Nixon presidency, as the Watergate scandal engulfed Washington, Ruckelshaus took over as acting director of the FBI and then moved to the Justice Department, where he famously resigned during the "Saturday Night Massacre" rather than carry out Nixon's orders to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. In 1983, after Reagan Administration EPA head Anne Gorsuch resigned amidst controversy, Ruckelshaus rode back into Washington to become the agency's 5th Administrator.
Today, Ruckelshaus, a longtime Seattle resident in the other Washington who backed Obama for President in 2008, is concerned once again that EPA finds itself in the political crosshairs. Asked by this correspondent how serious the threat to EPA is this time around, he responded cryptically that he was doing "threat analysis to figure out how big the threat is," later explaining that he was privately consulting with several former EPA administrators about the depth of the agency's current troubles.
Wearing a black jacket with tan patches on the elbows, the lanky, grey-haired lawyer drew a standing ovation from the crowd attending the EPA anniversary conference, which was organized by the Harvard University Center for the Environment as well as Harvard's schools of law, government, and public health. "We have made solid progress," Ruckelshaus said, "but we can't relax or begin to slide backwards.... We've got a lot left to do."
He was largely preaching to the choir in a pro-environment audience filled with many present and former EPA alums. However, one of the speakers, C. Boyden Gray, a longtime Washington insider and White House legal counsel to President George H.W. Bush, cautioned in an interview that current environmental concerns in the nation's Capitol were not just on the Republican side of the aisle. Gray noted that Midwestern and Southern Democrats had also questioned the Senate climate change legislation and that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) was among those seeking to delay EPA action on greenhouse gas emissions. "Politically it's something EPA just ought to wait on," said Gray, who championed market initiatives to curb acid rain and ozone-depleting chemicals in the early 90s.
But Lisa Jackson , the energetic 48-year-old chemical engineer who is EPA's 12th administrator, spoke proudly in her keynote address of the Obama administration's "aggressive environmental agenda" and her hopes to get bipartisan support to "meet on a common ground." Jackson, who worked her way up the EPA ranks for 16 years before going on to become New Jersey's environment commissioner, noted that the recent mid-term elections were "threatening to roll back EPA's efforts. " She contended that the "message last month was not that people want less environmental protection.... There is no evidence environmental protection hinders economic growth."
She delivered that message throughout the celebratory anniversary week, including a Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that "a clean environment strengthens our economy." Jackson, who paid tribute to Ruckelshaus "as the standard every single administrator strives to meet," also drew a standing ovation following her talk.
One of those listening closely was 19-year-old Julia Mason, a Harvard sophomore majoring in environmental science and public policy who was energized after hearing "superstars" Ruckelshaus and Jackson talk. "I am absolutely concerned" about what is happening in Washington, she said. "With a lot of opposition, it's really difficult to accomplish anything."
Mason is part of a younger generation coming along to help carry out the grass roots environmental agenda, as college students did some 40 years ago. She found out that change isn't easy while working in her hometown of Alamo, CA to get solar panels installed in the schools there. Her take-home message: "Take small steps, be persistent and patient, and you can make progress."
Reg Stat is the EPA site of all the activity published by the Agency in the Federal Register covering the period between calendar years 2005-2009. The site offers summary statistics using statistical data in the form of charts, tables and brief summary overviews to inform the public about the types of documents published annually.
Total Volume of Published Documents
Total Federal Register Activity
Statistics on the total number of documents published each year in the Federal Register
- By EPA Program Offices and Regions
- By Regulatory Stages (Notices, Proposals, Final Rules)
- By Type
Key Statistics on "Administrator-Signed Rules"
The focus of the site is to provide basic metrics on the more prominent rules signed by the EPA Administrator during the last five years. (Read the definition of "Administrator-Signed rules")
Distribution of Administrator-Signed Rules
Statistics on Administrator-Signed rules by EPA program office, Region, and year
- By EPA Program Offices and Regions
- By Regulatory Stages (Notices, Proposals, Final Rules)
- By Frequency
- Proposed and Finalized in Same CY
Development Time of Administrator-Signed Rules
Statistics on the time it takes to move from initiation to publication on a final rule
- By EPA Program Offices
- By Regulatory Stages
- Histograms
Regulatory Review of Administrator-Signed Rules
Statistics on regulatory actions designated "significant" under EO 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review"
- By EPA Program Offices
- Average and Median Review Times
- Histograms
News Releases By Date
- EPA Home
- Newsroom
- News Releases By Date
- EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Financial ....
- Share
EPA Seeks Small Business Input on Financial Responsibility Requirements for Hard Rock Mining
Release date: 12/06/2010
Contact Information: Richard Yost, yost.richard@epa.gov, 202-564-7827, 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites small businesses to participate in a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel on a proposed rule that would establish financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities within the hard rock mining industry. The requirements will help ensure that owners and operators of the facilities, not taxpayers, foot the bill for environmental cleanup.
The panel will ask a selected group of Small Entity Representatives (SERs), to provide advice and recommendations on the proposed rule to the panel. EPA seeks self-nominations directly from small entities that may be subject to the rule requirements. Self-nominations may be submitted through the link below and must be received by December 20, 2010.
The requirements will be developed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly called Superfund.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA to establish a federal panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBAR panel will include representatives from the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and EPA.
More information: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/hardrockmining.htmGreenlaw from NRDC China , NRDC China Program, Beijing
www.greenlaw.org.cn is a web resource created and operated by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the China Environmental Culture Promotion Association (CECPA). It is China's first web resource devoted to strengthening environmental protection in China through law, policy and the power of the public. NRDC is a leading international environmental group with offices in Beijing and various locations in the United States. CECPA is the leading organization in China focused on promoting environmental culture. If you have any feedback about our newsletter or the Greenlaw website, feel free to send us an e-mail at feedback@greenlaw.org.cn. Visit our new English site at http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog .
Who They Are
NRDC is the nation's most agressive action group of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.
Their Priorities
- Curbing Global Warming and Creating the Clean Energy Future
- Reviving the World's Oceans
- Defending Endangered Wildlife and Wild Places
- Protecting Our Health by Preventing Pollution
- Ensuring Safe and Sufficient Water
- Fostering Sustainable Communities
Quick Facts
- Founded: 1970
- Mission: To safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends. Read more
- Status: Not-for-profit, tax-exempt, membership organization
- Staff: 300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts
- Supporters: 1.3 million members and e-activists
- Offices: New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing
var articleheadline = "AstraZeneca raided in EC competition investigation";
AstraZeneca raided in EC competition investigation
By Sarah Arnott
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Europe's competition watchdog has raided a string of pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca over possible collusion in delaying the introduction of cheap, generic drugs.
AstraZeneca was the only company yesterday to admit to involvement in the inquiry – with regards to an ulcer and heartburn treatment called esomeprazole which the company sells branded as Nexium.
"We can confirm we are subject of inspections by certain competition authorities which relate to alleged practices regarding esomeprazole in Europe," a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca said yesterday. "We are co-operating with the authorities. AstraZeneca takes compliance with all laws seriously and has a fundamental commitment to doing business in an ethical and proper manner."
AstraZeneca was just one of several drugs companies subject to "unannounced inspections" by European and national regulators on 30 November.
The European Commission stressed that the raids were only a preliminary step in its investigations, and were not indications of guilt. But it said that its concerns, if born out, would constitute a violation of Europe's anti-trust rules which prohibit restrictive business practices.
The watchdog "has reason to believe" that the companies concerned "may have acted individually or jointly, notably to delay generic entry for a particular medicine", the Commission said in a statement yesterday.
European Union Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia backed up the commission's move in a speech in Brussels. "We have the responsibility to ensure that consumers are not charged unjustified bills for their medical needs," Mr Almunia said. "I will continue to enforce with determination competition rules in the pharmaceutical sector."
The competition authority's latest raids are part of a long-running European investigation into patent settlements in the drug industry.
Launching a series of investigations last January, the commission expressed concern that consumers' access to lower-priced medicines was being delayed or blocked "where an originator company pays of a generic competitor in return for delayed market entry of a generic drug".
Full patent protection does not run out until 2014 on Nexium – which was AstraZeneca's top-selling drug last year, grossing $5bn (£3.2bn) in worldwide sales. But "data exclusivity" expired in March – allowing rival drug companies to rely on AstraZeneca's research when filing for a licence to produce a generic copy of the drug (and take their chances with regards to the originator's intellectual property).
A number of companies in Germany and Spain have produced generic versions of esomeprazole in recent months. In Germany, AstraZeneca has sought injunctions against them, and the company is also defending against claims in other EU countries that the Nexium patents are invalid.
The raids this week are not AstraZeneca's first brush with Europe's anti-trust authorities. It has previously come under commission scrutiny for blocking or delaying market access to generic versions of its drugs and, in 2005, was ruled in breach of EU rules with regards to a similar drug called Losec and fined €60m (£51m).
Robert Vidal, at European law firm Taylor Wessing, said yesterday: "It is striking that the commission has chosen to initiate a new investigation and inflict more pain on the same company over a similar drug. The commission is confident that the law relating to 'market abuse' cases is on its side and it may be trying to make an example of companies like AstraZeneca in order to deter other companies from implementing similar practices."
AIG returns to bond market
By Nicole Bullock in New York
Published: December 1 2010 01:05 | Last updated: December 1 2010 03:24
AIG paid a premium on its return to the credit markets with its first bond sale since its rescue by the government two years ago.
The insurer sold $2bn of bonds with a $1.5bn tranche priced at a spread, or risk premium of 362.5 basis points over US Treasuries.
American International Group (AIG), Maiden Lane II and III
Background
American International Group (AIG) is a large, diversified financial services company that, as of June 30, 2008, reported consolidated total assets of slightly more than $1 trillion. During the months prior to September 2008, short-term funding markets had come under severe stress, placing significant liquidity pressures on AIG that hindered its ability to obtain adequate funding from banking institutions or in the market, and threatened to prompt a default by the firm.
The potential failure of AIG during the financial crisis posed significant systemic risks: AIG's insurance subsidiaries were among the largest in the United States; state and local governments that had lent money to AIG might have suffered losses; retirement plans had purchased insurance from AIG; banks and insurance banks had large exposures to AIG; a default by AIG on its commercial paper likely would have disrupted the entire commercial paper market. These potential disruptions to financial markets and losses by other major financial institutions, at a time when the financial system was already under severe stress, likely would have resulted in a significant further reduction in the availability of credit to businesses and households, worsening the recession.
A range of programs to support AIG were authorized by the Federal Reserve under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations. The programs are administered by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). In addition to the programs described below, AIG also obtained funding through the Commercial Paper Funding Facility .
AIG Revolving Credit Facility
On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that it would lend to AIG to provide the company with the time and flexibility to execute a plan that would allow it to restructure to maximize its value. Initially, the FRBNY extended a line of credit to AIG for up to $85 billion. The revolving credit facility was established to assist AIG in meeting its obligations as they came due and to facilitate a process under which AIG would sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy.Initially, under the terms of the agreement, interest was to accrue at a rate of the three-month Libor plus 850 basis points, with a floor of 350 basis points on the three-month Libor. The loan had a two-year maturity, and was collateralized by a substantial portion of the assets of AIG and its primary non-regulated subsidiaries as well as its equity interest in all of the regulated subsidiaries. The loan was expected to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the firm's assets. In consideration for the establishment of the credit facility, the AIG Credit Facility Trust, a trust established for the sole benefit of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, received a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG.
On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced a restructuring of the government's support for AIG to enhance AIG's ability to repay the credit extension while retaining adequate time to dispose of its assets to achieve favorable returns. As part of the restructuring, the Treasury acquired $40 billion in newly issued preferred stock in AIG, using funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In addition, the maturity of the loan from the FRBNY was extended to five years, and the maximum amount of credit available under the facility was reduced from $85 billion to $60 billion. The interest rate applicable to outstanding advances on the line was reduced to the three-month Libor plus 300 basis points, and the fee on available, but undrawn funding under the facility was reduced to 75 basis points.
On March 2, 2009, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced a second restructuring of the financial assistance to AIG, which included the creation by the Treasury of a new equity capital facility for AIG of up to approximately $30 billion. As part of this restructuring, the terms of the credit facility were again adjusted to remove the 350 basis point floor from the three-month Libor. In addition, the outstanding balance of the credit facility was reduced by approximately $26 billion in exchange for the Federal Reserve's receipt of preferred interest in two of AIG's major life insurance subsidiaries, and the total amount of credit available under the revolving credit facility was reduced from $60 billion to $35 billion.
On September 30, 2010, the FRBNY, AIG, and the Treasury entered into an agreement in principle for a series of integrated transactions to recapitalize AIG, including the repayment of all amounts owed to the FRBNY under the revolving credit facility. In the interim, one of AIG's subsidiaries, American Life Insurance Company (ALICO), was sold to a third party, and another subsidiary, American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA), successfully completed an initial public offering (IPO). Initial cash proceeds of these transactions in excess of $26 billion are on deposit in segregated accounts at the FRBNY pending the consummation of the recapitalization plan. The parties are continuing to work on definitive documentation to implement the agreement in principle.
The revolving credit facility was established under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Securities Borrowing Facility for AIG
As of October 1, 2008, AIG had drawn down approximately $62 billion of the revolving credit facility. As expected, these drawdowns had been used, in part, to settle transactions with counterparties returning securities that had been borrowed from AIG in exchange for cash. In light of the expectation that additional securities borrowing counterparties would decide not to renew their securities borrowing positions with AIG, and the continuing fragile position of the financial markets, on October 8, 2008, the FRBNY was authorized to extend credit to certain AIG subsidiaries in exchange for a range of securities. Under this program, the FRBNY could borrow up to $37.8 billion in investment-grade, fixed-income securities from AIG in return for cash collateral. This program allowed AIG to replenish its liquidity, and the securities served as collateral to protect the FRBNY.The securities borrowing facility for AIG was discontinued after the establishment of the Maiden Lane II facility, which is discussed in greater detail below. All securities were returned to AIG and all cash collateral was returned to FRBNY. As part of the restructuring announced on November 10, 2008, the FRBNY created Maiden Lane II LLC, and the proceeds from the establishment of the LLC were used to repay in full the securities borrowing arrangement and terminate that program.
The securities borrowing facility was established under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC
On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced a restructuring of the government's financial support to AIG. As part of this restructuring, two new limited liability companies (LLCs), Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC, were created. On December 12, 2008, the FRBNY began extending credit to Maiden Lane II LLC, which was formed to purchase residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) assets from AIG subsidiaries. Details of the terms of the loan are published on the FRBNY website . Maiden Lane II LLC was funded with a $19.5 billion senior loan from the FRBNY and $1 billion from AIG through a contingent purchase price adjustment. The loan extended by the FRBNY is collateralized by the asset portfolio. The proceeds from the assets held by Maiden Lane II LLC are used to repay the loan to the FRBNY, including accrued interest. The loan has a stated six-year term that may be extended at the discretion of the FRBNY. The loan has an interest rate of the one-month Libor plus 100 basis points. Under the terms of the deal, proceeds from the portfolio are paid out in the following order: operating expenses of Maiden Lane II LLC, principal to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, and deferred payment and interest due to AIG. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and AIG, with 5/6 going to the FRBNY.
On November 25, 2008, the FRBNY began extending credit to Maiden Lane III LLC, a limited liability company formed to purchase multi-sector collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) on which AIG had written credit default swap and similar contracts in return for the cancellation of those contracts. Details of the terms of the loan were published on the FRBNY website . Maiden Lane III LLC was funded with a $24.3 billion senior loan from the FRBNY and a $5 billion equity contribution from AIG. The loan from the FRBNY is collateralized by the portfolio of assets. The proceeds from the assets held by Maiden Lane III LLC are used to repay the loan to the FRBNY, including accrued interest. The senior loan was issued with a stated term of six years that may be extended by the FRBNY. The interest rate on the loan is the one-month Libor plus 100 basis points. Under the terms of the deal, payments from the proceeds of the portfolio are made in the following order: operating expenses of Maiden Lane III LLC, principal due to the FRBNY, interest due to the FRBNY, principal due to AIG, and interest due to AIG. Any remaining funds will be shared by the FRBNY and AIG, with 67 percent going to the FRBNY.
The loans to Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC were extended under the authority of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which permitted the Board, in unusual and exigent circumstances, to authorize Reserve Banks to extend credit to individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Preferred interest in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC
On December 1, 2009, the FRBNY received preferred interest in two special purpose vehicles, AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC, that were formed to hold the outstanding common stock of AIG's largest foreign insurance subsidiaries, American International Assurance Company Ltd. (AIA) and American Life Insurance Company (ALICO). In exchange, the outstanding balance of, and the amount of credit available excluding capitalized interest and fees, under the revolving credit facility was reduced. By establishing the AIA and ALICO SPVs as separate legal entities, these transaction positioned AIA and ALICO for future IPOs or sales.
Authorization to extend credit to AIG's domestic life insurance companies
On March 2, 2009, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced another restructuring of the government's support for AIG. As part of the restructuring plan, the Federal Reserve Board authorized the FRBNY to lend up to approximately $8.5 billion in credit to special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that would be established by domestic life insurance subsidiaries of AIG. The SPVs would repay the loans from the net cash flows they receive from designated blocks of existing life insurance policies held by the parent insurance companies. The proceeds of this new credit would be used to repay an equivalent amount of borrowing by AIG under the revolving credit facility established by the FRBNY in September 2008. The amounts lent, the size of the haircuts, and other terms of the loans would be determined based on valuations acceptable to the FRBNY. No credit was extended to AIG under this arrangement.
Data
- AIG Revolving Credit Facility: Excel (109 KB)
CSV Data (55 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (1 KB)- AIG Securities Borrowing Facility: Excel (58 KB)
CSV Data (18 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (4 KB)- Maiden Lane II LLC: Excel (32 KB)
CSV Data (3 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (2 KB)- Maiden Lane III LLC: Excel (32 KB)
CSV Data (3 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (2 KB)- AIA ALICO: Excel (30 KB)
CSV Data (3 KB ) | CSV Definitions and Notes (1 KB)Visit the Excel viewer for more information. Filter and sort features have been added to the column headers in the Excel spreadsheet to assist you with searching and to allow for the creation of custom datasets. Click on the arrow button in each column header to view and select the different filter and sort features.
The following information on the AIG revolving credit facility is provided (on a weekly Wednesday basis):
Data Description Date As-of date for data presented Balance Total amount of loan outstanding, in millions of dollars Facility ceiling Maximum amount available under line of credit, in millions of dollars Interest rate The nominal annualized interest rate charged to AIG on the loan amount, in percent Principal Component of outstanding balance, in millions of dollars Capitalized interest Component of outstanding balance, in millions of dollars Commitment fees Fee based on unused amount under line of credit. Component of outstanding balance, in millions of dollars The following information on AIG Securities Borrowing Facility transactions is provided:
Data Description Loan date The date of the trade Borrower AIG Inc. is the borrower in all transactions Loan amount The total dollar amount lent by the FRBNY on the particular trade date, in billions of dollars Interest rate Interest rate determined pursuant to Master Securities Loan Agreement, which varied according to the type of collateral. The maximum and minimum rates charged on each particular trade date have been included, in percent Collateral The total market value with interest of the collateral pledged on the particular trade date, in billions of dollars UST & Agency Unsecured debt issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, federal government agencies, and government-sponsored enterprises. Includes agency-guaranteed MBS/CMOs, in millions of dollars Municipal Securities issued by state and local governments and agencies, in millions of dollars Corporate Corporate securities (excluding convertible bonds and equities) and money market instruments, in millions of dollars MBS/CMO Agency Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) issued by government-sponsored enterprises, in millions of dollars Funds lent, by entity Breakdown of dollar amount lent by FRBNY by AIG subsidiary, in millions of dollars The following information on Maiden Lane II LLC transactions is provided (on a quarterly basis from December 2008 to October 2010):
Data Description FRBNY senior loan Loan from the FRBNY to Maiden Lane II LLC, in millions of dollars Principal balance (including accrued and capitalized interest) Total amount of the loan outstanding, including accrued and capitalized interest as of quarter end, in millions of dollars Accrued and capitalized interest during quarter Interest on the loan that was accrued and added to the balance of the loan, in millions of dollars Repayment during quarter Repayment from proceeds of the portfolio, in millions of dollars AIG fixed deferred purchase price As part of the asset purchase agreement, AIG subsidiaries were entitled to receive from Maiden Lane II LLC a fixed deferred purchase price plus interest on the amount. This obligation is subordinated to the senior loan extended by the FRBNY, and it reduced the amount paid by Maiden Lane II LLC for the assets by a corresponding amount
Summary of RMBS Portfolio Composition, Cash and Cash Equivalents, and Other Assets and Liabilities, Fair Value
Alt-A (ARM) Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backed by Alternative-A (Alt-A) adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), in millions of dollars Subprime RMBS backed by subprime mortgages, in millions of dollars Option ARM RMBS backed by Option ARMs, in millions of dollars Other Includes all asset sectors that, individually, represent less than 5 percent of aggregate outstanding fair value of securities in the portfolio, in millions of dollars Cash and cash equivalents Holdings of cash or other comparable, short-term, highly liquid assets, in millions of dollars Other assets Includes interest and principal receivable and other receivables, in millions of dollars Other liabilities Includes accrued expenses and other payables, in millions of dollars Securities portfolio distribution by credit rating Based on fair value, and the lowest of all ratings for each security, in percent The following information on Maiden Lane III LLC transactions is provided (on a quarterly basis from December 2008 to October 2010):
Data Description FRBNY senior loan Loan from the FRBNY to Maiden Lane II LLC, in millions of dollars Principal balance (including accrued and capitalized interest) as of quarter end Total amount of the loan outstanding, including accrued and capitalized interest as of quarter end, in millions of dollars Accrued and capitalized interest during quarter Interest on the loan that was accrued and added to the balance of the loan, in millions of dollars Repayment during quarter Repayment from proceeds of the portfolio, in millions of dollars AIG equity contribution As part of the asset purchase agreement, AIG purchased a $5 billion equity contribution, which is subordinated to the senior loan extended by FRBNY, in millions of dollars. Summary of Portfolio Composition, Cash and Cash Equivalents, and Other Assets and Liabilities, Fair Value High-Grade ABS CDO High-grade asset-backed security collateralized debt obligations (ABS CDO), in millions of dollars Mezzanine ABS CDO Mezzanine asset-backed collateralized debt obligations (ABS CDO), in millions of dollars Commercial real estate CDO Commercial real estate-backed collateralized debt obligations (CDO), in millions of dollars RMBS, CMBS, & Other Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS), and other securities, in millions of dollars Cash and cash equivalents Holdings of cash or other comparable, short-term, highly liquid asset, in millions of dollars Other assets Includes interest and principal receivable and other receivables, in millions of dollars Other liabilities Includes accrued expenses and other payables, in millions of dollars Securities portfolio distribution by credit rating Based on fair value, and the lowest of all ratings for each security, in percent The following information on the preferred interest in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC is provided:
Data Description Date As-of date for data presented Preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC Book value of preferred interest, in millions of dollars Accrued dividends on preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC Amount of dividends that have been accrued, in millions of dollars Preferred interests in ALICO Holdings LLC Book value of preferred interest, in millions of dollars Accrued dividends on preferred interests in ALICO Holdings LLC Amount of dividends that have been accrued, in millions of dollars Sections of this page
Related
Facilities and Programs
- Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program
- Term Auction Facility (TAF)
- Central Bank Liquidity Swap Lines
- Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF)
- Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) and TSLF Options Program (TOP)
- Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF)
- Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF)
- Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF)
- Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF)
- Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase, and Maiden Lane LLC
- American International Group (AIG), Maiden Lane II and III
- Bank of America
- Citigroup
Last update: December 3, 2010
Audit
The information below is provided as required by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The page will be updated as reports and other information becomes available.
Reports prepared by the Comptroller General
Under section 714 of title 31, United States Code.Annual Federal Reserve System financial statements
Annual audited financial statements of the Federal Reserve System and independent auditors' reports.Reports to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate (Relating to Emergency Lending Authority)
- Reports on Emergency Lending Authorized Pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act since July, 21, 2010 In accordance with Section 1101 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board will publish reports issued to the Congress not later than seven days after the Board authorizes any new loan or other financial assistance under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The Board also will publish written updates every 30 days with respect to any such loan or other financial assistance. There have been no new emergency loans authorized by the Board.
Other information about the liquidity and credit programs and other monetary policy tools that the Federal Reserve used to respond to the financial crisis
- Reports Pursuant to Section 129 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 The Federal Reserve filed reports with Congress pursuant to section 129(b) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The reports provided updates concerning the lending facilities established by the Board under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act that are currently outstanding. In October 2009, the Board began to incorporate these reports into its monthly report on "Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet."
- .
- Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet monthly reports The Federal Reserve prepares these monthly reports as part of its efforts to enhance transparency in connection with its various programs to foster market liquidity and financial stability and to ensure appropriate accountability to the Congress and the public concerning policy actions taken to address the financial crisis.
- .
- Transaction data Transaction detail related to the liquidity and credit programs and other monetary policy tools that the Federal Reserve used to respond to the financial crisis that emerged during the summer of 2007.
Other information helpful in understanding the accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks
International Lease Finance Prices $1 Bln Senior Notes Offering
12/2/2010
(RTTNews) - International Lease Finance Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (AIG: News ), said Thursday that it has priced and entered into an agreement to issue and sell, its public offering of $1.0 billion aggregate principal amount of 81/4% senior notes due 2020.
The notes will be issued by International Lease Finance at the initial price of 99.160% of the principal amount. The offering is expected to close on December 7.
The aggregate net proceeds from the sale of the notes, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, fees and estimated offering expenses, will be about $976.4 million and will be used by International Lease Finance for general corporate purposes, including the repayment of existing indebtedness.
Click here to receive FREE breaking news email alerts for American International Group, Inc. and others in your portfolio
.
ROBERT McCARTNEY
Debacle over drinking water deals a blow to CDC and EPA
When it comes to something as simple and basic as ensuring that our drinking water doesn't poison our children, you'd think federal scientists and environmentalists would hustle to give the public the fullest and most reliable information as quickly as possible.
You'd also think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency would go out of their way to publicize it when the government's own research finds that the risk posed by lead in the water nationwide is greater than previously described, and that one of the EPA's top recommended solutions is useless.
You'd be wrong.
Those are two important lessons to be drawn from Wednesday's release of a CDC report on the 2004 crisis of lead in the water in the District. In the official research paper, the nation's premier public health agency finally confirmed in full scientific detail that it completely bungled its initial work that tried to minimize the risk in the water.
I'm glad that the CDC ended years of denial and stonewalling. But its credibility suffered considerably because it took so long and acted only under sustained pressure from safe-water advocates, the media and Congress.
"They were too quick to publish a flawed study, and they were too slow to retract it, when they knew that others were relying on it," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of a House subcommittee that issued a blistering report in May of the CDC's handling of the issue.
Moreover, the CDC and EPA have done virtually nothing this week to alert the public about the report even though it raises major questions about government policies on lead pipes used in between 3 million and 6 million households nationwide.
The report contains two troubling findings. First, it says that young children and expectant mothers are at elevated risk of lead poisoning if they live in homes served by lead pipes, regardless of the age of the housing and even if the water in the system as a whole is considered safe by EPA standards.
Basically, that puts in question the safety of drinking water in numerous houses in older neighborhoods in cities including Washington, Chicago, Detroit and Providence, R.I.
"What it does is say that the EPA lead in water standard is not itself sufficient to stop higher incidence of blood lead in children," said Marc Edwards, the award-winning Virginia Tech environmental engineering professor who spearheaded the long campaign that ultimately forced the CDC to reverse itself.
When exposed to lead, young children risk suffering diminished IQ. The main threat in old homes comes from lead in paint and dust, and the added danger posed by water is subtle and hard to quantify. But the new report says it's real.
"We need public education," Edwards said. "It's not a cause for panic, but that change in the CDC message is very profound."
Edwards suggested that residents of District homes served by lead pipes follow D.C. Water's recommendations to have their water tested. If the household includes children under the age of 6, it'd be wise to use filtered or bottled water, or at least flush the pipes for a couple of minutes before drinking.
The CDC report also confirmed something that Edwards and other experts concluded years ago: It does no good to replace just some lead pipes serving a home. It's necessary to remove them all to be sure of solving the problem.
Many specialists, including some at the EPA, believe partial replacements actually make the problem worse, at least temporarily. That's partly because the work can dislodge lead particles within the pipes.
The implications of the new finding are potentially staggering. They suggest that the EPA, which officially supports partial lead-pipe replacements, has been giving the public bad and costly advice since 1991 despite growing pressure to alter its position.
For instance, under EPA guidance, the District spent $97 million for 17,000 replacements. Of those, 15,000 were the partial variety found to be worthless at best.
To its credit, D.C. Water sharply reduced partial replacements in 2008. It decided they were aggravating the problem. The exception is when such work is necessary to fix broken pipes, in which case D.C. Water pays for lead monitoring and filters.
Recommending partial replacements is "still part of the [EPA] rule, in spite of this fairly large and extensive field test in Washington, D.C., that indicates it doesn't work," D.C. Water General Manager George S. Hawkins said.
"That rule ought to be changed Monday," he said.
As of Friday afternoon, however, despite requests from journalists, the EPA hadn't commented.
Miller, who heads the investigations and oversight subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee, said he suspected the CDC took so long to issue its report partly because of the human instinct "to be slow to admit error." Miller also faulted a tendency in government agencies to want to reassure the public even when the facts warranted otherwise.
"There has been a tendency . . . to kind of pat people's hands and say everything's fine when there are real questions about whether the public health is being endangered by environmental exposures," Miller said. However, he added, government's proper role "is to tell people the Lord's own truth. And if that causes people to worry, then they should worry."
I dislike promoting public anxiety, but amen to that.
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing” – Thomas Jefferson
In October of 1941, counties in southern Oregon and Northern California were upset with the condition of roads throughout their counties. Their claims were that lack of proper roads and bridges were hindering the economic development of the area, particularly by making it difficult to gain access to and transport out the areas two biggest natural resources: copper and timber. The roads were oiled dirt roads that after rain or snow became impassable. The “greatest copper belt in the far West” was located there and the roads made it extremely difficult to mine and transport the copper ore. The counties were Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath, Oregon and Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc, California.
Gilbert Gable, then mayor of Port Orford, Oregon proposed that the seven counties should secede from their respective states and form a new state, which would at the time have been the 49th state in the union. This concept found sympathy throughout the area and on November 17th 1941, county representatives met in Yreka, CA and voted to allocate $100 to researching the formation of the 49th state. On November 19th, 1941, the Siskiyou Daily News offered up a $2 prize for the best name submitted for the new state and the name Jefferson, after Thomas Jefferson, was eventually chosen. Yreka was chosen as the capital.
After that, by November 27th, 1941 citizens of the State of Jefferson began stopping traffic on Highway 99, brandishing hunting rifles and handing out copes of their Proclamation of Independence:
You are now entering Jefferson, the 49th State of the Union.
Jefferson is now in patriotic rebellion against the States of California and Oregon.
This State has seceded from California and Oregon this Thursday, November 27, 1941.
Patriotic Jeffersonians intend to secede each Thursday until further notice.
For the next hundred miles as you drive along Highway 99, you are traveling parallel to the greatest copper belt in the far West, seventy-five miles west of here.
The United States government needs this vital mineral. But gross neglect by California and Oregon deprives us of necessary roads to bring out the copper ore.
If you don't believe this, drive down the Klamath River Highway and see for yourself. Take your chains, shovel and dynamite.
Until California and Oregon build a road into the copper country, Jefferson, as a defense minded state, will be forced to rebel each Thursday and act as a separate State.
(Please carry this proclamation with you and pass them out on your way.)
State of Jefferson Citizens Committee
Temporary State Capitol, YrekaThis act, of course, immediately began making headlines, and the San Francisco Chronicle even sent out a young reporter by the name of Stanton Delaplane, to cover the secession. He even earned a Pulitzer Prize for the series of articles he wrote. By December 4th, with the state seceding every Thursday until recognized, Judge John C. Childs was inaugurated as the governor of the new state and followed by a torchlight parade led by two bears, Scratchy and Itchy.
A State Seal was created which consisted of a gold pan on which two X's were painted on the bottom. The two X's symbolized how the new state was double crossed by both Salem, Oregon and Sacramento, California. This seal is on the state flag.
The new state was going to have no sales tax, no property tax, and no income tax. Red light districts and gambling halls would be opened and the revenue from these would fund the state.
Newsreels of the events occurring in Jefferson were to air nationally on December 8th, but on December 7th Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese thus throwing the United States into World War II and ending the secession of the California and Oregon counties that comprised the new state. The newsreels were shelved and both states fixed the roads and bridges in order to access the timber and copper required for the war effort. The secession movement died out.
But the concept of the State of Jefferson carried on. Today the idea of Jefferson still exists and has grown to include several other counties including Coos, Douglas, and Lake in Oregon and Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Mendocino, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, and Plumas in California. If this area were to become its own state, it would have over 423,000 people, but would still have the least population of any other US state. The original idea behind the State of Jefferson has been commemorate by the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway that runs between Yreka, CA and O'Brien, OR. Near the California / Oregon border there's a turn out spot with three informational displays talking about the area.
Ultimately the 1941 attempt of seceding was very much unlike any other secession movement. There was no violence, but instead joy and merriment. Much of the actions of the state were viewed as almost a joke by the rest of the country. Most people who were stopped by barricades and given the Proclamation of Independence laughed at the entire affair, thinking that the locals were just playing a big prank. Ironically, the method in which the secession occurred actually worked. The areas issues and problems were brought to light to the entire country and who knows, had it not been for the atrocity of World War II, Jefferson very well may have become the 49th state in the union.
It is important to note that actually seceding would have been rather difficult for the new state as under the Constitution, it was required that they had both the approval of the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of both Oregon and California.
.
We have buried our dead once already
By Gary Lake Daily News Posted Nov 30, 2010
Medford, Ore. —
CREATOR, I am not wise, Spiritually mature or as kind to my enemies as I wish I could be. I am perplexed at the path you have chosen for me, and the battles it leads my family and friends into. I know not why these things are happening again to my people by neighboring Tribes that experienced the very same thing when gold was discovered along the Klamath River 160 years ago.
With great conviction of my heart I DO KNOW this ... Today Water is the NEW Gold, and the Shasta People are being subjected to soft-genocidal practices and socioeconomic extermination tactics that will forever wipe a great race of People from the books of history if the dams are removed along the Klamath River, that are entirely inside aboriginal Shasta Lands.
NOWHERE in the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) are the Shasta People recognized. The Klamath Hydro Settlement Agreement (KHSA) exposes the Shasta People's burial grounds, Spiritual sites, ceremonial grounds and villages which are currently protected by reservoirs behind the dams that are to be taken out.
Said agreements will expose Shasta Human remains to be stolen and sold by looters for horrific private collections. The KHSA creates land transfers for fish and restoration purposes with no regard whatsoever to the original aboriginal Peoples of said territory, the Shasta People.
Great Creator, on this historic day of peace and friendship I humbly ask that you will open the hearts of the good Karuk, Yurok, Hoopa and Klamath People and let them think about what it is that their leaderships are about to do ... The Shastas have buried our dead once already, and then helplessly watched them covered over by water denying our access to practice certain inalienable human rights of Shasta Customs and Cultural practices.
We are fraught with the idea of having to collect bones from the banks of the river and once again bury that of which are not stolen or lost forever. How can we soothe the Spirits of so many souls when their bodies are scattered in pieces and strewn along the muddy banks of a ruined river?!
On this day that has duplicit meaning to Native Americans and non-Indians alike, I pray for compassion, Love and proper action with regards to the Shasta People. Sincerely and with great respect, God Bless ALL American People.
Gary Lake is a Konomihu-Shasta Indian from Medford, Ore. who has been spending much of his time of late in Yreka.Copyright 2010 Siskiyou Daily News. Some rights reserved
CropWorld North America 2011 Conference
February 8 and 9, 2011 at The Westin in Charlotte, North Carolina
Viewpoints: Water wars hinder sound decision-making
By Stan Dean
Special to The Bee Published: Friday, Dec. 3, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 17AIt is unfortunate that the wastewater discharge permit for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is being updated in such a frenzied atmosphere. Normally, the Regional Water Quality Control Board would step through its procedures to update the permit and come out with requirements that protect our waterways in a reasonable manner.
However, California's water wars surrounding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have escalated the politics, increased the stakes and ramped up the rhetoric and myths. In addition, the water board may or may not have a quorum on its hearing date Thursday, yet it still plans to hear the permit item – with or without a quorum, further complicating the decision-making process.
In this pressured environment the water board is stretching its discretion to the limit, and perhaps beyond its legal authority, by writing a very strict permit that is not supported by compelling, sound science. It is troubling that the strict permit mandates could cost the Sacramento region $2 billion in new wastewater treatment processes, raising rates for homeowners from $20 per month to about $60 per month, with proportional increases on businesses.
The Delta ecosystem is suffering a serious collapse. However, there is still no consensus on the most important drivers in the declining health of the Delta. The effects of water exports, invasive species, habitat loss and water quality have all been cited. The newly formed Delta Stewardship Council will be making a renewed effort to prioritize the causes of the Delta decline, but this has not yet happened.
There are valid questions remaining. Is water quality 1 percent of the problem, 5 percent of the problem, 20 percent of the Delta problems? We simply don't know.
In some respects, the wastewater treatment plant improvements required by the permit are like a big experiment; try it and see if it works. If this experiment were to cost $200 million, passing the price tag to Sacramento ratepayers might be acceptable; however, $2 billion is another matter.
Despite efforts to pin blame for the Delta's decline on the ammonia in the sanitation district's discharge, the science on the issue is contradictory and incomplete. We do know, however, that we should remove about half of the ammonium we discharge today to protect future conditions in the Delta, because science has given us a clear answer to that question. This reduction would actually return ammonia concentrations in the Delta to levels that existed in the 1980s, long before the ecosystem problems we are experiencing today.
But the current draft permit goes much further by mandating the removal of all ammonia – although the impacts of that action have not been studied and the need to do so remains unproven.
The permit also requires expensive filtration and disinfection technology that would have little noticeable effect on conditions in the Delta.
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District has the job of protecting public health, protecting the environment and keeping costs to our ratepayers affordable.
The district takes these responsibilities seriously. Our 99.9 percent compliance rate and more than $20 million investment in environmental efforts over the past decade clearly demonstrate our commitment to protecting the Sacramento River.
However, our responsibility to our ratepayers requires that we demand that regulatory actions be proven to be necessary, reasonable and based on sound and compelling science, as the Clean Water Act and California Water Code dictate.
Unfortunately, most of the water board's draft permit recommendations do not meet those criteria.
The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is not – as some have claimed – ignoring science or simply being obstinate.
We do, however, believe that it is our obligation to seek a reasonable balance between environmental protection and cost to ratepayers.
That is why we cannot support the regional board's draft permit recommendations.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/03/3229405/water-wars-hinder-sound-decision.html#ixzz172yqyzRNCAFA Helped the Court to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction
Adoma v. University of Phoenix, Inc . , No. CIV.S-10-0059 LKK/GG, 2010 WL 3431804 (E.D. Cal. Aug 31, 2010).
In this case, although a District Court in California disposed of all the federal claims, it exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because the plaintiffs established that the amount in controversy exceeded the threshold requirements of CAFA.
The plaintiffs, Adoma and Abbaszadeh, who worked as Enrollment Counselors for University of Phoenix and its parent company, brought an action under the FLSA and California Labor Code.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants maintained two computer systems regarding Enrollment Counselors' work--one system tracked the Counselors' availability for taking enrollment calls and another was used to track overtime hours worked. The overtime work recorded by the former system was not recorded by the latter system; thus, the plaintiffs claimed they were not paid for “off-the-clock” overtime. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants paid them the wrong hourly rate for overtime, and that the defendants caused employees to miss meal periods. In addition, the plaintiffs brought state law claims for waiting time penalties and for inaccurate pay stubs.
Other suits for overtime pay were pending against the defendants--one of which was-- Sabol v. The University of Phoenix, No. CV 09-03439-JCJ (E.D. Pa.). Because, the Sabol court certified a nationwide FLSA collective action; under first filed rule, this Court transferred the FLSA claims to the Sabol court, and thus declined to exercise jurisdiction over the FLSA claims advanced in this case.
Because the order transferring the FLSA claims to Sabol court disposed of all federal claims and the complaint only asserted supplemental jurisdiction as a basis for jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding subject matter jurisdiction. After the parties briefed the Court, it concluded that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d).
While holding so, the Court noted that the defendants were citizens of Arizona and the named plaintiffs were citizens of California. Besides, the Court found that the aggregation of potential class members' claims established that the amount in controversy exceeded §5 million.
The Court stated that the potential class included well over 1,000 members. On the “off-the-clock” overtime claim for which named plaintiff Adoma sought class certification, she alleged individual compensatory damages in excess of $34,000 and claims that evidence already produced demonstrated $4,732.47 in liability. On the plaintiffs' claim for statutory waiting time penalties, the plaintiffs sought up to the statutory maximum of $4,000 per employee (albeit only for a sub-class estimated to include 500 to 700 employees). The defendants argued that Adoma was entitled to no more than $1,750 in waiting time penalties. The Court remarked that even the reduced figures, if aggregated, exceeded the jurisdictional amount. ( E.g., 1,000 class members x $4,700 + $1,750 x 500 = $5,575,000.) Because the amount “in controversy” for these claims exceeded the statutory threshold, the Court found that the jurisdiction over class claims was proper under §1332(d).
Accordingly, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
.
Power Industry Eyes Work With EPA On Plan To Avoid Rule 'Train Wreck'
Power industry officials are crafting a strategy for working with EPA to avoid fears of a "train wreck" of compliance costs and other burdens from pending agency air, water, waste and climate rules due within the next five years, though other industry officials are looking to the GOP-led House next year to restrict EPA's rulemaking authority.
Key Adviser Floats EPA -DOE Plan To Address Reliability Impacts Of Rules
The chair of a key Department of Energy (DOE) advisory panel is suggesting a new EPA-DOE process to assess the impact pending EPA rules could have on electric grid reliability, an emerging proposal for resolving fears from industry, lawmakers and others that a slew of agency rules will have adverse impacts on electricity generation.
Groups Push Major Electric Power Sector Overhaul To Boost Clean Energy
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is pushing a major overhaul of the electric power sector including changes to the tax structure and new FERC directives to promote clean energy resources, but some industry observers doubt whether the plan will gain traction in the divided 112th Congress because it could raise utility costs.Likely Inaction On RES During Lame Duck Shifts Focus To Grants Renewal
Congress is unlikely to pass a renewable electricity standard (RES) in the lame duck session, say congressional staffers and renewable energy industry officials, prompting industry groups to shift their focus to having lawmakers instead pass an extension of a federal grants program for renewable energy projects.FERC Touts 'Transformative' Proposal For Integrating Renewables In Grid
FERC officials say a new commission proposal offers "transformative" plans for how to better integrate renewable energy resources into the electricity grid, including provisions requiring utilities to schedule transmission on 15-minute intervals which could benefit wind, solar and other renewable sources by providing greater scheduling accuracy.Industry Sees Upton Allowing EPA Auto GHG Rules As Energy Panel Chair
Rep. Fred Upton's (R-MI) bid to chair the Energy & Commerce Committee next year is winning support from some automobile industry officials who say the lawmaker would likely allow EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for cars to continue, compared to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who might try to limit or scrap the rules if he takes the committee's top spot.Foes Seek To Expand Limits On EPA Climate Rules Beyond Rockefeller Plan
Industry groups and lawmakers are weighing options to expand the scope of a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to block EPA from regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources by also exempting pending air permits from GHG limits or excluding GHGs from case-by-case permit technology reviews.States, Industry Eye GOP To Strip DOE Of Nuclear Waste Fund Authority
State utility commissioners and nuclear power industry officials say they are looking to key Republicans to take up a bill next year that would end what they say is DOE's sub-par management of a federal fund for building a central nuclear waste repository, arguing that the plan echoes the GOP's campaign arguments of fiscal responsibility.Lack Of Cleanup Plan Could Sideline Nuclear Waste Panel, Activists Warn
Recent reports that EPA and other agencies are struggling to determine who would oversee cleanup in the event a major nuclear power plant accident dispersed radiation offsite could overshadow the efforts of a presidential commission intended to devise a strategy for managing the plants' radioactive waste, anti-nuclear activists are warning.DOE, EPA, Treasury Work On Financing To Help Facilities Meet Boiler Rule
DOE is in talks with EPA and the Department of Treasury to find ways to help facilities pay for the cost of installing emission controls on hundreds of thousands of boilers covered by the agency's pending air toxics rule for the units, an apparent nod to industry, lawmakers and others who have decried the high cost of the rule.EPA Vows 'Case-By-Case' Oversight To Ensure TRI Reporting For Coal Ash
EPA officials are vowing to conduct "case-by-case" oversight to ensure power plants and other generators of coal ash and coal combustion residuals (CCRs) report their waste releases to the agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) even before the agency makes its landmark determination on whether to strictly regulate the waste as "hazardous."Newsroom Notes
Honda Suggests California ZEV Rule May Thwart National GHG Standard
American Honda company officials are questioning California regulators about whether a proposed overhaul of the state's zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards may thwart efforts by state and federal agencies to reach a deal on a new round of national greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel economy rules for 2017-2025 model-year vehicles. The company officials are suggesting that several compliance options for meeting the new GHG standards may be blocked by the proposed ZEV regulation, which generally requires automakers to ramp up sales of hybrid-electric, plug-in electric, battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles between now and 2025.Industry Criticizes Lack Of Detail In EPA's Draft E15 Tanks Guidance
Some petroleum industry experts are criticizing EPA's just-released draft guidance on the compatibility of underground storage tanks (UST) with fuels that contain more than 15 percent ethanol (E15) and biodiesels, saying the document presents little new relevant information for tank owners and operators on how to prevent leaks due to corrosion.Utilities, States Oppose Future Policies As Part Of FERC Transmission Plan
Several utilities and state officials are urging FERC to reject a proposal endorsed by the renewable energy industry and others to require consideration of future public policies in transmission planning, arguing that inclusion of hypothetical policy directives could create planning logjams and usurp legislative and regulatory policy-making powers.Activists Reject Challenges Over FERC Jurisdiction For Transmission Plan
Environmentalists are rejecting claims that FERC lacks jurisdiction to implement a sweeping proposal to reform transmission planning and cost allocation, arguing that the changes are vital to ensure just and reasonable rates and maintain grid reliability while calling for FERC to clarify how to include renewable energy and other public policy goals in transmission planning.Grid Planners Urge FERC To Clarify Public Policy Goals In Transmission Plan
Electricity grid operators are urging FERC to clarify what constitutes a public policy objective that would need to be considered as part of planning processes within the commission's sweeping transmission reform proposal, warning that a definition that is too broad could create a policy "circus" that may spur lawsuits..
Pharmaceutical Industry Questions Legality Of EPA Drug Disposal Guidance
The pharmaceutical industry is questioning the legality of an EPA guidance laying out prescriptive measures for hospitals to reduce the influx of drugs in wastewater -- and ultimately to source waters -- saying it is beyond the scope of EPA's jurisdiction and is inconsistent with other federal requirements.
Water Agencies Blast California Plan To Set Numeric Toxicity Limits
Wastewater treatment and stormwater agencies in California are criticizing a state plan to set statewide numeric whole effluent toxicity (WET) objectives and use those objectives to set effluent limitations, arguing that the policy is scientifically and technically flawed and would result in many discharges being falsely labeled as "toxic" and therefore in violation of water quality standards.
EPA Extends Comment Period For Proposed Water Test Method Changes
EPA is granting a 30-day extension to its comment period for proposed changes to acceptable procedures for testing wastewater effluent, heeding calls from some industry groups that the original 60-day comment period was insufficient to properly analyze and comment on the thousands of pages of supporting documents included in the proposed rule.
Risk Policy Report - 11/23/2010
Facing Fears Over Rules' Costs, EPA Moves To Increase Benefits' Estimates
EPA is moving to update and likely raise some of its years-old estimates for quantifying the health and mortality benefits of its regulations, such as the value of reduced asthma cases or lives saved, a policy that could help the agency fend off growing criticisms from industry and GOP lawmakers that its rules are too costly while providing little benefit.Activists, Industry At Odds Over Future Of Key 'Green' Chemistry Standard
Environmentalists and industry groups are at odds over the adequacy of a landmark proposal for a national green chemistry standard, with some environmentalists calling for the "green" moniker to be dropped because the draft standard does not allow consumers to assess the relative toxicity and energy efficiency of various chemicals.EPA Sees Hurdles In Bid To Extend Endocrine Testing To Water Toxics
EPA's plan to expand its controversial and oft-delayed endocrine disruptor screening program (EDSP) to require testing of drinking water contaminants as well as pesticides presents new challenges for the agency in large part because it is more difficult to identify parties responsible for testing ubiquitous water contaminants than registered pesticides.Industry Shifts Burden To GOP House For Crafting TSCA Proposal In 2011
Chemical industry officials are downplaying environmentalists' suggestions that the burden rests with industry to offer a legislative proposal for reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) next year, saying they are looking to the GOP-led House in the 112th Congress to take the lead on crafting a proposal.EPA Extends Comment Period For Proposed Water Test Method Changes
EPA is granting a 30-day extension to its comment period for proposed changes to acceptable procedures for testing wastewater effluent, heeding calls from some industry groups that the original 60-day comment period was insufficient to properly analyze and comment on the thousands of pages of supporting documents included in the proposed rule.Activists Aim To Force Agency Consultation On Dispersants' Species Impacts
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is seeking to force EPA and the Coast Guard to consult with wildlife agencies on the endangered species impacts from dispersants and other oil spill response technologies before preauthorizing their use in Alaska.Activists Seek EPA Enforcement To Push Policy For 'New' Nano-Pesticides
Environmentalists are urging EPA to reconsider the safety of an already-registered copper-based wood treatment pesticide because it contains nanoscale ingredients, a case that if brought could begin to implement, and possibly expand, a long-stalled agency policy subjecting existing pesticides that contain nanoscale material to regulation as "new" products.EPA Seeks Expert Advice To Complete Phthalates Assessment Urged By NAS
EPA is planning to hold an expert consultation to provide advice on how the agency should respond to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as it assesses the cumulative risks of six phthalates -- a review that will likely grapple with warnings from the Academy and others that any cumulative assessment will underestimate risk if it does not include other chemicals that also act upon the same target organs.Data On Particulate Link To Higher Blood Pressure May Justify Strict Air Rules
Researchers are pointing to new data they say strengthens the link between traffic emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and increased blood pressure, which could help resolve inconsistencies with existing research on the issue and "further strengthen" the justification for EPA emission rules to reduce PM2.5.Industry Sees State, TSCA Legal Challenges To Green Chemistry Rules
Industry groups subject to California's landmark green chemistry regulations are likely to file a lawsuit in state court arguing the state's toxics department is overstepping its authority by requiring the release of confidential business information (CBI) or trade secrets, according to sources.GOP Vow For Permanent Security Plan Could End Water Utility Exemption
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), incoming chair of the Homeland Security Committee, is vowing to make permanent authorization of interim Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chemical security rules a top priority next year, which sources say is unlikely to require companies to use inherently safer technologies, or less risky alternative chemicals and processes.Advisers Urge USGS To Better Justify Major Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Federal science advisers are supporting the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) plan to triple the size of its water quality monitoring program -- used by EPA and other agencies in regulatory decisions -- but are urging USGS to better justify the proposal, which could help a future push to win vital new congressional funding for the project.EPA Plans New TRI Method For Launching Emergency Planning Efforts
EPA is revising its method for determining whether local officials must revise their emergency response plans to prevent harm from some Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS), a rulemaking EPA is launching in response to an industry request to re-examine the rationale for listing the herbicide paraquat dichloride as an EHS when it is handled as a solid in an aqueous solution.Industry May Urge OMB To Expand EPA's Planned TRI Waiver For 'Products'
Wood treatment and other industry groups are planning to ask the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to expand a planned EPA rule that industry says unlawfully narrows a long-standing policy clarifying when toxic releases from many finished wood products are exempt from reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)..
Industry, Activists Craft Model Fracking Rules To Strengthen State Measures
Industry and environmentalists have begun working together on model rules that states could adopt to govern well construction and other underground requirements for energy operations that use the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, an approach one source says could complement voluntary audits of state oil and gas rules.
.
Update - FDA Bill in Senate
Despite the delays, the so-called "Food Safety Modernization Act" ( S.510 ) remains a major threat to local food networks and market-based food systems. S.510 empowers the FDA with totalitarian authority over the whole gamut of food, and would give the regulatory agency the ability to wantonly impose burdensome requirements on even the smallest of food processors, e.g. a local family farm.
Hoping to quell the concerns of liberty activists, proponents of expanding the government's control over what we put into our own bodies point to the latest version of S.510, which includes a few provisions that recognize the difference in scale between large manufacturing plants and your local farms; however, the vast majority of these provisions are actually left to the FDA's discretion. In other words, it will be up to whomever Obama puts in charge of the FDA to decide whether or not your local food network is crushed by federal regulations, or simply shut down if the G-men have "reason to believe" the food on the premises is contaminated....
EPA Seeks To Stop States' Use Of Strict Discharge Limit For Building Sites
EPA is taking steps to stop a host of states from using its strict numeric discharge limit for the construction industry while the agency revises it, a move that could address industry fears that states would use the water quality limit in their permits even though EPA is revising it due to data errors.
EPA Stormwater Rule To Include 'Flow' Metrics For Discharge Permits
EPA plans to introduce first-time "flow" metrics in stormwater permits as part of its upcoming post-construction stormwater rule, providing measurable endpoints for water quality in permits, rather than just requirements for actions to mitigate the amount and quality of stormwater entering waters.
Obama Floats Preempting EPA GHG Rules In Exchange For Clean Energy
Following his party's Election Day rebuke, President Obama has opened the door to preempting EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in exchange for a scaled-back bipartisan agreement that would at least begin to address the problem of climate change by encouraging development of clean energy choices.
Water Policy Report - 11/22/2010
Activists Challenge Landmark EPA Rule For Florida Water Nutrient Criteria
Environmentalists are asking a federal court to invalidate a controversial provision in EPA's precedent-setting nutrient criteria for Florida that allows stakeholders to petition for site-specific alternate criteria (SSAC) for specific waterbodies, charging that EPA's approach allowing the SSACs to be applied to an entire waterbody, rather than a specific permit holder, is unlawful.EPA Delays Implementation Of Landmark Numeric Nutrient Rule In Florida
EPA is delaying by 15 months implementation of its landmark rule setting strict numeric nutrient limits for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, granting calls from recently elected GOP officials but rejecting calls from industry and other critics for a lengthier delay for scientific review.Bolstering EPA Efforts, USDA Plans To Strengthen Nutrient Guide For Farms
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is poised to propose ways to strengthen its nutrient management standards for farms, a move that could bolster several pending EPA and state efforts to curtail nutrient pollution from crop and livestock production that is harming water quality nationwide.EPA Support For Key 'Pristine' Waters Program Leaves Open Questions
EPA has partially approved Kentucky's landmark plan for determining how to provide increased protection to pristine waters, but activists say the agency's action fails to clarify which waters are subject to the strict requirements and could potentially spark further litigation and intensified lobbying to have EPA address the issue in a pending rulemaking.EPA Could Use Strict Mining Guide In Enforcement Over Existing Permits
EPA is pursuing an aggressive new enforcement strategy to address adverse environmental impacts from mountaintop mining projects and is considering retroactive application of its strict new Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting guidelines in enforcement actions against existing surface mining water permits, sources say.Ruling Could Boost Bill To Exempt 'Samaritan' Mine Cleanups From Permits
A just-issued appellate court's ruling that cleanup activities on abandoned coal mine sites are subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting requirements could boost prospects in the next Congress for long-stalled bipartisan legislation that would provide "Good Samaritan" waivers from those requirements for mine cleanups, Senate and other sources say.EPA Mining Guidance Obstructing State Issuance Of Reclamation Permits
EPA requirements in the agency's landmark Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting guidance for surface mining projects is obstructing West Virginia's issuance of water permits that the state must obtain before it can proceed with cleanup activities at abandoned mining sites, according to state sources and documents.Industry, States Move To Deny EPA 'Home Court' Advantage In Guidance Suits
Industry and states involved in various lawsuits challenging EPA's surface mining crackdown argue those cases should remain separate and centered in Appalachia, rather than consolidated into a single proceeding in the District of Columbia as the agency has asked, according to new court filings.Monday, November 29, 2010
High Court Won't Hear Everglades Pollution Case
(CN) - The nation's high court on Monday refused to disturb a lower court's ruling that the transfer of polluted water from one body of water to another doesn't violate the Clean Water Act.
In June 2009, the federal appeals court in Atlanta allowed the Southern Florida Water Management District to pump agricultural runoff into Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida without a permit.
Environmental groups, including the Friends of the Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe, said the pumping violated the Clean Water Act, but the 11th Circuit said a regulation recently issued by the Environmental Protection Agency changed that.
The new regulation interpreted the phrase "navigable waters" in the Act's ban on adding pollutants to "navigable waters from any point source" to mean all bodies of water within the United States.
This so-called "unitary waters theory" meant that pollutants could be transferred from one body of water to another without requiring a permit.
Friends of the Everglades said the regulation didn't match the goals of the Clean Water Act and would result in "horrible hypotheticals," including the pumping of the most polluted water in the country into the most pristine lake.
But the 11th Circuit deferred to the EPA's interpretation, calling it "reasonable and therefore permissible."
The Supreme Court left that ruling intact by deciding not to hear the environmentalists' appeal.How to incorporate sustainability concepts into EPA programs.
EXACTIONS § 2680. EXCEPTIONS, ESTOPPEL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENTS, HEARING
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE et al,
T.W. ARMAN and JOHN F. HUTCHENS,
(real parties in interest), “Two Miners”
Under God, Indivisible; Patentee, Grantee
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Grantor
DEMAND FOR JUST COMPENSATION,
DEMAND FOR SURRENDER;
DEMAND FOR FORCIBLE UNLAWFUL DETAINER TREBLE DAMAGES;
DEMAND FOR ABOLITION AND EMANCIPATION FROM CONTINUING NEGLIGENT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RECKLESS FELONIOUS ENDANGERMENT BY JOINT & SEVERAL TRESPASSERS.
Breve capitalis justiciarius noster and ad placita coram nobis tenenda, Alodium and Alodarii; detinue sur bailment; subpoena ad testificandum; LIBEL, SLANDER, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, POISONING OF REPUTATION
IV. Conversion may be either, 1. by a wrongful taking a personal chattel; 2. by some other illegal assumption of ownership, or by illegally using or misusing it; or 3. by a wrongful detention.
The wrongful taking of the goods of another who has the right of possession, is of itself a conversion, and so is the compelling of a party to deliver up goods; and whenever trespass will lie for taking goods of the plaintiff wrongfully, trover will also lie. 3 Wils. 19 ; Willes, 33 ; 2 Saund. 47 A; Cro. Eliz. 824. Thus trover lies against the assignees under a commission of bankrupt, where they compel a party to deliver up his property when he was not subject to the bankrupt laws. 3 B. Sr R. 2; 6 J. B. Moore, 56, S. C. And if goods be wrongfully seized as a distress, though they be not removed from the place in which they were, yet trover may be supported, because the possession in point of law is changed by their being seized as a distress. Willes, 56. And a seizure of goods under a fieri facia* after a party's bankruptcy, ana a removal of them to a broker's, is a sufficient conversion. 3 Campb. 396. And this action may be supported after an acquittal of the defendant for the felonious taking of goods. 12 East,
In the case of a conversion by wrongful taking, it is not necessary to prove a demand and refusal. 1 Sid. 164; 6 Afod. 212; Bui. N. P. 44; 1 Mark. 173 ; 3 B. Sr B. 2; 6 /. B. Moore, 56, S. C. And the intent of the party is immaterial ; for, although the defendant acted under a supposition that he was justified in what he did, he will be equally liable to this action. 4 M. Sf S. 260. But if the possession was obtained under colour of a contract, trover cannot be sustained, 3 Campb. 299, 352; 3 Taunt. 274; unless a case of fraud can be proved. 7 Taunt. 59; 1 B. Sf C. 514.
So the wrongful assumption of the property or right of disposing of goods, may be a conversion in itself, and render unnecessary a demand and refusal, 5 East, 407; 6 East, 540; 4 Taunt. 24; 2 B. Sf B.Z; 6 J. B. Moore, 56, S. C.; 4 Taunt. 799 ; as well as any tender of charges, 1 Campb. 410 ; 2 M. Sf S. 298; 3 Campb. 472, 473. Thus a sale of a ship, which was afterwards lost at sea, made by the defendant, who claimed under a defective conveyance from a trader before his bankruptcy, is a sufficient conversion to enable the assignees of the bankrupt to maintain trover, without showing a demand and refusal. 5 East, 407, 420.
So where a person entrusted with the goods of another, puts them into the hands of a third person, contrary to orders, it is a conversion. 4 T. R. 2G4. And if one tenant in common sell the other's goods without his consent, it is a conversion, and trover is maintainable, 5 B. Sf A. 395 ; and where a carrier, Peake, C. N. P. 49 ; 5 Burr. 2825; see 1 Taunt. 391 ; 1 Campb. 409, 439, ante; or a wharfinger, 2 B. $ A. 702, by mistake, delivers goods to a wrong person, trover may be supported, though it would be otherwise if they were left by accident, lb. 41, n.; and if a person illegally make use of a thing found or delivered to him, it is a conversion in itself, Cro. Eliz. 219; or if a bailee, merely to keep or carry, and having no beneficial interest, misuse a chattel entrusted to him, Id. ibid.; as if a carrier draw out part of the contents of a vessel, and fill it with water, 1 Stra. 576 ; or if a carrier or wharfinger break open a box containing goods, or sell them. 2 Salk. 655. So an irregularity in a distress taken damage feasant may amount to a conversion, Cro. Jac. 148 ; Bac. Ab., Trover, B.; though not in the case of a distress for rent, when we have seen trover cannot be supported, 1 Hen. Bla. 10; and a party will be personally liable for the conversion to the use of another, although he acted under a supposition that he was justified in what he did. 4 M. $ S. 259.
But unless there be an illegal assumption of property, trover cannot in general be supported for a mere non-feasance, C East, 540; 2 B. Sf A. 701; and therefore if a carrier, or other bailee, by negligence, lose goods entrusted to his care, the remedy in general must be case or assumpsit, 5 Burr. 2825 ; 2 Saund. 47; Peake, C. N. P. 240; and an agent selling at an underprice is not liable to an action of trover, 3 Taunt. 117 ; and the retention of property under the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, is no conversion. 4 J. B. Moore , 361.
In the preceding instances proof of the act of the defendant is sufficient without evidence of a demand and refusal, 4 Taunt. 801; but where the plaintiff is not prepared to prove some such actual assumption of property, trover cannot be supported without proof of a demand and refusal, or at least a neglect to deliver the goods. Bui. N. P. 44; 2 Saund. 47 e; 13 East, 177, 197 ; 1 Campb. 439 ; 5 M. Sf S. 105.
If in trover an actual conversion cannot be proved, then proof is to be had of a demand made, before the action brought, of the thing for which the action is commenced, and that the thing demanded was not delivered. In this case, though an actual conversion may not be proved, a demand, and refusing to deliver the things demanded, is a sufficient evidence to the jury that he converted the same, till it appears to the contrary. 10 Rep. 56, 491 ; 2 Lil. 619.
Where a defendant really comes to the possession by finding, denial is a conversion; but if he had the goods, &c. by delivery, there denial is no conversion, but evidence of conversion : and in both cases the defendant hath a lawful possession, either by finding or by delivery ; and where the possession is lawful, the plaintiff must show a demand and a refusal, to make a conversion : though if the possession was tortious, as if the defendant takes away the plaintiff's har, the very taking is a sufficient proof of the conversion, without proving a demand and refusal. Sid. 264 ; 3 Salk. 365.
By Holt, C. J., the denial of goods to him who hath a right to demand them, is a conversion; and after a demand and refusal, if the defendant tender the goods, and the plaintiff refuse to receive them, that will go only in mitigation of damages, not to the right of the action of trover, for the plaintiff may have that still. Mod. Cas. 212.
An action of trover and conversion may be brought for goods, although the goods came into possession of the plaintiff before the action is brought, which doth not purge the wrong, or make satisfaction for that which was done to the plaintiff by detaining the goods. If a man takes ray horse and rides him, and afterwards delivers him to me, trover lies against him, for this is a conversion, and the re-delivery is no bar to the action. 1 Dane. Abr. 21 ; 2 Lil. 618.
But it has been recently held, that a demand and refusal are evidence only, and are not conclusive of the fact of conversion, and they are cured by a subsequent tender of the goods before action brought. 1 Moo. Sf Sc. 459.
Where a trader, on the eve of his bankruptcy, made a collusive sale of his goods to the defendant, it was decided that the assignees could not maintain trover without proving a demand and refusal, 2 Hen. Bla. 135 ; 2 Esp. Rep. 96 ; or where the sheriff, having taken goods in execution after a secret act of bankruptcy, has not proceeded to sell. 3 Campb. 396 ; sed vide 4 M. § S. 268.
Such a demand and non-compliance are prima facie evidence of a conversion, and will induce a jury to find it, unless the defendant adduce evidence to negative the presumption ; as that he being a carrier, &c. lost the goods by negligence, &c. Bui. N. P. 44; 2 Saund. 47 e.; Peake's Lam of Evidence, 298; or that he had reasonable grounds for doubting the plaintiff's right, and offered to deliver them to the right owner. 3 Campb. 215 n.; 2 Bulst. 310; 5 J. B. Moore, 559, 266, n.; 2 B. <£ P. 464; 5 B. Sf A. 247. And where the demand of the things for which the action is brought is not made by the plaintiff himself, who is the owner, but by another person on his account, a refusal by the defendant, on the ground that he does not know to whom the things belong, or that the person who applies for them is not properly empowered to receive them, or until he is satisfied by what authority the application is made, this will not be such a refusal as to create a conversion. 1 Esp. N. P. C. 87 ; and see J. B. Moore, 259. In an action of trover against an agent, if the plaintiff rely on a refusal to deliver up the property as evidence of a conversion, it must amount to an absolute and not a mere qualified one; and on an agent's refusal to deliver up the goods without his master's directions, it is not sufficient to render him personally liable. 5 B. $ A. 247 ; 2 Mod. 242.
A refusal by a bailee to deliver goods to the real owner without the authority of the bailor, who has in fact no lien, is sufficient evidence of a conversion. 1 B. <$• A. 450.
Where the plaintiff sold utensils in a brewhouse to T. who paid for them, and was to take them away, but the defendant being possessed of the brewhouse, the utensils were demanded of him by the plaintiff's attorney, accompanied by T., when the defendant said he would not deliver them to any body, and afterwards the plaintiffs repaid T. and brought trover for the goods : the Court of King's Bench held that this demand and refusal were sufficient evidence of conversion to support the action, without any new demand after the re-payment to T. 5 M. Sr S. 105.
A. brought an action of trespass against B. for taking away a filly; B. justified the taking as the servant of C. ; the jury found a verdict for A., with damages, subject to a reference to D. one of the jurors, to ascertain to whom she belonged (which was to depend on whether a scar should appear on a certain part of her body, and in case it should, the verdict for A. was to stand; if not, it was to be entered for B.) The filly was delivered to D. by consent of all parties, and he made his award, and found her to belong to A., and accordingly ordered the verdict for him to stand. C, ten days after the award, demanded the filly of D., who refused to deliver her, and a fortnight afterwards C. brought an action of trover for her recovery: held that the detention of the filly by D. did not, under the circumstances, amount to a conversion; as C. was no party to the original action, and as it did not appear that he was authorized by B. to make the demand, to whom alone D. was bound to deliver her, he only being liable to the damages awarded to A. 5 Moore, 259 ; 2 B. 4- B. 447.
In trover against several defendants, all cannot be found guilty on the same count, without proof of a joint conversion by all. 1 M. Sr S. 588.
In trover for a bond, the plaintiff need not show the date, for the bond being lost or converted, he may not know the date: and if he should set out the date and mistake it, he would fail in his action. Cro. Car. 262. If the defendant find the bond and receive the money, action of account lieth against the receiver, and not trover. Cro. Eliz. 723.
Where the trover of goods is in one county, and the conversion in another county, the action brought for these goods may be laid in the county where the conversion was, or in any other county, as it is only a transitory action; and neither the place of trover nor conve rsion, are traversable. Pash. 23 Car. B. R.
Formerly under the general issue Not Guilty the special matter might have been given in evidence to prove the plaintiff had no cause of action, or to entitle the defendant to the thing in controversy. 2 Bulst. 313. Vide also 2 Salk. 654; Yelv. 198 ; Cro. Car. 27 ; 2 Lil. 622.
But the plea of Not Guilty now operates as a denial only if the breach of duty or wrongful act alleged to have been committed by the defendant, and all other pleas in denial must take issue on some particular matter of fact alleged in the declaration. See further, Not Guilty.
The jury are not limited to find as damages the mere value of the property at the time of the conversion, but they at their discretion find the value at a subsequent time, as damages. 1 C. Sr P. 625.
In trover for a bill of exchange, the damages are to be calculated according to the amount of the principal and interest due upon the bill at the time of the conversion. 3 Campb. 477.
After a plaintiff had recovered damages under a writ of inquiry in trover for the conversion of his title-deeds, the court permitted satisfaction of the damages to be entered on the roll, on the terms of the defendant's delivering up the deeds and paying all the costs as between attorney and client incurred by the plaintiff in the cause, and placing the plaintiff.in as good a situation as he stood in before the cause of action accrued. 1 D. $ It. 201.
None shall be held to special bail in action of trover or detinue without a judge's order. Reg. Gen. K. B. and C. P. Hil. 48 Geo. 3. 9 East, 325; 1 Taunt. 203.
TRUCE, treuga.~\ A league or cessation of arms. Anciently there were keepers of truces appointed; as King Edward III. constituted, by commission, two keepers of the truce between him and the king of Scots, with this clause, nos voluntes treugam prcediclam quantum ad nos pertinct observari, fyc. Rot. Scot. 10 Edw. 3. See Conservators of the Truce, Safe Conduct. Ministries of T.W. Arman.
WATER RIGHTS NOVATION PETITION FOR CLERKS WRIT OF ENTRY, cestui que trust
APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: CAFA CERTIFICATION; BAN EPA;
APEX LAW ACTION; REMISSION; REVERSION; DETINUE SUR BAILMENT; VOID & VACATE LIEN & VACATE CONSENT DECREE & VACATE PREMISES & ABOLISH COERCIVE MONOPOLY; ABOLISH ESTABLISHED HOLISTIC BELIEFS. REMIT TRUST
SURRENDER IRON MOUNTAIN MINE REMEDIATION TRUSTS TO MR. T.W. ARMAN.
SURRENDER IRON MOUNTAIN MINE TO MR. T.W. ARMAN'S TENANT-IN-CHIEF
SURRENDER IRON MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS, TAKE PERSONAL POSSESSIONS. GO.
1414. As between appropriators, the one first in time is the first in right. QUO WARRANTO
1530. Novation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one. MANDAMUS
Congress has the right to make any law that is ‘necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). Signature:________________________________ in loco parentis
/s/ John F. Hutchens, parens patriae ; Tenant in-Chief; Warden of the Arboretum, Gales & Stannaries
I, John F. Hutchens, hereby state that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters which are herein stated on my own information or belief, and as t those matters, I believe them to be true.
Date: October 28, 2010_ Signature:______ _________________________ parens, parens, parens.
Verified affidavit: /s/ John F. Hutchens, Chancellor & High Warden, Palatine & General Commissioner
Grantees Agent for Mr. T.W. Arman, expert, Mormaer & Special Deputy Levying Officer of Record.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMAND OFFICER - PRIVATE INSPECTOR GENERAL -MINISTER
FACILITY COMPLIANCE AUDITOR, EXCHEQUER, D.A.D. OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE,
HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE – IRON MOUNTAIN HAZARD & REMEDIATION DIRECTOR
TENANT-IN-CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER / CHANCELLOR – FREEMINERS' UNIVERSITY
CURATOR OF THE ARMAN CONSERVATORY / JOINT VENTURER – ad hoc & ad litem .
RELATED CASES-CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
USDC-CES Civ. 2:91-cv-00768 - USCA No. 09-17411,
USCFC No. 09-207 L, &c. CLASS ACTIONS -
CLERKS NOTICE: Detinue sur bailment-trover
ADVERSE CLAIMS, WRONGFUL TAKING, FALSE PRETENSES, FRAUD UPON THE COURTS, &e.
Terris, bonis et calallis rehabendis post purgationem . A writ for a clerk to recover his lands, goods, and chattels formerly seized, after he had cleared himself of the felony of which he was accused, and delivered to his ordinary to be purged. Reg. Orig. 68.
CITIZENS SUIT; INTERVENTION COMPLAINT TAKING CLAIM, STIGMATIC INJURIES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 19, CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION REQUIRING PREPAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION, TREBLE DAMAGES FORM OF STATUTES.
The Courts Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (the Tucker Act) as a “claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department . . . .” This Court enjoys concurrent jurisdiction in equity with other Courts.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM, LOCATORS RIGHTS OF PRIORITY OF POSSESSION
Petitioners are entitled to relief because they are the owners/ operators of Iron Mountain Mines, with vested and accrued existing rights of the locators, including all of the rights, privileges, and immunities of patent title, and including rights and immunities for agricultural college land grants, bounty warrant freehold estates, and General mining law claims and mineral patents.
§ 26. Locators' rights of possession and enjoyment; exclusive right.
§ 29. Patents; …the affidavits required made by authorized agent conversant with the facts.
§ 30. Adverse claims; judicial determination of right of possession;
§ 31. Oath: agent or attorney in fact, title may be verified by the oath of any duly authorized agent.
§ 33. Existing rights; all the rights and privileges conferred.
§ 40. Verification of affidavits before officer authorized to administer oaths within land district
§ 51. Vested and accrued rights; by priority of possession, rights vested and accrued,
…the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same;
PRIOR RIGHTS, PATENT TITLE
In California , a complaint simply alleging the ownership by plaintiff of his mining location and the claim by defendant without right of an adverse interest has been held to allege enough.
In any event the party seeking to have a trust declared must make out a case against the patentee by evidence that is plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy." It has been held that such a suit is clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, regardless of the citizenship of the parties. In proceedings under Rev.Stat. §§ 2325, 2326 to determine adverse claims to locations of mineral lands, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show a location which entitles him to possession against the United States This is therefore an adverse claims proceeding.
In proper cases patentees will be held to be trustees for others equitably entitled to the land.
If the patentee bring ejectment, the trust may be set up as an equitable defense in Jurisdictions where such defenses are allowed.
Where a co-owner has been excluded from the patent the patentees become trustees for him to the extent of his interest, and it seems that he need not await the issuance of patent before suing.
Laches will operate as a bar.
Extent of the Taking
It is well established that a physical taking is defined by the government's corporeal violation of private property. As the Supreme Court has noted, “where real estate is actually invaded . . . so as to effectually destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a taking, within the meaning of the Constitution.” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATB Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427 (1982) (quoting Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166 (1871)). The Court has similarly emphasized that, “[t]he hallmark of a physical taking is government occupation of real property.” Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States , 45 Fed. Cl. 757, 762 (1999), quoting Loretto, 458 U.S. at 426 (1982).
However, it has also recognized the possibility of compensable stigmatic injuries that extend beyond the tangible aspects of a physical taking. In Hendler v. United States, it held that “if fear of a hazard would affect the price a knowledgeable and prudent buyer would pay to a similarly well-informed seller, diminution in value caused by that fear may be recoverable as part of just compensation.” Hendler v. United States , 38 Fed. Cl. 611, 625 (1995) (quoting United States v. 760.807 Acres of Land, 731 F.2d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1984)), aff'd 175 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Shelden v. United States , 34 Fed. Cl. 355, 373 (1995) (reducing post-taking fair market value of property due to stigma associated with earthquake damage).
“Two Miners” contend that the physical taking of the Brick Flat Pit produced a compensable impact on the entire Property's value. Petitioners claim that the remedial action produced two linked effects flowing from the EPA's physical occupation of the Brick Flat Pit. The first effect was the physical taking of the Brick Flat Pit itself, which continues to prevent Two Miners and Iron Mountain Mines et al from commercially exploiting the Brick Flat Pit. The second effect was the diminution of the Property's overall market value due to the stigma associated with possible liability to any buyer for the CERCLA action. It should be noted that this “stigma” amounts to considerably more than a mental attitude on the part of buyers. It is based upon a very real possibility that any commercial activity on the property might lead to regulatory prohibition or real physical danger. While T.W. Arman and John Hutchens are not convinced that in fact the Property is unusable, it seems clear that a reasonably prudent buyer would consider that quite probable, and be unwilling to purchase the property at any positive price, or share in the stigma of exterminating the salmon and trout.
Two Miners has expert testimony stating that, “the mere existence of this huge quantity of waste on the property, even in a constructed repository, creates too great a potential [CERCLA] liability for anyone to consider purchasing the land.”
In summary, Iron Mountain Mines experts in the valuation of contaminated property argue that anyone buying the Property before the EPA completes the removal action and removes the sludge from the Open Pit would potentially bear liability under CERCLA for costs incurred in the removal action.
Consequently, a reasonable purchaser would discount the purchase price of the Property by at least the amount of the liability assumed in the post-removal action condition of the Property.
Similarly, Iron Mountain Mines will present evidence that once the presence of hazardous waste has stigmatized property, a reasonable purchaser of said property would discount the sales price for the costs of removal of all of the offending material currently disposed in the Brick Flat Pit. Iron Mountain Mines noted that the stigma flows from the possibility of leakage of contaminants from the waste in the Open Pit and the potential “consequent liability placed upon T.W. Arman under CERCLA.”
According to Iron Mountain Mines, it follows that just compensation should be the difference between the Property's pre-taking fair market value and the sum resulting from the cost of the removal of the hazardous waste in the Open Pit added to the CERCLA liability incurred.
The stigma associated with general contamination and burden of infamy associated with natural resource damage and fish extinction dramatically affects the entire Property's value.
Hendler and Shelden permit recovery for diminution in value due to the general fear of a hazard caused by a taking, assuming that the hazard's affect on marketability is measurable. See Hendler, 38 Fed. Cl. at 625 (quoting United States v. 760.807 Acres of Land, 731 F.2d 1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1984)
(“[I]f fear of a hazard would affect the price a knowledgeable and prudent buyer would pay to a similarly well-informed seller, diminution in value caused by that fear may be recoverable as part of just compensation.”)); see Shelden, 34 Fed. Cl. at 373. It is generally recognized that general market perception of contamination on a future development site results in the depreciation of property value.
Iron Mountain Mines argument is that the Open Pit's taking negatively impacts the entire Property's value on the basis of the evidence.
In analyzing this impact, the' computations regarding the Property's diminution in value as a result of the stigma associated with hazardous waste and fish extinction.
The Removal Action as a Special Benefit
When only a portion of private property is physically taken, the amount of compensation
owed for the property of Iron Mountain Mines must be reduced by any special benefits from the government action accruing to the remainder of the property. Hendler, 38 Fed. Cl. at 1380. Special benefits are benefits which inure to the particular property suffering the taking, rather than to the general public. The United States placed a statutory lien for “unrecovered past response costs” and stated that the removal action conferred a special benefit upon the Property which we should deduct from any ultimate damages valuation, and inferred that it was justified as a “windfall” lien.
Such arguments, however, lead nowhere. Even if the Court accepts the government's argument that the removal action benefits the Property's value, the United States will be unable to include any evidence regarding the amount by which such benefit increases the Property's value. Thus, no offset of compensable damages for the benefits allegedly conferred by the removal action are possible.
Having resolved these issues, let us now turn to the determination of the Property's fair market value as a function of calculating the just compensation owed to Iron Mountain Mines.
Just compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment requires that a deprived owner be put “in the same position monetarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken.” Almota Farmers, 409 U.S. at 474 (internal citations omitted). The necessary corollary to this basic damages principle is that the Court may not place a deprived owner in a better position by a Fifth Amendment taking recovery than if the taking at issue had not occurred.
The fair market value of the highest and best use of the Property before and after the action.
A reasonable valuation of the Property's value as a mine before the EPA's removal action estimates the Property's value based upon the 20 million plus tons of proven ore reserves plus 5 million tons of probable reserves and the assay of minerals and the prices of Gold, Silver, Copper, Zinc, Iron, Aluminum, Magnesium, Manganese, Vanadium, Titanium, Cobalt, Nickel, and other minerals and by-products at close to $18,400,000,000 (billion). Assuming the EPA estimate of mining and remediation at $1.400,000,000 (billion) is correct, The fair market value would be $17,000,000,000 (billion). Add to that a fair market value of the land surface (4,400 acres) for the future complete development (1 billion), yields a gross takings value of $18,000,000,000 (billion) of Just Compensation Valuation. Additional value of the estimated 20 billion tons of building stone available incidental to mineral resources indicates a total potential value of $72 billion.
Iron Mountain Mines calculates the fair market value of mining on the Property prior to the taking by determining the present value of the future income stream of minerals that could have mined on the Property absent the taking over a twenty year period. This methodology required an estimate of the annual production of minerals on the Property to determine the present value of the future royalty income stream.
T.W. Arman and John Hutchens assume that solution mining would have averaged annual production of 500,000 tons of mineral products and a royalty of $100,000,000 (million) per year. Multiplying projected annual production by this royalty rate, annual royalties from January 1989 until January 2009 would be $2,000,000,000.
T.W. Arman and John Hutchens therefore believe the present value of lost mining opportunity on the Property as of January 1, 1989, to the present at $2,000,000,000.
It is well established that “comparable sales are considered by the courts to be the best evidence of fair market value, and thus preferable to other forms of valuation.” Stearns Co., Ltd. v. United States , 53 Fed. Cl. 446, 458 (2002) (citing United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984)); Kirby Forest Indus. Inc. v. United States , 467 U.S. 1 (1984). Other valuation methods may prove useful, but a comparable sales methodology is a generally superior indicator of value if an active real estate market existed in the vicinity of the subject property prior to the taking. See Florida Rock Indus., Inc. v. United States , 45 Fed. Cl. 21, 35 (1999) (citing Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States , 18 Cl. Ct. 394, affirmed 926 F.2d 1169 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 952 (1991)).
Here, Iron Mountain Mines valued the Property's worth for mining since no comparable comparison was or is available, by analyzing the Property's pre-taking future income stream.
Iron Mountain Mines claims that future income stream analysis is appropriate here because the valuation of mineral interests is preferably done by determining the present value of a future income stream. Iron Mountain Mines support this view by arguing that the federal government, in its Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, states that, “[p]roperty having a highest and best use for mineral production may be appraised utilizing an income approach when comparable sales are lacking.” Uniform Appraisal Standards at 23-24 (internal citations omitted). Iron Mountain Mines further points to Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States , in which the Federal Circuit approved of the use of future income stream analysis, as support for the relevance of future income stream analysis in the present case. See 962 F.2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Deprived miners T.W. Arman and John Hutchens are entitled to interest on just compensation awarded pursuant to Fifth Amendment takings. Stearns Co., Ltd, v. United States , 53 Fed. Cl. 446, 466 (2002) (citing Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States , 467 U.S. 1 (1984)). Thus, an award to T.W. Arman and John Hutchens with compounded prejudgment interest from the date of the taking until the date of the judgment is proper. See Id. (citing United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co., 329 U.S. 585, 588 (1947); Miller v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 352, 360 (1980). We date the taking as having actually accrued as of March 9 th , 2007, as the day the EPA project manager and/ or the site operator replaced the gate at the property entrance and refused to provide T.W. Arman with the key or code. Previously the EPA and its contractors had not interfered with T.W. Arman's possession and enjoyment of the property, and the EPA has always averred that it makes no claim to a right of possession of the property, and the project manager has publicly proclaimed as recently as this year that Mr. Arman is free to do whatever he wants with the property, because he is the owner.
Petitioners appreciate every indulgence extended by the court in consideration of the overly verbose or turgid pleadings, and petitioners further acknowledge the courts tolerance of any inadvertence in the pleadings such as referring to the lost mining opportunity as a commencement of the takings, an reasonable misunderstanding of the meaning of a takings, and when the facts of the case indicate otherwise. The EPA and its contractors had until March of 2007 conducted themselves with due propriety for which Mr. Arman affectionately referred to them as “the janitors”. The EPA first published information indicating that it did not intend to perform additional RODs, (record of decision) in May of 2006, so in the absence of any protest of the CERCLA actions, no claim would be ripe for adverse possession until after that time.
Interest computation will be based upon the Contracts Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-13 (1982). See Jones v. United States , 3 Cl. Ct. 4, 7 (1983). Iron Mountain Mines further seeks awards of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of litigation to T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq. (1995 & 2002 Supp.). Attorney Fees: CERCLA Private Recovery Actions , 10 Pace Envtl. L. Rev . 393 (1992)
Two Miners T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens also seek compensation for stigmatic injuries. T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines et al have been unfairly blamed for the endangerment and possible extinction of salmon and trout in the Sacramento River, a crime of infamy if ever there was one, not withstanding that there is no evidence that any fish have been killed in the affected reaches of the Sacramento River since at least 1969, seven years before T.W. Arman. purchased the property, or that T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. did not actively mine the massive sulfide ores found to be the source of the minerals passively migrating from the property and alleged to pose an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to the environment, and in disregard of contributory factors, particularly the United States construction of dams that destroyed the habitat of the salmon and trout necessary for their reproduction, and without consideration of other factors affecting the fishes demise, such as urban run-off, untreated sewage, ranching, farming, global warming, and other forms of habitat destruction.
When the EPA first conducted its remedial investigation of Iron Mountain Mines, it considered “Among the remedial action alternatives that could be implemented by the EPA, the total removal of the source and sediments in the receiving waters (Alternative CA-10) is considered the only remedy for the Iron Mountain Mine site which is capable of meeting project cleanup objectives and the full requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This alternative would effectively eliminate discharges from Iron Mountain and restore all tributaries to pristine condition. This alternative was based on total removal of all the source of contamination and disposing of them in a RCRA-approved facility.”
Without digressing to consider the notion of disposing of millions of tons of valuable ore and mining by-products, it will suffice to observe that having recognized that there was a viable alternative that was fully protective of human health and the environment, the EPA elected to proceed with a remedial action (removal) that was less than fully protective of human health and the environment, and then and thereafter disregarded its duty and responsibilities to implement a remedial action that was fully protective of health and environment.
For these reasons T.W. Arman and John Hutchens dispute the United States lawful authority to conduct these CERCLA remedial actions (removal) and demand the return of the property and restoration of rights, privileges, and immunities of patent title to the possession and enjoyment of T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens.
Because the United States, even with congressional approval, executive authorization, and district court decree, has no actual justification for its actions, and the only remedy found to be fully protective of human health and the environment is to finish the mining begun 150 years ago, the only remedy consistent with CA-10 of the administrative record, (complete removal of the source) which is what Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. was doing before the EPA interfered, the EPA should be found liable for the taking of private property for the public benefit requiring the payment of just compensation under the 5 th amendment of the constitution.
T.W. Arman used “due care” in the purchase of the property, because copper, zinc, and cadmium were not listed as “hazardous substances” under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1976 when the property was purchased, and California laws regarding mining operations compliance with federal regulations show that Iron Mountain Mines was not in violation of any law.
CONCLUSION TO THE EXTENT OF THE TAKINGS
T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens claim that the EPA's remedial (removal) actions constitute a taking of the Iron Mountain Mines property warranting just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the constitution of the United States for a partial takings of private property with actual damages of lost mining opportunities plus stigmatic injuries and property and incidental damages of $7,074,500,000 (billion). Petitioners seek an award of $7,074,500,000 (billion) in just compensation, with detinue sur bailment, reversion, remission, plus interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and costs. In the alternative that the United States actions are a condemnation that will prevent the lawful mining of Iron Mountain Mines, T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens seek an award for the complete taking of private property for the public benefit requiring the payment of $18,000,000,000 (billion) in just compensation.
Plaintiff's “Two Miners” submit that plaintiff's mutual interests are undivided interests.
Wherefore, the United States is liable for the taking of private property requiring the payment of just compensation under the 5 th amendment of the constitution of the United States, we demand judgment against the United States of seven billion, seventy four million, and five hundred thousand dollars for the partial takings and stigmatic injury, or eighteen billion dollars for the complete takings of the Iron Mountain Mines properties, plus interest, fees, and costs.
DEMANDS
1. Plaintiffs in this matter demand exoneration by virtue of the innocent landowner defense, third party defense, and act of God defenses, for restitution of the property invaded for CERCLA actions entered and to void and vacate judgment, void and vacacte consent decree and vacate premises.
2. Plaintiffs demand just compensation for lost mining opportunity resulting from actions by the EPA represented as lawful police actions conducted for the public and environmental welfare, but found not to be fully protective of human health and the environment when such a remedy was offered by the plaintiffs at less expense, but prevented by the actions of the EPA on behalf of the United States. Plaintiffs seek further just compensation for illegitimate animus and vindictive actions, despotism and tyranny, false claims, and negligently arbitrary and capricious reckless endangerment and malicious prosecution.
3. Plaintiffs demand just compensation for the stigmatic injuries by the EPA.
4. Plaintiffs demand the creation and appointment of the Essential Products Administration, and the creation and appointment of the Special Deputy Attorney General thereof.
5. Plaintiffs demand review to contest the constitutionality of CERCLA, and request the court to certify constitutional questions to the United States Supreme Court.
6. Plaintiffs demand a determination of unfair and unjust burden upon T.W. Arman, John Hutchens, and Iron Mountain Mines et al that should be borne by the public as a whole.
7. Plaintiffs demand a determination of liability of the United States for contribution to hazardous waste disposal.
8. Plaintiffs demand retractions and exonerations by the government which allowed the character of T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines to be libeled and slandered with abuse of process and malice to the severest possible unfair and unjust stigma with illegitimate animus and vindictive actions.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF INELLIGIBILITY FOR THE INNOCENT LANDOWNER, THIRD PARTY, AND ACT OF GOD DEFENSES.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONTINUING THESE CERCLA ACTIONS.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT T.W. ARMAN FAILED TO USE “DUE CARE” OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC WERE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LISTED AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES UNDER THE LAW.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNDUE CARE PURSUANT TO SARA.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO POLLUTION BY THE PETITIONERS.
This is a paradigmatic issue for resolution by the Judiciary. The federal courts historically have resolved disputes over land, even when the United States military is occupying the property at issue.
In Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis the court held that declaratory relief may be granted in the district court for unlawful government activities regardless of whether damages might also be available in the Claims Court .
As Justice (then Judge) Cardozo admonished, "Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it."
The ability of the United States plaintiffs to sue does not turn on whether certain rights which may belong only to the corporation may be asserted "derivatively" by the sole shareholder or on whether we should "lift the corporate veil."- The "standing" inquiry may be conducted along two different branches: first, whether there is a cognizable property interest under the United States Constitution directly assertable by a United States citizen-shareholder; and second, whether (a) there is a cognizable property interest directly belonging to the corporation, and (b) if so, the scope of a shareholder's right to assert that interest derivatively. The crucial issue here is whether the plaintiffs have constitutional rights of their own, which exist by virtue of their exclusive beneficial ownership, control, and possession of the properties and businesses allegedly seized.
Properly understood, the question is whether the plaintiffs' and the wholly owned [ California ] corporation have a judicially cognizable interest in the affected property sufficient to enable them to sue for an unconstitutional deprivation of the use and enjoyment of that private property. Because the plaintiffs have a protected property interest for the purposes of the claims asserted here they have standing to sue
The court must concede on standing that the plaintiffs as individuals "have a cognizable property interest in the land, which interest, since they are American citizens, is protected by the Constitution." (Ramirez, Dissenting Opinion of Scailia, J., at 1556).. If the 100% owner, T.W. Arman, has an interest protected by the United States Constitution, that is enough to compel the United States [Federal Claims] Court to go forward.
As such, cases involving corporate shareholders' attempts to sue for a violation of a constitutional right which attaches only to individuals when the challenged action affected only the corporation are inapposite. The approach taken in the instant case is consistent with the holdings of those cases by its focus on the nature of a shareholder's personal interests and injuries and his own constitutional rights in determining whether the shareholder has a right to sue.
[T]he Supreme Court has held that monetary relief for unauthorized Executive seizures is not available in the Claims Court . . . . `The taking of private property by an officer of the United States for public use, without being authorized, expressly or by necessary implication, to do so by some act of Congress, is not the act of the Government,' and hence recovery is not available in the Court of Claims.' . . .
[I]njunctive relief is available [in U.S. District Court] when the [property] owner proves that government officials lack lawful authority to expropriate his property.
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500, 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(en banc) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 471 U.S. 1113 (1985), dismissed on other grounds, 788 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (en banc), quoting Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 127 n.16 (1974) (quoting Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S. 322,336 (1910)). Injunctive relief is also available in U.S. District Court `when the monetary compensation available exclusively in the Federal Court of Claims would be wholly inadequate to compensate the complainant for the alleged taking.' Transcapital Financial Corp., 44 F.3d at 1025.
RIGHT OF PRESENT POSSESSION COMPELLED, PATENT TITLE IN EVIDENCE.
EX PARTE ADVERSE CLAIMS POSSESSION AND EJECTMENT EXECUTION
EMERGENCY INTERVENTION WITH ACTUAL CAUSE
§ 6973. Imminent hazard
(a) Authority of Administrator
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, upon receipt of evidence that the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of any solid waste or hazardous waste may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment, the Administrator may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate district court against any person (including any past or present generator, past or present transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility) who has contributed or who is contributing to such handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal to restrain such person from such handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal, to order such person to take such other action as may be necessary, or both. A transporter shall not be deemed to have contributed or to be contributing to such handling, storage, treatment, or disposal taking place after such solid waste or hazardous waste has left the possession or control of such transporter if the transportation of such waste was under a sole contractual arrangement arising from a published tariff and acceptance for carriage by common carrier by rail and such transporter has exercised due care in the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of such waste. The Administrator shall provide notice to the affected State of any such suit. The Administrator may also, after notice to the affected State, take other action under this section including, but not limited to, issuing such orders as may be necessary to protect public health and the environment.
(b) Violations
Any person who willfully violates, or fails or refuses to comply with, any order of the Administrator under subsection (a) of this section may, in an action brought in the appropriate United States district court to enforce such order, be fined not more than $5,000 for each day in which such violation occurs or such failure to comply continues.
(c) Immediate notice
Upon receipt of information that there is hazardous waste at any site which has presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, the Administrator shall provide immediate notice to the appropriate local government agencies. In addition, the Administrator shall require notice of such endangerment to be promptly posted at the site where the waste is located.
(d) Public participation in settlements
Whenever the United States or the Administrator proposes to covenant not to sue or to forbear from suit or to settle any claim arising under this section, notice, and opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area, and a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement prior to its final entry shall be afforded to the public. The decision of the United States or the Administrator to enter into or not to enter into such Consent Decree, covenant or agreement shall not constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review under this chapter or chapter 7 of title 5 .
APA CLAIMS § 1491 (b)(4) § 706. Scope of review
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 512.010.
(b) The application shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following:
(1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. DEED (BOUNTY WARRANTS, PATENT TITLE FILED)
(2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention.
PETITIONERS HAVE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE THAT THE UNITED STATES EPA INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PROPERTY TO PERFORM A CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTION WAS A FALSE CLAIM WHEN IN FACT THE EPA ACTION WAS A REMOVAL ACTION THAT HAS RESULTED IN AN IMMINENT HAZARD TO THE PETITIONERS, THE PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE EPA HAS IN FACT CREATED AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT IS NOTHING LESS THAN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS FELONIOUS UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT EPA ACTIONS, AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT, APPROVED BY CONGRESS, AND DECREED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, HAVE CAUSED THE UNNECESSARY DISPOSAL OF OVER 500 THOUSAND TONS OF ACUTELY NONTOXIC NONHAZARDOUS WASTES IN A NONTOXIC PIT LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE OWNER CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, PARTICULARY THE MOST RECENT 5 YEAR REVIEW OF THE CERCLA ACTION, INFORMS THAT THE “DISPOSAL CELL” HAS FAILED AND THAT THE LEACHATE FROM THE PIT NO LONGER FLOWS INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM INTENDED TO CAPTURE IT FOR TREATMENT. PETITIONERS DEMAND THE SURRENDER OF THE PROPERTY TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPER REMEDY. THE EPA HAS FAILED ITS DUTIES TO PERFORM. THE DOJ AND THE COURTS IN ERROR HAVE PERPETUATED THIS NEGLECT IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CERCLA 121 AND IN DEFIANCE OF COMMON SENSE.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT AGENCY ACTIONS DO NOT ACHIEVE THE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CWA IN AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF ESA.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY IS NOW AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS THAT WILL MEET THE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CWA AND ESA, ELIMINATE THE TOXIC SLUDGE DISPOSAL, AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE EPA LIME TREATMENT PLANT.
THE EPA REFUSES TO CONSIDER ANY RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ONGOING RESPONSE ACTION.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT EPA ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES EPA AND DOJ WERE MISTAKEN BUT COGNIZABLE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF ESTABLISHED BELIEFS ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT; SO NO TORT CLAIMS WOULD BE POSSIBLE, AND PLAINTIFFS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AND FORGIVEN THOSE IN ERROR WITH A WAIVER.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT EPA ACTIONS, HOWEVER WELL MEANT OR INTENTIONED, HAVE FAILED TO ACHIEVE THE PERFORMANCE MANDATED BY STATUTE AND REQUIRED BY CONGRESS, COURT ORDERS, THE CWA AND ESA.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT JUDICIAL SWADDLING AND DEFERENCE TO AGENCY ACTIONS, EVEN IF UNLAWFULLY WITHELD OR UNREASONABLY DELAYED, HAS RESULTED IN AN IMMINENT HAZARD AND A NEGLIGENTLY ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RECKLESS NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT OF THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AS WELL AS TO THE NATION.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT COURT RULES, PARTICULARLY RULES WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION BY ADMITTED ATTORNEYS, DEPRIVES CITIZENS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, AND SERVES TO DEPRIVE THESE PETITIONERS OF PROTECTIONS GUARANTEED UNDER THE 5 TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY REQUIRING JUST COMPENSATION AND JUST, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY.
A RULE SUPERIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE ADMITTED.
PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN THAT THE DETENTION OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES BY THE EPA UNDER CERCLA WAS A MISTAKE, THAT THE EPA ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INADEQUATE AND INAPPROPRIATE, THAT THE EPA ACTIONS EXCEED
ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, MOST PARTICULARLY THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED
UNDER CERCLA SEC. 9604. RESPONSE AUTHORITIES. (3)(A)
(3) Limitations on Response.--The President shall not provide for a removal or remedial action under this section in response to a release or threat of release--
(A) of a naturally occurring substance in its unaltered form, or altered solely through naturally occurring processes or phenomena, from a location where it is naturally found;
(3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PROPERTIES includes 360 ACRES agricultural college patent from the United States of America State of California, 2384 ACRES mineral patents & fee simple from the United States, 137 THOUSAND ACRES IN CONDEMNATION , and 103 MILLION ACRES EXTRALATERAL TITLE WITH AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $72 BILLION DOLLARS.
(4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property ( SHASTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA )
(5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.
THERE IS NO SEIZURE ON THE PROPERTY FOR A TAX, ASSESSMENT, OR FINE.
THE PROPERTY IS BY STATUTE EXEMPT FROM SUCH SEIZURE.
(c) The requirements of subdivision (b) may be satisfied by one or more affidavits filed with the application.
512.020. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no writ shall be issued under this chapter except after a hearing on a noticed motion.
(b) A writ of possession may be issued ex parte pursuant to this subdivision if probable cause appears that any of the following conditions exists:
(1) The defendant gained possession of the property by feloniously taking the property from the plaintiff. TRUE!
(iii) The ex parte issuance of a writ of possession is necessary to protect the property. TRUE!
512.070. If a writ of possession is issued, the court may also issue an order directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff. Such order shall contain a notice to the defendant that failure to turn over possession of such property to plaintiff may subject the defendant to being held in contempt of court.
512.080. The writ of possession shall meet all of the following requirements:
(a) Be directed to the levying officer within whose jurisdiction the property is located.
(b) Describe the specific property to be seized.
(c) Specify any private place that may be entered to take possession of the property or some part of it.
(d) Direct the levying officer to levy on the property pursuant to Section 514. 010 if found and to retain it in custody until released or sold pursuant to Section 514.030.
(e) Inform the defendant of the right to object to the plaintiff's undertaking, a copy of which shall be attached to the writ, or to obtain redelivery of the property by filing an undertaking as prescribed by Section 515.020.
Written notice to terminate & deliver possession. August 17 2009
Almost 30 years after Congress instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require facility owners and operators to set aside funds for the clean-up of property that may be contaminated by hazardous substances, a federal court in California has held that the EPA may take additional time to draft and issue the regulations. The court held that while Congress required the EPA to issue such regulations, it granted the EPA some discretion in when to do so. The EPA has stated that it intends to require financial assurance for hardrock mining facilities first, and will also assess the need to regulate hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities and chemical manufacturers.
The regulations at issue are required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980 (commonly known as 'Superfund'). Superfund is commonly said to have been motivated by the notorious hazardous waste contamination discovered buried at Love Canal , New York .
Section 108 of Superfund requires the EPA to issue financial assurance requirements for certain types of facility based on the risk of injury from hazardous substances in operations at those facilities. Once issued, the regulations would require the operator of a covered facility to set aside funds or otherwise make funds available for a possible future clean-up of hazardous substances at the property. Without such funds, costly clean-ups may force potentially responsible parties into bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers with the bill, or lengthy litigation may ensue over the allocation of costs. The EPA was first required to publish a notice of those classes of facility which presented the highest level of risk of injury by December 11 1980. (1)
The December 1980 deadline passed without the EPA publishing the required notice. The statutory requirement languished until in recent years it received renewed attention. The EPA was sued in federal court in 2008 on the theory that it had failed to perform a non-discretionary duty under Superfund. The suit was brought under Superfund's citizen suit provision, which allows a private litigant to force non-discretionary agency action. In February 2009 the Northern District of California held in Sierra Club v Johnson (2) that the EPA had a mandatory duty to publish classes of facility which presented the greatest risk of injury. In July 2009 the EPA published a notice of these classes in the Federal Register, pursuant to the court's order. (3) In its notice the agency determined that it would promulgate the first financial assurance requirements for hardrock mining facilities, based on the extent of contamination from such facilities and the high costs of clean-up.
The EPA did not limit its inquiry to hardrock mining; the notice also stated that the EPA will examine the need for financial assurance at the following types of facility: "hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and chemical manufacturers." However, the Northern District of California held that the EPA is under no set deadline to issue the financial assurance requirements. Instead, the court held that:
"although Section 108(b) requires EPA to promulgate financial responsibility regulations and incrementally impose such requirements, Section 108(b) provides EPA with discretion as to when to promulgate such regulations. Unlike the duty to publish notice of classes, Section 108(b) does not include a date-certain deadline for the promulgation of financial responsibility regulations." (5)
In so doing, the court rejected "a bright line rule that only duties with date-certain deadlines are non-discretionary for the purpose of citizen suits under [Superfund]" and instead looked to legislative history to help determine whether the EPA's duty to promulgate regulations by a particular date was non-discretionary. To maintain a claim that the EPA has "unreasonably delayed" its duties under Superfund, the court held that plaintiffs may continue to press their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, but must do so in another court. The court stated that:
"plaintiffs may bring an [Administrative Procedure Act] claim in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alleging EPA unreasonably delayed in promulgating the financial responsibility regulations required under Section 108(b)."
Unless and until such a litigation is brought and decided, the timeline for financial assurance requirements under Superfund will remain unclear.
unrecovered past response costs for the EPA's unnecessary, unconstitutional, and improper activities. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
EPA raises the stakes
Houston Chronicle
By MATTHEW TRESAUGUE The EPA has threatened dozens of Texas refiners and chemical and plastic makers with penalties if they don't begin taking steps to ...
See all stories on this topic »COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Case No. 104079
Superior Court of California, County of Shasta
Petitioners request leave of the court to file a complaint in intervention in the above captioned matter, where California has maintained a lien for a fine resulting from enforcement of federal discharge standards promulgated under the CWA.
WE NEED TO KNOW THE LINE ON WHICH TO DRAW THE LIMITS OF STATE POWERS, WE WILL DETERMINE EXACTLY HOW TO DO SO HERE!
Therefore, to “establish certain limits not to be transcended by the government.”
Given [mining's] unique political history, as well as the breadth of the authority that the [EPA] has asserted, the Court is obliged to defer not to the agency's expansive construction of the statute or to Congress' inconsistent judgment, but to prior rights and patent title to deny the [EPA] this power.…
“Full relief and restore possession to the party entitled thereto. a general verdict for plaintiff on a complaint which alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of certain described property, which is unlawfully detained by the defendant, and the possession of which the plaintiff prays to recover, is held by the United States Supreme Court to be sufficient.”
Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States , to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America ." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
“ It is not material whether the Libel be true, or whether the party against whom the Libel is made, be of good or ill fame; for in a settled state of Government the party grieved ought to complain for every injury done him in an ordinary course of Law, and not by any means to revenge himself, either by the odious course of libeling, or otherwise: He who kills a man with his sword in fight is a great offender, but he is a greater offender who poisons another, for in the one case he who is the party assaulted may defend himself, and knows his adversary, and may endeavour to prevent it: But poisoning may be done so secret that none can defend himself against it; for which cause the offence is the more grievous, because the offender cannot easily be known; And of such nature is libeling, it is secret, and robs a man of his good name, which ought to be more precious to him than his life, & difficillimum est invenire authorem infamatoriae scripturae; because that when the offender is known, he ought to be severely punished. Every infamous libel, aut est in scriptis, aut sine scriptis; a scandalous libel, in scriptis; when an epigram, rhyme, or other writing is composed or published to the scandal or contumely of another, by which his fame and dignity may be prejudiced. And such libel may be published, 1. Verbis aut cantilenis: As where it is maliciously repeated or sung in the presence of others. 2. Traditione, 7 when the libel or copy of it is delivered over to scandalize the party. Famosus libellus sine scriptis 8 may be, 1. Picturis, as to paint the party in any shameful and ignominious manner. 2. Signis, as to fix a Gallows, or other reproachful and ignominious signs at the parties door or elsewhere. That if anyone finds a Libel (and would keep himself out of danger), if it be composed against a private man, the finder either may burn it, or presently deliver it to a Magistrate: But if it concerns a Magistrate, or other public person, the finder of it ought presently to deliver it to a Magistrate, to the Intent that by examination and industry, the Author may be found out and punished. And libelling and calumniation is an offence against the Law of God. For Leviticus 17, Non facias calumniam proximo. Exod. 22 ver. 28, Principi populi tui non maledices. Ecclesiastes 10, In cogitatione |[126 a] tua ne detrahas Regi, nec in secreto cubiculi tui diviti maledices, quia volucres coeli portabunt vocem tuam, & qui habet pennas annuntiabit sententiam. Psal. 69. 13, Adversus me loquebantur qui sedebant in porta, & in me psallebant qui bibebant vinum. Job. 30. ver. 7. & 8, Filii stultorum & ignobilium, & in terra penitus non parentes, nunc in eorum canticum versus sum, & factus sum eis in proverbium. 9 And it was observed, that Job, who was the Mirrour of patience, as appeareth by his words, became quodammodo impatient when Libels were made of him; And therefore it appeareth of what force they are to provoke impatience and contention. And there are certain marks by which a Libeller may be known: Quia tria sequuntur defamatorem famosum: 11 1. Pravitatis incrementum, increase of lewdness: 2. Bursae decrementum, decrease of money, and beggary: 3. Conscientiae detrimentum, shipwreck of conscience.”
Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I
PLAINTIFF HUTCHENS APPOINTMENT QUO WARRANTO AS PROJECT MANAGER
REMISSION, REVERSION, AND DETINUE SUR BAILMENT, TREBLE DAMAGES
ANY AND ALL FURTHER RELIEF THAT THE COURT FINDS JUST AND PROPER AND CONSISTENT WITH FINAL ADJUDICATION OF ALL MATTERS IN THIS CASE.
Date: November 19, 2009 _under oath, Signature:
s/John F. Hutchens, grantees agent, tenant-in–chief, administrator; Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
WARDEN OF THE FORESTS AND STANNARIES FOR IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC.
Verification affidavit:
I, John F. Hutchens, hereby state that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters which are herein stated on my own information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Affirmed this day: November 19, 2009
Grantee's agent of record; Signature:
s/ John F. Hutchens, authorized agent for T.W. Arman & Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
Today's redistricting battles reminiscent of 1780s
Richmond, Va. -- By Tyler Whitley | TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Published: November 27, 2010Years before the term was coined, Patrick Henry tried to gerrymander James Madison out of a Virginia congressional seat.
The two had quarreled over whether Virginia should ratify the Constitution. Gov. Patrick Henry was against it; James Madison favored it.
Madison won the 1789 election by a handful of votes.
In his book " James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights," historian Richard Labunski relates how the two men struggled in scenes reminiscent of today's redistricting battles.
Based on the 2010 census, the Virginia General Assembly will draw up new congressional districts and new legislative districts next year.
Furious at Madison's success in getting Virginia to endorse the Constitution, Henry was able to force him to run in a House of Representatives district packed with anti-Federalists. He then recruited a war hero, James Monroe , to run against Madison .
Henry also persuaded the General Assembly to approve a bill that would prevent Madison from running in a friendlier district.
The 5th Congressional District then consisted of Madison's home county of Orange, Monroe's home county of Spotsylvania , and Culpeper , Louisa , Goochland , Fluvanna , Albemarle and Amherst counties.
To choose the counties, Henry looked at the results of the voting when Virginians elected delegates to the state ratifying convention, looking at their pro-Constitution, Federalist leanings or their anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist leanings. Albemarle and Orange were the only counties whose delegates voted to ratify the Constitution.
Because voters were required to be male, 21 years or older and property owners, Labunski estimated 5,189 men were eligible to vote in the eight counties.
Shy and reticent, Madison at first didn't want to go back to the district to campaign, but friends convinced him he should. He did not like to ask for votes. Monroe , meanwhile, was known for his warm personality.
The race was a tough one, fought during cold winter months. At one point, Madison suffered a frostbitten nose while riding to a campaign appearance. There was 10 inches of snow two days before the Feb. 2, 1789, election. According to a log at Madison's home, Montpelier, the temperature at sunrise on Election Day was 2 degrees.
Madison won 1,308 to 972. About 44 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots.
Years later, Monroe succeeded Madison as president , after serving as his secretary of state and secretary of war.
The word "gerrymander" was first used after Elbridge Gerry, as governor of Massachusetts , was involved in the creation of a legislative district in 1812 that resembled a salamander. Gerry went on to serve as vice president under Madison in 1813 and 1814.
Historical Documents
Introduction and Contents
(New, Jan. 21, 2007) This page contains links to a growing number of documents, dating back almost 3800 years to the time of Hammurabi, that have been among the cornerstones of human civilzation. They have influenced our perceptions and practice of statecraft, diplomacy, and the rights and responsibilities of communities, and of individuals. Their influence has persisted, often over centuries, as part of the conditions in which we live now and envision the future.
These entries are divided into two main sections: Foundations, or fundamental documents of civilization and state, and Contemporaries, documents, laws, treaties, etc. arising at specific times. You will find lists for both sections immediately below, with the links, in turn, below them. There may be two or more links for each document, including commentaries, historical background, and more. The documents are in approximately chronological order. All documents are in English; some may include versions in the original language, as well. Unless noted otherwise, the linked documents are complete.
Are there additional materials that you'd like to see linked here? We welcome leads to key documents from nations and peoples worldwide. Let us know, and we will try to find and post them.
Geotrees offers this information in the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, reconciliation and peace among the peoples and nations of the earth.
A. FOUNDATIONS Links
- The Code of Hammurabi
- Translations of the Holy Qur'an, or Koran
- The Magna Carta
- New! (Sunday, January 21, 2007) The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations, or Great Law of Peace
- The US Declaration of Independence
- The US Constitution, including Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments
- The Federalist Papers, or The Federalist
- The James Madison Papers
- "Common Sense," "The Crisis," "The Rights of Man," and "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine
- Declaration of the Rights of Man (Revolutionary France)
- The Emancipation Proclamation
- The European Constitution
- The European Convention on Human Rights, with Its Five Protocols
- The Constitution of Iraq, and Transitional Law of Administration
B. CONTEMPORARIES Links
- New! (Wednesday, January 10, 2007) Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf , or "My Struggle"
- The Downing Street Memo and Related Documents
- The 2001 US Patriot Act
- The Presidential Signing Statements of George W. Bush, 2001 and Since
- The Geneva Conventions and Protocols
- "Faith, Reason and the University," from Pope Benedict's address at Regensberg University; plus his subsequent personal apology
- The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States , 2005 edition
- S.3930 - The Military Commissions Act of 2006
- New! (Friday, December 29, 2006) The Iraq Study Group Report
- New! (Wednesday, January 10, 2007) The President's Address to the Nation on Iraq , January 10, 2007.
Additional documents will follow.
Many host sites, such as the US National Archives, offer links of their own to biographical, scholarly, or related items. Documents are often available in downloadable, printable form for your convenience.
Sources' Objectivity: Our source sites are often organizations, government or private, with their own causes and agendas. We choose them, however, because they make the documents themselves available in their original integrity, and we may offer links from different sources for a given document. By exploring the variety of knowledge and perspective available, the reader can develop a fuller, richer grasp of the contexts in which those documents and their ideas breathe and live.
We invite the reader to distinguish the documents themselves from any opinion or commentary associated with them. In fact, partisan commentary itself is always an interesting subject of rational study, analysis, and evaluation. We welcome you to the opportunity.
Knowledge and Empowerment, Personal and Shared: Our source for the presidential signing statements link, Mr. Ron Benjamin, made an important point in his note to "the Tree": "I have mixed emotions about being labeled as the source of the link: while it is the truth that I directed you to it, the associated AltaVista search took about 5 minutes and could just as easily have been done by others."
Ron reminds us that everyday people in the community, using tools available to most of us, can uncover and share important, empowering information in a relatively short time. Sometimes just a few minutes is all it takes to move from ignorance to knowledge, from bewilderment to understanding and, perhaps, to transformation. And the power of this process multiplies as we share it with others, including our young people. Let's not sell anyone short!
Special thanks, then, to Ron, and to all our contributors. We look forward to learning about what's important to you, and to making it available to others on Geotrees.Com. TOP
The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 2500 BC)
From Leb.Net. / "Translated by LW KIng. With commentary from Charles F. Horne, PhD (1915) and The Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910 by the Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, MA Litt.D." TOP
- Text: The CODE OF HAMMURABI
Translations of the Holy Qur'an, or Koran
"The Qur'an (also known as the Koran) is the primary sacred text of Islam. Devout Muslims believe that only an Arabic version of this text is the actual Qur'an, so please be aware of this." (The Internet Sacred Text Archive). Posted to Geotrees on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. TOP
- Text in Unicode, in Arabic, and in the 1880 Palmer, 1876 Rodwell, and more recent Pickthall English versions:
"HYPERTEXT QUR'AN": FIVE LINKED VERSIONS from the Internet Sacred Text Archive- Text:
The M.H. SHAKIR TRANSLATION, from the University of Virginia's Electronic Text Center
The Magna Carta
From the US National Archives / "Featured Documents" section. In user-friendly modern English. TOP
- Text: The MAGNA CARTA
The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations, or Great Law of Peace
(Sunday, January 21, 2007) "The Great Binding Law - ?GAYANASHAGOWA." From the Indigenous Peoples Literature site. Additional links and information to come. TOP
The United States Declaration of Independence
From the US National Archives / "Charters of Freedom" section. TOP
The United States Constitution, with Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments
The entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Amendments 11 through 27, each with its own link below. From the US National Archives / "Charters of Freedom" section. TOP
- Text: The US CONSTITUTION
- Text: US Constitution BILL OF RIGHTS (Amendments 1 - 10)
- Text: US Constitution AMENDMENTS (Amendments 11 - 27)
The Federalist Papers, also known as The Federalist
From the Library of Congress / "THOMAS Legislative Information on the Internet" section, which also includes extensive information and links for Congressional activities. TOP
- Text: The FEDERALIST PAPERS
- Home Page: Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet
The James Madison Papers
From the Library of Congress' American Memory collection. When the linked page appears, see the links "Browse Collection by: Title / Name / Series" options in the left-hand column. Thanks to Irene Martinez for the suggestion, and for the link. TOP
- Text: The JAMES MADISON PAPERS
"Common Sense" (1776) by Thomas Paine
From the website of The Constitution Society, "a private non-profit organization dedicated to research and public education on the principles of constitutional republican government. It publishes documentation, engages in litigation, and organizes local citizens groups to work for reform." You can reach their home page using the core of the URL here. And. . . Thanks to Irene Martinez for the suggestion, and for the link. TOP
- Text: "COMMON SENSE"
Four Foundation Documents by Thomas Paine
(From the Thomas Paine pages on the UsHistory.Org website, which includes introductory and biographical information, as well. And. . . Thanks yet again to Irene Martinez for the suggestion, and for the link.) TOP
- Text: "COMMON SENSE"
- Text: "THE CRISIS"
- Text: "THE RIGHTS OF MAN"
- Text: "THE AGE OF REASON"
The Declaration of the Rights of Man, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
From the Avalon Project at Yale Law School. TOP
The Emancipation Proclamation, complete text
From the National Park Service's website on the Battle of Sharpesburg, aka Antietam Creek. TOP
The European Constitution
Includes related and supporting pages from the University of Zaragoza, or Unizar, site. TOP
- Text: The EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION
(From the Unizar site. Includes links describing the document's development, and a bibliography link)- Unizar HOME PAGE for the European Constitution
(Includes an introduction, and links for other European treaties beginning with the Treaty of Paris, 1951)
The European Convention on Human Rights, with its Five Protocols
The document, with links. from the HR-NET Hellenic Resources Network site. Carried on a number of other sites, with additional links, as well. Thanks to Ulrike Scholl-Dorn for the suggestion. TOP
The Constitution of Iraq: Draft Constitution, and the Transitional Law of Administration
Documents in the development of Iraq's constitution: 1) current partial text of the proposed draft constitution; and 2) the earlier Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Law of Administration for the State of Iraq, on the CPA website. Both as of Wednesday, August 25, and updated by their source sites. TOP
- Text: DRAFT CONSTITUTION of IRAQ
(From the National Public Radio or NPR site)- Text: LAW OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, 8 MARCH 2004
(From the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA site)
..
Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), the complete text
What were the psychological and mental conditions that catalyzed Nazi Germany and World War II? How did Hitler make the choices he did? What parallels may they have throughout history, in the roots of the future, and in human nature generally? This book may help find the answers. "A Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook." TOP
- Text: MEIN KAMPF
From Project Gutenburg's Australian operation. The complete text.- PROJECT GUTENBURG, Main Page
"There are 20,000 free books in the Project Gutenberg Online Book Catalog."
The Downing Street Memo, complete text, with links
The same complete document, as hosted on two different sites, each with its own secondary comments, and links to other relevant primary documents. TOP
- Text: THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS and Links
From Downingstreetmemo.com. Includes the original documents, as well as information on the people involved and links to additional, related documents.- Text: THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS, Comments, and Links
From Tomjoad.org. The memo in its original form, with other documents and links. This site is the more overtly partisan in tone.
The 2001 US Patriot Act
Presented by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC. TOP
- Text: US PATRIOT ACT, HR 3162, October 24, 2001
(From the EPIC.ORG site. Includes links to a Patriot Act Sunset page, and a Freedom of Information Act page prepared by EPIC.ORG.)- The EPIC.ORG HOME PAGE
(Includes links to an assortment of documents and activities that bear on privacy.)
The Presidential Signing Statements of George W. Bush, 2001 - 2006
Presented by www.coherentbabble.com/ , which provides links to the statements with annotations, and to related bills and laws, at the White House and US Government Printing Office (GPO) websites. Posted to Geotrees on Wednesday, July 5, 2006.Thanks to Mr. Ron Benjamin of the OurWPFW discussion group on Yahoogroups for finding this connection. Please see our related comments in the introduction at page top. And thanks, too, to Max Obewszewski of the Baltimore American Friends Service Committee, or AFSC, for posting the US News article to his mailing list. Contact Max at mobuszewski( AT )afsc.org.) TOP
- Text: PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, plus Annotations
- Background and Commentary:
"Bar Association Task Force Urges Congress to Push for Judicial Review of Bush Signing Statements"
(Article from US News & World Report by Elizabeth Weiss Green)
The Geneva Conventions and Protocols
Links to the four Conventions and their three Protocols, on the International Red Cross and Wikipedia sites, plus an online Reference Guide from the Society of Professional Journalists. Posted to Geotrees on Sunday, September 17, 2006. TOP
- Texts, with Background and Related Information:
The FOUR CONVENTIONS and THREE PROTOCOLS, from the International Red Cross.- Texts, and Links to Related Issues and Materials:
The FOUR CONVENTIONS and THREE PROTOCOLS, from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia- Background:
REFERENCE GUIDE ON LINE, from the Society of Professional Journalists
"Faith, Reason and the University," The Pope's Address at Regensberg University, September 12, 2006, plus His Apology, September 16.
Links to the pope's address, including his quotes about the early history of Islam, in edited extract from The Times of London , and to his subsequent apology, carried in The New York Times . Posted to Geotrees on Monday, September 18, 2006. UPDATE, September 24, 2006: The complete text of the speech is now available on the Zenit News Service site; link below. TOP
- Partial Text:
Edited Extract, from the UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBERG SPEECH, from The Times of London- Complete Text:
The COMPLETE TEXT of "FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY," from the Zenit News Service website- Text and Related Links:
The Pope's PERSONAL APOLOGY, from The New York Times
US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Both of the following links are to the Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute, or LLI. The US Code contains the UCMJ within it as Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, and you will find the following link to the UCMJ within the link to the US Code. Posted to Geotrees on Friday, September 22, 2006. TOP
- Text, with Links by Subchapter:
CHAPTER 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE- Text:
The UNITED STATES CODE
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States , 2005 Edition
A large (10 MB+, 900 page) .pdf file, which will download when you click on the link. Depending on the browser used, some may be able to read the Manual on line. After downloading, you will need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file. Posted to Geotrees on Friday, September 22, 2006. TOP
- Text, as .pdf File:
The MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL UNITED STATES (2005 Edition)
S.3930 - The Military Commissions Act of 2006
This bill was signed into law by President Bush on Wednesay, October 18. The link here will take you to the Library of Congress' "Thomas" function, with links to four successive versions of the bill. These versions reflect the forms of the bill from its introduction in the Senate. The second link, to Wikipedia, offers background and related information, as well. TOP
- Text of four versions, from the Library of Congress:
The MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006- From the online Wikipedia encyclopedia:
Background
The Iraq Study Group Report
Use this link to go to the site of the United States Institute of Peace, or USIP. "USIP was the facilitating organization for the Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton. As such, USIP is the repository for the ISG's official report, titled The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward - A New Approach , which was downloaded more than 1.5 million times from USIP's Web site in the first two weeks after the launch of the report on December 6, 2006." TOP
- Descriptive material and link for download:
The IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT: THE WAY FORWARD
President Bush's Address to the Nation on Iraq, January 10, 2007
This link displays the full text of Mr. Bush's address on the "News and Policies" web page on the official White House site. Use this site to see other news and information concerning the White House per se, and the activities and personnel of the current administration. TOP
- Text:
The PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION, Wednesday, January 10, 2007- Link:
The WHITE HOUSE HOME PAGE.
HOW TO READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Anthony A. Peacock, page 19 and following).
One tenant of conservatism is that of having the smallest possible government.
That is sometimes misunderstood, especially by liberal/progressives (deliberately, in some cases).
The phrase "the smallest possible government" does not really mean that we should have a "small" government. Rather it means that we should have a limited government.
It means government limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and established by the consent of those governed .
The authors of The Federalist (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), who called themselves Publius, asked in Federalist 51 “what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
By this he (they) meant that both citizens and government had to be controlled.
The best way to control government is to limit its powers. The federal government of the Constitution was to be a government of enumerated and limited powers.
Aggregate interests would be served by the federal government. All other interests, local and particular, would be served by "state legislatures (The Federalist 10:77-8).
Plubius enumerated four principal interests of the new constitutional union:
1) "The common defense of its members"
2) “The preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks”
3) “The regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States”; and
4) “The superintendence of [America's] intercourse,political and commercial, with foreign countries.”(The Federalist 23:149)
Publius affirms that men are both self-interested and ambitious. Their opinions are driven more by passion and self love than they are by reason. This connection between self-love and one's opinions is what leads so readily to faction, that most “dangerous vice” of popular governments that “a well constructed Union” must “break and control.” (Read more about this HERE .)
According to Plubius, men's personal opinions are of little import when compared to the necessity of firm and specific rules set forth in the Constitution.
The Constitution, as revealed by Plubius, was intended to mitigate two basic forms of
political conflict: conflict that originates in human passion, especially collective passion such as pride, hatred, and vanity, and conflict that originates in interests, specifically those related to property.
The two principal ends that the Constitution was to secure were the public good and private or individual rights.
The Constitution sought to mitigate the effects of faction by, on the one hand, making it difficult for a majority faction to infringe individual rights or to undermine the public good and, on the other hand, channeling faction into the less volatile forms of human conflict anchored in disputes over interests or property.
In Federalists 9–14, Publius shows how commerce, at least as directed and moderated by the new Constitution, can also promote comity, union, and American greatness. In fact, the most distinct elements of the improved “science of politics” that Publius introduces in Federalist 9 are not the four specific improvements to that science that we learn in any basic American government class: separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and representation of the people.
Rather, the most novel and important contribution to political science that the Constitution will make is “the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT,” the extended sphere of territory over which the new federal republic will preside. (9:67)
According to Plubius, Constitutionalism rejected two long-standing assumptions of classical and modern political thought: first, that only in direct democracies or small republics could stability and virtue be promoted and, second, that commerce was debasing and that its promotion spurred inequality, avarice, selfishness, vanity, and undue consumption and pursuit of luxury, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, perhaps the most famous critic of 18th century commercial society, had maintained.
Institutionally, constitutional provisions such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, the federal structure of government, and the variety of terms and methods of election for Members of Congress and the President could check factions after they had formed. Such factions, however, needed to be undermined before they could form at the level of society as well.
The enlarged republic created by the Constitution would directly assist this object. As Publius famously put it:
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.” (10:78)
The upshot of all of this is that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect and preserve the union while, at the same time, allowing individuals their specific rights, unencumbered by a powerful centralized government.
There are no restrictions imposed on citizens in the Constitution, rather there are restrictions on the powers of government.
If Plubius were alive today, he (they) would be horrified at the enormous powers that have been ascribed to the federal government at the expense of individual freedoms.
According to Plubius, there should never be a law "for the good of society as a whole" that usurped the rights of the individual..
Milford residents say EPA stormwater mandate isn't fair
By Ashley Studley, DAILY NEWS STAFF Milford Daily News Posted Dec 08, 2010
MILFORD —
Some residents of a condo complex yesterday said they fear they will have to pay double to comply with a mandate to reduce pollution in water runoff.
At a meeting with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council to explore funding options, tenants of Laurelwood at Milford fear they'll have to pay into a stormwater utility fund and also pay to reduce phosphorous runoff from the condominium complex, as it falls under the Environmental Protection Agency's target criteria.
"It really isn't fair. We shouldn't be charged twice," said complex resident Janice Acquafresca.
In an effort to clean the Charles River, the mandate, proposed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, would require the towns of Bellingham, Franklin and Milford and properties within them containing more than two acres of impervious coverage to reduce phosphorous in runoff by 65 percent.
.
Active Liberty : Interpreting our Democratic Constitution , by Stephen Breyer
reviewed by
Jerome Braun
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has published a book on judicial philosophy that achieves notice less because of its content than because of the author's post. The book argues for a "sociological" approach to legal interpretation, which Breyer admits has many rivals in approaches based on direct interpretation of legal language, on historical analysis of what led to this use of language, on the meaning of the language when it was written, and reliance on legal precedent pertaining to this language. What Breyer adds to sociological approaches is an imputing of values, which opens up such analyses to criticisms for being naïve, superficial, historically incorrect, short-sighted, vain, arrogant, or just plain wrong. I am not saying Breyer is guilty of all these criticisms, but that he sets himself up for them.
A basic no-no of legal analysis, and of moral analysis too, is bombastic rhetoric. In law schools students are endlessly warned about this reckless inferring of moral effects rather than proving moral effects of certain actions, but they learn when they get out (if they don't know so already) that lawyers are paid to win. In any case, judges, for appearances' sake if for nothing else, rarely come up with the ruling, “I don't know.” The result is dependence on ‘burden of proof' reasoning where a state of affairs is assumed to exist, not proven to exist, because it is assumed that the existence of society depends on this state of affairs. This is the dead opposite of the ideal of the scientific method where many aspects of the state of nature are not understood, and are openly admitted to not being understandable within the present state of knowledge. Models are used in science, but are not mistaken for reality, or shouldn't be.
Lawyers have noticed the dangers posed by judicial supremacy. Stuart Taylor in Slate quoted Thomas Jefferson in 1819 about John Marshall's Supreme Court: "The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” and Abraham Lincoln regarding the 1857 Dred Scott decision which treated slavery as eternal: “If the policy of Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made,” Lincoln said, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”
The checks and balances among the three branches collapse if the Supreme Court claims to be the final arbiter of constitutional behavior. Judicial supremacy reflects the British tradition, at least of the 18th century, that the judicial branch be free of political interference, plus the natural law tradition (more emphasized in America than in Britain ) that judged law by supposedly indisputable moral standards and a common law tradition that the law would not countenance an absurdity. You might say that since medieval European monarchs were, above all, judges and war leaders, the Supreme Court in our mixed polity is the monarchical aspect of government, sharing the powers of monarchical sovereignty with the President (who gets the war powers part, plus some powers related to foreign affairs), except that the President is not elected for life, Supreme Court judges are. Like monarchs, when judges violate standards the social reaction is unpredictable because there is no defined method for dealing with them. By the same logic, revolutions are justified by arguments of natural law.
Therefore the question arises, does this book reflect an understanding of the place of the Supreme Court in our constitutional scheme of things, or does it reflect special pleading and a desire for aggrandizement of the power of this institution? Just like the monarch who claims to be serving only "the will of the people," Breyer's analysis provides no method for actually determining when "the will of the people" is being served and when it isn't. The reason social science claims that it tries to be a science is because it tries to be objective, and is sensitive to situations where "the facts speak for themselves." Breyer offers no method for determining when "the will of the people" is not being followed since, by definition, institutions that have some connection to an election, no matter how remote, are democratic. Although he says that rules that encourage participation by the mass of citizens in government are a good thing, he never shows what standards he uses since there are times when he obviously doesn't believe democracy is such a good thing, as when it interferes with judicial supremacy in interpreting the Constitution. ‘Democracy at work' for him means everything the government does is democracy at work.
Just as predecessors on the late 19th century Supreme Court absorbed too much of Spencer's Social Statics , so that they believed Social Darwinism explained how a modern economy worked, so Breyer seems to have read too much into such works as Gordon S. Wood's The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787 , coming away with the belief that because the governments that arose after the American Revolution were more democratic than colonial governments that therefore the Federal Government was the perfectly realized Democracy. In fact, all governments of Europe and America in the 18th century derived legitimacy by a bundle of claims, to conformity, to natural law, natural religion, the production of virtue in society, and the standards of "moderate" government, for which democracy, republicanism, and even monarchism were considered means rather than ends.
No doubt crediting a government with reflecting "the will of the people" - no matter the truth - is an important source of legitimacy in our times. It is now the only source of legitimacy, unlike the 18th century which took for granted the importance of community as the source for legitimacy in government, and a model for its proper functioning, even though it was slowly decaying and ceding power to bureaucracy. Breyer's whole concept of democracy is convoluted. He tries to show the American Constitution instituted a democratic government by using an idiosyncratic definition of democratic government based on "the will of the people". This was obviously not the case in the original American Constitution which not only limited the right to vote (not for women, not for slaves, and not for people who did not meet minimal property qualifications), but confined popular control to the House of Representatives, not the Senate or the Presidency. The Constitution, however, was adaptable to more democratic control later on.
For that matter, 18th century Europe boasted republican governments, particularly the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation, which served as models for the U.S. although Britain was more influential. In the 18th century, democracy, given poverty and lack of mass education, widely was considered impractical because of the dangers of mob rule. Even Thomas Jefferson, who supported democratic government, was the head of a party called the Republican Party, later the Democratic-Republican Party (a term used mostly by historians, and originally a faction of the party that supported Andrew Jackson) and only some time after Jefferson 's death called the now familiar Democratic Party. It would be as if the present day Democratic Party would be called a socialist party because certain members support socialism.
Breyer moves from his originalist argument of the Constitution reflecting the will of the people to an evolutionary argument that more participation is to be encouraged, so, whatever his glossing over 18th century conditions, he is right that now we encourage active participation of citizens. Thus, he offers an argument for deferring to legislative enactment of laws as reflecting the will of the people, without at the same time giving up the right of the Supreme Court to supervise the process or intervene, without being hampered by original intent.
Now there are circumstances when a small leap is justified, such as when the right to regulate interstate commerce is extended to modern modes of transportation analogous to the way the horse and buggy and maritime transportation was regulated. This latitude doesn't mean a judge can announce himself a cross-dressing monarchist and declare that republican government means monarchy because if only the writers of the Constitution knew what he knows now they would agree with him. There is a basic principle of Constitutional interpretation that a vague generality or value cannot overrule a specific requirement laid out in the Constitution. Even this rule in a sense can be overruled if it would result in an absurdity, but such occasions are few and far between.
Breyer seems to believe in this rule of Constitutional interpretation - except when he doesn't. The same can be said for his general approach to interpreting laws. The second half of the book is actually quite good, and is by far the most useful part. He details the reasoning used to make distinctions relevant to judging cases in free speech, the relation between the Federal government and the states, privacy, affirmative action, and statutory interpretation. Even when he relies on arguments relating to fostering the public good, the arguments have some plausibility. He admits that his views differ from some colleagues on the Supreme Court. It is when he offers special pleading on the preferred status of the Supreme Court, and ignores all the issues regarding the breakdown of checks and balances, that his arguments seem self-serving. I suppose he's just human, which is why "Who will guard the guardians?" is as true of the Supreme Court as anyone else.
What are the consequences of the exalted status of the American Supreme Court for American democracy? A democratic government reflects direct input from the people, unlike Justice Breyer's definition which is any government that arises from an election and afterward is almost independent of the people. Let's look at examples: In the presidential election of 1876 the disputed returns in a number of Southern states led to a dramatic impasse. Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices serving on a 15 member Electoral Commission together with five members from each house of Congress. The result, with voting on partisan lines, was to give the election to Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate. Fast forward to the disputed presidential election of 2000, and disputed returns in Florida were resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court to favor the Republican candidate, George W. Bush. This was after the Florida Supreme Court resolved the election in a way to favor the Democratic candidate, Al Gore. The election had to be resolved by courts because there was no method in place to determine what to do, other than the courts. Alas, no one but the courts were ready and interested in intervening.
Courts have the responsibility for enforcing the nation's values, not the values of the members of the courts. As a practical matter, however, how can this be enforced? In many ways it can't, not without a public outcry over abuses, or a public monitoring of the courts. Another result is that the abortion issue was not resolved by Rowe vs. Wade since it did not settle public discussion. Instead of discussing the effects of abortion on society, the legalistic arguments of both sides, the right to privacy versus "respect" for life convinced no opponent because both arguments were filled with "rights talk" that avoided dealing with practical consequences. Breyer would like public discussions of practical matters, but this ends up being done by judges and not by the public, and judges are not more practical than the public at large, though they certainly are richer and more secure.
The dynamic basis of democracy is creating and enforcing laws that reflect the concrete circumstances of the public affected by laws, not the vague clichés of armchair moralists and/or opportunists. Yet, just as "Who will guard the guardians?" is a problem for monarchies, so too is it for judiciaries as well. One consequence of trying an ‘end run' around Congress by creating ad-hoc "rights" is to guarantee that right-wing activists will push their own version of "rights." In many ways it is harder than ever to rein in giant corporations because of all the "rights" the courts have given them. At a certain point "rights talk" interferes with democracy when the rights are not the creation of the democratic process, but merely the creation of courts and are indistinguishable from mere wants, which always must be judged against a context of reasonableness.
There has been a severe deterioration both of community and of conceptions of the common good. One reason there is a tendency for government to misuse eminent domain is that the concept of public purpose has become muddled. While this mechanism was once used for taking private land for building roads, bridges, and so on, there is a tendency today to favor anything that produces economic growth, even if it only benefits the already rich. So private land is given to real estate developers, as if all economic growth is a public good, which is an absurdity. Meanwhile, many non-business activists act as if they are only victims, demanding equality of result rather than equality of opportunity. While government, and the courts, get whip-sawed between these two ideologies, the common good is ignored. The courts are part of this vicious cycle of ignorance. The danger is that they step in to create social order because no one else is protecting the public good. ‘Better than nothing' is the excuse for judicial activism. Better than do-nothing legislatures and do-nothing executives, claim the judges. Well, that isn't good enough, when we can have real yet unrealized democracy as an alternative.
Environmental Justice Timeline
The EPA Brownfields Program has a rich history rooted in environmental justice. The Brownfields Program and the environmental justice movement have evolved over a similar timeline, fueling one another and helping to build strong communities.
1982 • Residents of Warren County, NC protest construction of a hazardous waste landfill in the predominantly African-American community, bringing environmental justice issues into the national spotlight
1987 • The United Church of Christ publishes Toxic Waste and Race in the United States
1991 • The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit is held
• Cuyahoga County Community College Environmental Justice Grant
1993 • Cuyahoga County Planning Commission receives first EPA Brownfields Pilot
1994 • Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission
1995 • EPA awards additional Brownfields Pilots to 22 communities • EPA and NEJAC convene public dialogues to provide stakeholders an opportunity to express concerns related to brownfields and public health
1996 • NEJAC publishes Environmental Justice, Urban Revitalization, and Brownfields: The Search for Authentic Signs of Hope highlighting recommendations to EPA raised through the public dialogues on how to develop the Brownfields Program
1997 • The Puyallup and Navajo Nation become the first Tribes to receive Brownfields funding
1998 • EPA awards first Job Training Pilots • First 16 Brownfields Showcase Communities are designated, providing resources and support from more than 15 federal agencies to address local revitalization issues
1999 • EPA develops Civil Rights Act Title VI Case Studies report
2002 • “Brownfields Law” signed; statute includes requirements to address environmental justice; nonprofit organizations are eligible to receive funding
2005 • EPA brings environmental justice and community representatives together to develop the All Appropriate Inquiry Final Rule • EPA awards Job Training grants to Mississippi DEQ and Southern University to recruit and train residents in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina
• Brownfields Program begins providing Targeted Brownfields Assessment funding to EPA’s Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) grantees
2006 • NEJAC publishes Unintended Impacts of Redevelopment and Revitalization Efforts in Five Environmental Justice Communities highlighting concerns of gentrification and displacement in brownfield communities
2007 • Brownfields Program contributes to EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Environmental Justice Action Plan • EPA awards first round of Training, Research, and Technical Assistance grants focused on environmental justice issues • EPA convenes nonprofit cleanup roundtables to assist nonprofit organizations in building capacity to address environmental issues
2009 • To date, 78 Tribes and 90 nonprofit organizations have received Brownfields funding
Addressing Environmental Justice in EPA Brownfields Communities
EPA-560-F-09-518 November 2009 www.epa.gov/brownfields
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5105T)
Future Opportunities to Measure and Promote
Environmental Justice
The data presented in this brochure affirm efforts by EPA’s Brownfields Program to serve communities most in need. However, additional data and analysis are needed to gain a clearer understanding of how the demographic and socioeconomic composition of communities has evolved as a result of Brownfields funding. Ultimately, this analysis is a first step in determining if the program is serving low-income and minority communities, as it was designed to do. EPA hopes to conduct future analyses of communities that have received EPA funding to correlate 2000 census data with 2010 census data. This information collection will help OBLR determine ways to enhance the program to better serve the American public.
EPA Cleanups in My Community:
Mapping and listing tool that shows sites where pollution is being or has been cleaned up: iaspub.epa.gov/Cleanups/
EPA Contact:
Joseph Bruss Environmental Justice Coordinator Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (202) 566-2772
Brownfields and Environmental Justice: A Demographic Analysis of Brownfields Communities
Redevelopment for
Affordable Housing
Using EPA funding to help provide affordable housing helps to prevent displacement of current residents. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland, California used an EPA Brownfields Cleanup grant to help turn a former commercial and industrial property into 80 units of affordable housing for local residents. The complex integrates green building design and eco-friendly materialsPhase I Environmental Site Assessment Risk Decisions (2 Comments)
4:45 am in Environmental Due Diligence by Joe Derhake, PE
Entry by JoeDerhake
Entry
When doing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments , sometime the facts are on the border between a recognized environmental condition and an environmental issue. This blog is my latest in a series of borderline decisions.
Here is the scenario: the Phase I ESA finds a classic REC on site. Let's say we have 15 years of dry cleaners on-site in the 1970s and 1980s—clearly a REC. However, in this instance the site was redeveloped with a high-rise office building with a 3 level subterranean garage in 1988. The construction project necessitates excavating 40 feet from lot-line to lot-line. Assume groundwater is at 80 feet below ground surface.
The environmental professional may point out that the solvent could have penetrated all of the way to groundwater, but the excavation of 40 feet of soil clearly is a significant mitigating event.
Would you as an environmental professional still consider this situation a recognized environmental condition? Would you recommend Phase II Environmental Testing ?
Providing our clients with good environmental risk management opinions is a very important part of our job. Please let me know what you think?
Keywords
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I ESA, Environmental Risk Management, Phase II Environmental Testing
Seismic Damageability Reports
8:15 am in Environmental Due Diligence by Joe Derhake, PE
Seismic Damageability Reports and Probable Maximum Loss Reports are terms that are used interchangeably in the engineering due diligence field. In both instances, engineers are engaged to quantify the amount of seismic risk associated with a building. Most engineers prepare reports according to ASTM E 2026-2007 guidelines.
While Probable Maximum Loss (PML) is by far the more commonly used term in the industry, many engineers have favored Seismic Damageability Report, as the term PML can have several meanings. Consequently, ASTM has issued a guideline document that attempts to standardize the terminology used for seismic loss reports.
Many engineers, including my firm (Partner Engineering and Science), provide “Scenario Loss” estimates to clients. The Scenario Upper Loss (SUL) is the scenario loss that has a 10% probability of exceedance due to the specified earthquake scenario, and the Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) is the expected loss value due to the specified earthquake scenario. Therefore, the SUL represents an upper loss estimate, and the SEL represents an average or expected estimate.
Clients should be careful when ordering Seismic Damageability Reports (or PMLs) as there are some firms that use significantly different methods for calculation of the SEL and SUL. My recommendation when ordering a report is to make sure of the following:
1) The firm should have a registered engineer on staff;
2) Ask the firm to follow ASTM E2026-2007 and, if being done for lenders ASTM E2557-2007 ;
3) Request that the firm show their math on the calculations.
Whether you call it a Probable Maximum Loss Report or a Seismic Damageability Report, in the end, the name does not matter; as long as the assessment is done by a quality engineer and performed consistently and transparently, the lender can use this tool to measure their seismic risk.
Energy Study: California Existing Commercial Buildings
7:47 am in Environmental Due Diligence by John Rockwell
”Up to 80 percent of the energy used by commercial buildings is going up in smoke”… per a new study by Next 10 that examined energy use among California's existing commerical buildings. Read a news article about the study below:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/14/2888438/california-conservation-group.html#ixzz0uMJM3Z5A
Here is a link to the actual Next 10 report:
http://www.next10.org/research/research_eeijc.html.
"In all cases, our analysis of the applicability of the protections of the Constitution must be made in light of existing circumstances as well as our historic traditions,"(1) Judge Reinhardt, Ninth Circuit
.
The Supreme Court has held that a modern procedure must satisfy the substance of the English common law jury trial in 1791 to be constitutional under the Seventh Amendment.
Summary judgment is a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. There is also the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States . But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court.
Petitioners declare that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. No procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and summary judgment violates the core principles or “substance” of the English common law. Summary judgment is unconstitutional.
Writ of certiorari,
.
You should reconsider the opinion that argument is unnecessary.
.
You should reconsider that Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. has quit claimed Iron Mountain mine real property to T.W. Arman, Mr.T.W. Arman is the sole absolute sovereign supreme original patent title owner.
.
You should reconsider that plaintiffs have in their pleadings substantively forgiven the tortfeasors for their errors of recognizable religious (holistic) dogmatic ideology and irrational fear based waste.
“One Co-tenant may recover the whole estate in ejectment against strangers.”
King Solomon Co. v. Mary Verna Co. 22 Cal . App. 528, 127 P 129, 130
.
“The owner is not liable for pollution of stream incidental to placer mining, or to washing iron ore. It is classed among non-actionable injuries. Nor will such use of the stream be enjoined even if an action lies, except in willful or extreme cases. Clifton Co. v. Pye 87 Ala. 468 6So 192. Hill v. King 4 M.R. 533. 8 Cal. 337, Atchison v. Peterson 1 M.R. 583 20 Wall 501.
.
California Statute Sec. 1426 7/1/09
.
In the absence of clearly expressed legislative intent, retrospective operation will not be given to statutes, nor, in absence of such intent, will a statute be construed as impairing rights relied upon in past conduct when other legislation was in force. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Laramie Stock Yards, ante, p. 231 U. S. 190 .
.
The objective of the public trust is always evolving so that a trustee is not burdened with outmoded classifications favoring the original and traditional triad of commerce, navigation and fisheries over those uses encompassing changing public needs. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 434.
.
Section 5937 "is a legislative expression of the public trust doctrine." California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Board, 255 Cal. Rptr. 184,209,212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989». The public trust doctrine and section 5937 overlap, addressing the fisheries at different levels of generality. The public trust doctrine has long protected fisheries used by commercial and recreational fishers, and more recent case law has expanded the doctrine to include the general public's right to preserve fisheries and their related habitat for their intrinsic environmental value as ecological units. Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 259,491 P.2d 374, 380 (1971 ) (establishing that the doctrine changes in tandem with changing public values and scientific understanding) and National Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Court of Alpine Cty, 33 Cal.3d 419,435,658 P.2d 709 ( Cal. 1983), cert denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983).
.
(administrative agencies are not required to, nor should they, regulate the present and future within the inflexible limits of yesterday); Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176 (6th Cir.1986) (Environmental Protection Agency could apply its definition of "reasonably available control technology" to disapprove proposed state dust rules where it had approved similar rules of other states, in light of new knowledge); cf. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 566 n. 20,99 S.Ct. 790, 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979) (deference due administrative agencies is due in part because of willingness to accord some measure of flexibility to an agency as it encounters new and unforeseen problems over time).
.
Citing California Trout, Inc. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.3d 187,266 Cal.Rptr. 788, 801 (1990) (ordering the water board to establish flow rates based on available data while proceeding with more elaborate studies), the Supreme Court of Hawaii directed the state water agency to use "the best information presently available" in protecting public trust values. In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97, 9 P.3d 409 ( Hawai'i , 2000). The Court emphasized the importance of comprehensive and pro-active planning in a region where growth and its attendant demands on groundwater outstrip the region's limited supply. The Court eloquently summed up the role of a water agency: "The constitutional framers and the legislature designed the Commission as an instrument for judicious planning and regulation, rather than crisis management. ... [The public trust] concept implies not only the power to protect the resources but the responsibility to do so long before any crisis develops [citing Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 77 in 1 Proceedings, at 688] . . .. [T]he water code should serve as a tool and an incentive for planning the wise use of Hawaii 's water resources, rather than as a water crisis and shortage management mechanism [citing Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 348, in 1987 House Journal, at 126263]."
.
It is not possible to consider the relevant wildlife statutes without considering the framework of the public trust doctrine. The non-codified public trust doctrine remains important both to confirm the state's sovereign supervision and to require consideration of public trust uses in cases filed directly in the courts. National Audubon, 33 Cal. 3d 419 at n. 27. See also, Kootenai Envtl. Alliance v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 105 Idaho 622, 671 P.2d 1085, 1095 ( Idaho 1983) (Mere compliance with legislation is not sufficient). The government cannot act outside of the boundaries of the public trust doctrine with respect to public trust resources. San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court ex reI. Maricopa County , 193 Ariz. 195,972 P.2d 179, 199 (1999) ("The public trust doctrine is a constitutional limitation on legislative power ....").
.
2715. No provision of this chapter or any ruling, requirement, or policy of the board is a limitation on any of the following:
.
(a) On the police power of any city or county or on the power of any city or county to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances.
.
(b) On the power of the Attorney General, at the request of the board, or upon his own motion, to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California to enjoin any pollution or nuisance.
.
Petitioners have shown good cause to be excused for any inadvertence which might otherwise call for a dismissal and to reconsider more than the unadorned complaints
.
Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each claim and objection.
.
Damages accrued since 1978, when the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) commenced enforcement of the Clean Water Act as amended in Dec. 1977 of federal discharge limits for copper, cadmium, and zinc as “hazardous wastes” with issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to mining companies. (Ex Post Facto law 1).
The federal state government agencies plot to abrogate patent title mine lands of the United States.
.
Petitioners seek joinder for vindication of innocent landowner's act of God and third party defenses.
.
Petitioners seek joinder as defendants pursuant to §6973 imminent hazard, authority of administrator citizen suit emergency intervention arbitrary and capricious reckless negligent endangerment.
.
Petitioner seeks joinder as defendants to each Court contributing to or evading judgment in this matter.
.
Corrections: No trial was held to hear the defense of Mr. Arman or IMMI as the innocent landowner or passive site operator, notwithstanding that the previous owners (Rhone Polenc, Stauffer Chemical, Mountain Copper Co. et al) were found joint and severally liable, and were found to be the RP (responsible party) for the “disposal” of hazardous wastes, were found to have a contractual obligation to assume 100% of the mining liability, and who settled without admission of the United States Claims.
.
.
380. In an action brought by a person out of possession of real property, to determine an adverse claim of an interest or estate therein, the person making such adverse claim and persons in possession may be joined as defendants; and if the judgment be for the plaintiff, he may have a writ for the possession of the premises, as against the defendants in the action, against whom the judgment has passed..
.
Joint and Several Trespassers ejectment; CORAM VOBIS incidental and peremptory mandamus
.
Including an accounting of the damages. Leave for QUO WARRANTO administrative mandamus.
.
Where an agent commits an active trespass on behalf of his principal, such principal is a “joint trespassers” with the agent. Williams v. Inman, 57 S.E. 1000, 1010, 1 Ga.App. 321.
.
“Persons engaged in committing the same trespass are “joint and several trespassers,” and not “joint trespassers,” exclusively. Like persons liable on a joint and several contract, they may all be sued in one action, or one may be sued alone, and cannot plead the nonjoinder of the others in abatement; and so far is the doctrine of several liability carried that the defendants, where more than one are sued in the same action, may sever in their pleas, and the jury may find several verdicts, and on several verdicts of guilty may assess different sums as damages.” The executive officer of a corporation, who is the stockholder, and full management of its affairs, who's rights were violated by defendants who instigated and controlled the joint and several trespassers in willfully infringed complainants mine, and for bringing disrepute to the corporation, and violating environmental law to spoil said property, diminish its value, and claim a lien upon said property for recompensation for unnecessary arbitrary and capricious actions under color of law .
.
Because of the corporeal and perpetual injuries, including the damages found due complainant, on an accounting, a suit will lie against them to recover the property and the amount of such decree from them individually, when, through their control and influence, they caused the corporation to be unable to transfer its property and to declare and pay dividends pending the suit against it, by which it was rendered substantially yet falsely insolvent. See Saxlehner v. Elsner, 140 Fed. 938, 941 adopting the definition I Lovejoy v. Murray , 3 Wall. 1, 18 L. Ed. 129.
.
writ of unspeakable errors, divide et regnes! RELIEF: UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN VIOLATIONS OF FIRST, FOURTH, FIFTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS.
.
§ 3729. FALSE CLAIMS; MISTAKE! PROHIBITION! EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL!
.
“It has been justly thought a matter of importance to determine from what source the United States derives its authority... The question here proposed is whether our bond of union is a compact entered into by the states, or whether the Constitution is an organic law established by the People. To this we answer: ‘We the People... ordain and establish this Constitution'...
.
WE NEED TO KNOW THE LINE ON WHICH TO DRAW THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL POWERS;
WE WILL SO DETERMINE HERE!
.
Therefore, to “establish certain limits not to be transcended by the government.”
.
Given Iron Mountain Mines unique history, as well as the breadth of the authority that the [EPA] has asserted, the Court is obliged to defer not to the agency's expansive construction of the statute, but to Mr. Ted Arman's consistent judgment to deny the [EPA] this power.…
.
“Full relief and restore possession to the party entitled thereto; Mr. Ted Arrman's Iron Mountain Mine. a general verdict for plaintiff on a complaint which alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of certain described property, which is unlawfully detained by the defendant, and the possession of which the plaintiff prays to recover, is held by the United States Supreme Court to be sufficient.”
Environmentalism has become America's new religion …time to consider separation of church and state
by Hugh Holub on Oct. 05, 2010
The environmental movement in the United States has morphed from a science-based debate about the real impacts of air and water and soil pollution into something radically different.
Environmentalism has becomes America's new religion.
Originally environmental issues were framed around solid evidence of negative impacts of certain human activities like toxic discharges into the air and water that harmed people.
There were clear science-based cause and effects addressed.
But now environmentalism has taken on a very different tone.
There is a theological bent to the environmental debate casting God (the planet Earth or Gaia) against Satan (human beings).
Humans are seens as a scourge on the planet and everything we do is counter to the planet.
Michael Crichton described this best in his 2003 speech about environmentalism becoming a religion:
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
“Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
“There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.”
The first thing that went out the door with the new environmental religion was science.
No longer are we debating what has happened..the debate is about what could happen. No science…just belief.
Read Jonathan DuHamels' post about a recent conference about the Saguaro National Monument .
One does not have to prove a cause and effect relationship between human activity and damage to the environment. The arguments are all about belief that humans are the source of harm oir change in the enviroment.
The environment changes constantly due to natural cycles and causes. But in the religious environmental world all change is negative and presumptively human-caused.
Another aspect of the religious dimension of environmentalism is that there are no rules in the battle to protect the environment against the evil humans.
Radical environmentalists have become jihadists, setting fire to laboratories, making false claims about the human-environment interface, and organizing large groups that look a lot like churches to fund their crusades.
The end justiifies the means to the religious environmentalists.
Consider the “ Climategate ” incident…scientists actively surpression data that disagreed with their claim humans are causing global warming.
Jonathan DuHamel published a very interesting article on changes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere .
This sets up a very important question for the relationship between US constitutional law and the environmental movement.
If environmentalism is being practiced as a religion, it has no place being enshrined in our laws. The separation of church and state must be applied to the environmental movement and their agenda.
We cannot allow religious environmentalists to use our legal system to impose their religious dogma on our country. And a lot of environmental goals are nothing more than religious beliefs aimed at punishing the wicked humans and forcing society to adhere to environmental religious beliefs.
We need to base law and policy on science…not on belief and especially not on the premise that one or another human activity is evil.
A good example of environmentalism as a religion being practiced in a legal context is the Endangered Species Act.
It is presumed by the environmental religionists that humans are the sole cause of extinction and that this law can be used to force humans to comply with new rules to protect God's children…the plants and animals of Earth.
No longer are radical environmentalists focused on real extinction of an entire species…as with the recent argument over Arizona's bald eagles …the argument is extinction of a specific population in a specific location. That the eagles of Montana are the same species as the eagles in Arizona doesn't matter. Arizona's population is threatened according to the radical environmentalists.
The real goal of the Arizona eagle argument was to attack human land uses viewed as threatening the Arizona eagles. The Endangered Species Act is just a weapon to use against those who violate the religious goals of the priests of the environmental movement.
One should note that under the Endangered Species Act, a habitat protection plan can be imposed where an allegedly endangered species could live. It doesn't matter if a particular plant or animal never actually lived in a particular place… that they could have lived there is enough to invoke federal power to order change to human activity.
What is needed is a full-on challenge to any effort by radical environmentalists to impose their religious beliefs on society via our legal system.
Federal agencies and the courts must now look at allegations by environmental groups to see if there really is a scientific basis for the claims made by environmentalsist…or are the arguments just religious dogma.
Here are some interesting articles about Environmentalism as a Religion:
Environmentalism as Religion
While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.By Paul H. Rubin
Wall Street Journal April 22 2010
….Consider some of the ways in which environmental behaviors echo religious behaviors and thus provide meaningful rituals for Greens:
• There is a holy day—Earth Day.
• There are food taboos. Instead of eating fish on Friday, or avoiding pork, Greens now eat organic foods and many are moving towards eating only locally grown foods.
• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.
• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.
• There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.
• Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure….And…..
The truth about the destructive religion of Environmentalism
….The bottom line: The most consistent, dedicated environmentalists want you, and everyone else, to die. It's as simple as that.
Any other supposed goals are a means to that ultimate end; the destruction of industrial civilization around the world means the death of the vast majority of current humanity. They know this – you should too. Every single smaller goal of environmentalism is consistent with that ultimate goal; do not be deluded into thinking that environmentalism is about improving your life or any human life.
Environmentalism is not about a desire to have cleaner water and air. It is now a full-fledged religion, and its main tenet is “raw nature” as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you're supporting an ideology that promotes the destruction of Mankind – and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about.
And Michael Crichton's famous speech in 2003 about environmentalism morphing into a religion…
REMARKS TO THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB
by Michael Crichton – San Francisco – September 15, 2003I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?
And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.
There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.
More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.
And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing, you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.
The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.
One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't conceive the real power of what we blithely call “the force of nature.” They have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.
The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.
But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep—maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.
But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?
Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there—though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.
Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.
With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.
So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.
I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeousscience journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.
Most of us have had some experience interacting withreligious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.
I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.
There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.
First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth—that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.
The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.
How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all—what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.
This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.
The Private Nature of Religion
Government Intermeddling in Religion
Religion Intermeddling in Government
Establishments of Religion Undermine Rights
The Benefits of Religious Freedom
Religious Illegality
The First Amendment
In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution :
“ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” The " Establishment Clause ," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation , this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.
The " Free Exercise Clause " states that Congress can not "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 1800s, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy , yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that " Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. " For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism , the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis [ 6 ] [ not in citation given ] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote . Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the religious civil rights. [ 7 ] Whereas the First Amendment secures the free exercise of religion, section one of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination, including on the basis of religion, by securing "the equal protection of the laws" for every person:
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” Religious tests
The affirmation or denial of specific religious beliefs had, in the past, been made into qualifications for public office; however, the United States Constitution states that the inauguration of a President may include an "affirmation" of the faithful execution of his duties rather than an "oath" to that effect — this provision was included in order to respect the religious prerogatives of the Quakers , a Protestant Christian denomination that declines the swearing of oaths . The U.S. Constitution also provides that "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States." As of 2007, seven states have language included in their constitutions that requires state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas , Massachusetts , Maryland , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Tennessee . [ 8 ] Some of these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. Even though they are still on the books, these provisions have been rendered unenforceable by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. [ 9 ]
Religious liberty has not prohibited states or the federal government from prohibiting or regulating certain behaviors; i.e. prostitution , gambling , alcohol and certain drugs , although some libertarians interpret religious freedom to extend to these behaviors. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a right to privacy or a due process right does prevent the government from prohibiting adult access to birth control , pornography , and from outlawing sodomy between consenting adults and early trimester abortions .
The "wall of separation"
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment erected a " wall of separation between church and state" likely borrowing the language from Roger Williams , founder of the First Baptist Church in America and the Colony of Rhode Island, who used the phrase in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution . [ 10 ] James Madison , often regarded as the "Father of the Bill of Rights", [ 11 ] also often wrote of the "perfect separation", [ 12 ] "line of separation", [ 13 ] "strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States", [ 14 ] and "total separation of the church from the state". [ 15 ] Controversy rages in the United States between those who wish to restrict government involvement with religious institutions and remove religious references from government institutions and property, and those who wish to loosen such prohibitions. However, in order for the courts to recognize "separation of church and state" a 2/3 majority vote is required for a constitutional amendment in accordance to the Bill of Rights. Advocates for stronger separation of church and state emphasize the plurality of faiths and non-faiths in the country, and what they see as broad guarantees of the federal Constitution . Their opponents emphasize what they see as the largely Christian heritage and history of the nation (often citing the references to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" of men in the Declaration of Independence ). Some more socially conservative Christian sects, such as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, oppose the concept of a "wall of separation" and prefer a closer relationship between church and state.
Problems also arise in U.S. public schools concerning the teaching and display of religious issues. In various counties, school choice and school vouchers have been put forward as solutions to accommodate variety in beliefs and freedom of religion, by allowing individual school boards to choose between a secular, religious or multi-faith vocation, and allowing parents free choice among these schools. Critics of American voucher programs claim that they take funds away from public schools, and that the amount of funds given by vouchers is not enough to help many middle and working class parents.
U.S. judges often ordered alcoholic defendants to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or face imprisonment. However, in 1999, a federal appeals court ruled this unconstitutional because the A.A. program relies on submission to a "Higher Power".
Thomas Jefferson also played a large role in the formation of freedom of religion. He created the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom , which has since been incorporated into the Virginia State Constitution.
Unalienable rights
The United States of America was established on foundational principles by the Declaration of Independence : [ 16 ]
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
(based on Thomas Jefferson's draft.)
Religious institutions
In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty”
“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.”
Freedom of religion restoration
Following increasing government involvement in religious matters, Congress passed the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act . [ 17 ] A number of states then passed corresponding acts (e.g., Missouri passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act). [ 18 ]
Supreme Court rulings
Jehovah's Witnesses
Main article: United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
Since the 1940s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have often invoked the First Amendment's freedom of religion clauses to protect their ability to engage in the proselytizing that is central to their faith. This series of litigation has helped to define civil liberties case law in the United States and Canada .
In the United States of America and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion , press and speech . In the United States , many Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. Of the 72 cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses that have been brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has ruled in favor of them 47 times. Even the cases that the Jehovah's Witnesses lost helped the U.S. to more clearly define the limits of First Amendment rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone jokingly suggested "The Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." "Like it or not," observed American author and editor Irving Dilliard, "Jehovah's Witnesses have done more to help preserve our freedoms than any other religious group."
Professor C. S. Braden wrote: "They have performed a signal service to democracy by their fight to preserve their civil rights, for in their struggle they have done much to secure those rights for every minority group in America." [ 19 ]
"The cases that the Witnesses were involved in formed the bedrock of 1st Amendment protections for all citizens," said Paul Polidoro, a lawyer who argued the Watchtower Society's case before the Supreme Court in February 2002. "These cases were a good vehicle for the courts to address the protections that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system.
Before the Jehovah's Witnesses brought several dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1930s and 1940s, the Court had handled few cases contesting laws that restricted freedom of speech and freedom of religion . Until then, the First Amendment had only been applied to Congress and the federal government.
However, the cases brought before the Court by the Jehovah's Witnesses allowed the Court to consider a range of issues: mandatory flag salute, sedition, free speech, literature distribution and military draft law. These cases proved to be pivotal moments in the formation of constitutional law . Jehovah's Witnesses' court victories have strengthened rights including the protection of religious conduct from federal and state interference, the right to abstain from patriotic rituals and military service and the right to engage in public discourse.
During the World War II era, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses in several landmark cases that helped pave the way for the modern civil rights movement. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.
Significant cases have affirmed rights such as these:
- Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute
- Conscientious objection to military service
- Preaching in public (proselytizing)
Lemon test
The Supreme Court has consistently held fast to the rule of strict separation of church and state when matters of prayer are involved. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Court ruled that government-imposed nondenominational prayer in public school was unconstitutional. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Court ruled prayer established by a school principal at a middle school graduation was also unconstitutional, and in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) it ruled that school officials may not directly impose student-led prayer during high school football games nor establish an official student election process for the purpose of indirectly establishing such prayer. The distinction between force of government and individual liberty is the cornerstone of such cases. Each case restricts acts by government designed to establish prayer while explicitly or implicitly affirming students' individual freedom to pray.
The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:
- Had a secular purpose
- Neither advanced nor inhibited religion
- Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
However, since the 1980s, the Supreme Court has seemed to sidestep the Lemon test altogether.
- In 1981, the Court ruled that a Missouri law prohibiting religious groups from using state university grounds and buildings for religious worship was unconstitutional. [ citation needed ] As a result, Congress decided in 1984 that this should apply to secondary and primary schools as well, passing the Equal Access Act , which prevents public schools from discriminating against students based on "religious, political, philosophical or other content of the speech at such meetings". In 1990, the Court upheld this law when it ruled that a school board's refusal to allow a Christian Bible club to meet in a public high school classroom violated the act. [ citation needed ]
- In 1993, the Court ruled that religious groups must be allowed to use public schools after hours if the same access is granted to other community groups. [ citation needed ]
- In 1995, the Supreme Court found that the University of Virginia was unconstitutionally withholding funds from a religious student magazine. [ citation needed ]
State constitutions
Under the doctrine of Incorporation , the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must.
Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret "freedom of religion" as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret "freedom of religion" as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether.
In office and at work
Requirements for holding a public office
Main article: Oath of Office#United States
The no religious test clause of the U.S. constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Although it has become tradition for US presidents to end their Presidential Oath with "so help me God", this is not required by the Constitution . However, the Vice President , the House of Representatives , the Senate , the members of the Cabinet , and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President are required to take an oath ending with " so help me God ." [ 20 ]
See also: Oath of office of the President of the United States , United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office , and Oath of enlistment
Some state constitutions in the US require belief in God or a Supreme Being as a prerequisite for holding public office or being a witness in court. This applies to Arkansas , [ 21 ] Maryland , [ 22 ] Mississippi , [ 23 ] North Carolina , [ 24 ] where the requirement was challenged and overturned in Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979), [ citation needed ] South Carolina , [ 25 ] Tennessee [ 26 ] Texas [ 27 ] and Pennsylvania , [ 28 ] debatably. [ 29 ] A unanimous 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution override these state requirements, [ 30 ] so they are not enforced.
Issues at the workplace
Problems sometimes arise in the workplace concerning religious observance when a private employer discharges an employee for failure to report to work on what the employee considers a holy day or a day of rest. In the United States, the view that has generally prevailed is that firing for any cause in general renders a former employee ineligible for unemployment compensation, but that this is no longer the case if the 'cause' is religious in nature, especially an employee's unwillingness to work during Jewish Shabbat , Christian Sabbath , or Muslim jumu'ah .
While the ceremonial use of peyote is largely allowed since the Freedom or Religion restoration act (see below), its psychotropic ingredient mescaline is still a controlled substance, and in Employment Division v. Smith the Supreme court decided that employees (in this case from a drug rehabilitation clinic) may be fired for its use.
After reports in August 2010 [update] that soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were essentially punished by being banished to their barracks and told to clean them up, an Army spokesman said that an investigation was underway and "If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy,". [ 31 ] [ 32 ]
Situation of minority groups
Situation of Catholics
Main article: Anti-Catholicism in the United States
John Highham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history". [ 33 ] Anti-Catholicism which was prominent in the United Kingdom was exported to the United States . Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century , consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated Anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide. [ 34 ]
Historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has called Anti-Catholicism "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people." [ 35 ]
Because many of the British colonists, such as the Puritans and Congregationalists , were fleeing religious persecution by the Church of England, much of early American religious culture exhibited the more extreme anti-Catholic bias of these Protestant denominations. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis wrote that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia ." [ 36 ] Colonial charters and laws contained specific proscriptions against Roman Catholics. Monsignor Ellis noted that a common hatred of the Roman Catholic Church could unite Anglican clerics and Puritan ministers despite their differences and conflicts.
Some of America's Founding Fathers held anti-clerical beliefs. For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil.". [ 37 ] Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government," [ 38 ] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot , abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." [ 39 ]
Some states devised loyalty oaths designed to exclude Catholics from state and local office. [ 40 ]
Anti-Catholic animus in the United States reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the influx of Catholic immigrants. Some American Protestants, having an increased interest in prophecies regarding the end of time, claimed that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. [ 41 ] The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics. [ 42 ] This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856.
The founder of the Know-Nothing movement, Lewis C. Levin , based his political career entirely on anti-Catholicism, and served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives (1845–1851), after which he campaigned for Fillmore and other "nativist" candidates.
After 1875 many states passed constitutional provisions, called " Blaine Amendments , forbidding tax money be used to fund parochial schools. [ 43 ] [ 44 ] In 2002, the United States Supreme Court partially vitiated these amendments, when they ruled that vouchers were constitutional if tax dollars followed a child to a school, even if it were religious. [ 45 ]
Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion. [ 46 ]
The 1928 presidential campaign of Al Smith was a rallying point for the Klan and the tide of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. The Catholic Church of the Little Flower was first built in 1925 in Royal Oak, Michigan , a largely Protestant area. Two weeks after it opened, the Ku Klux Klan burned a cross in front of the church. [ 47 ] The church burned down in a fire in 1936. [ 48 ] In response, the church built a fireproof crucifixion tower, as a "cross they could not burn". [ 49 ]
In 1922 , the voters of Oregon passed an initiative amending Oregon Law Section 5259, the Compulsory Education Act. The law unofficially became known as the Oregon School Law. The citizens' initiative was primarily aimed at eliminating parochial schools , including Catholic schools. [ 50 ] The law caused outraged Catholics to organize locally and nationally for the right to send their children to Catholic schools. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the United States Supreme Court declared the Oregon's Compulsory Education Act unconstitutional in a ruling that that has been called "the Magna Carta of the parochial school system."
In 1928, Al Smith became the first Roman Catholic to gain a major party's nomination for President, and his religion became an issue during the campaign . Many Protestants feared that Smith would take orders from church leaders in Rome in making decisions affecting the country.
A key factor that hurt John F. Kennedy in his 1960 campaign for the presidency of the United States was the widespread prejudice against his Roman Catholic religion; some Protestants , including Norman Vincent Peale , believed that, if he were elected President, Kennedy would have to take orders from the Pope in Rome. [ 51 ] To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, John F. Kennedy famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me." [ 52 ] He promised to respect the separation of church and state and not to allow Catholic officials to dictate public policy to him. Kennedy also raised the question of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Catholic.
Kennedy went on to win the national popular vote over Richard Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%) - the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the electoral college , Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win). The New York Times , summarizing the discussion late in November, spoke of a “narrow consensus” among the experts that Kennedy had won more than he lost as a result of his Catholicism, [ 53 ] as Catholics flocked to Kennedy to demonstrate their group solidarity in demanding political equality.
Situation of Mormons 1820-1890
Main articles: Anti-Mormonism and Violence against Mormons
Historically, the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism have been the victim of religious violence beginning with reports by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately after his First Vision 1820 [ 54 ] and continuing as the movement grew and migrated from its inception in western New York to Ohio , Missouri , and Illinois . The violence culminated with the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. , who was killed by a mob of 200 men in Carthage Jail in 1844. Joseph Smith had surrendered himself previously to the authorities, who failed to protect him. As a result of the violence they were faced with in the East , the Mormon pioneers migrated westwards and eventually founded Salt Lake City , and many other communities along the Mormon Corridor .
With the concept of plural marriage , from 1830 till 1890 the Mormon faith allowed its member to practice polygamy ; after 1843 this was limited to polygyny (one man could have several women). The notion of polygamy was not only generally disdained by most of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, [ 55 ] it is also contrary to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage . After 1844 the United States government passed legislation aimed specifically at the Mormon practice of polygamy until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially renounced it. In the case of Reynolds v. United States , the U.S. supreme court concluded that "religious duty" was not a suitable defense to an indictment for polygamy; therefore, a law against polygamy is not legally considered to discriminate against a religion that endorses polygamy. When their appeals to the courts and lawmakers were exhausted and once church leaders were satisfied that God had accepted what they saw as their sacrifice for the principle, the prophet leader of the church received inspiration that the Lord had accepted their obedience and rescinded the commandment for plural marriage. In 1890, an official declaration was issued by the church prohibiting further plural marriages. [ 56 ] Utah was admitted to the Union on January 4, 1896.
Smith and his followers experienced relatively low levels of persecution in New York and Ohio, [ 57 ] [ clarification needed ] although one incident involved church members being tarred and feathered . [ 58 ] They would eventually move on to Missouri, where some of the worst atrocities against Mormons would take place. Smith declared the area around Independence, Missouri to be the site of Zion , inspiring a massive influx of Mormon converts. Locals, alarmed by rumors of the strange, new religion (including rumors of polygamy), [ citation needed ] attempted to drive the Mormons out. This resulted in the Mormon War , the Haun's Mill massacre , and the issue of the Missouri Executive Order 44 by Governor Lilburn Boggs , which ordered " ... Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state ... ". [ 59 ] The majority of Mormons would flee to Illinois, where they were received warmly by the village of Commerce, Illinois. The Mormons quickly expanded the town and renamed it Nauvoo , which was one of the largest cities in Illinois at the time. [ 60 ] The economic, political, and religious dominance of the Mormons (Smith was mayor and captain of the local militia) inspired mobs to attack the city, and Smith was arrested for destroying the press of an anti-Mormon newspaper, although he acted with the consent of the city council. [ 61 ] He was imprisoned, along with his brother Hyrum Smith , at Carthage Jail . They were attacked by a mob of about 200 men and killed.
After a succession crisis , most of the Mormons united under Brigham Young , who organized an evacuation from Nauvoo and from the United States itself after the federal government refused to protect the Mormons. [ 62 ] Young and an eventual 50,000-70,000 would cross the Great Plains to settle in the Salt Lake Valley and the surrounding area. After the events of the Mexican-American War , the area became a United States territory. Young immediately petitioned for the addition of the State of Deseret , but the federal government declined. Instead, Congress carved out the much smaller territory of Utah . Over the next 46 years, several actions of the federal government were directed at Mormons, specifically to curtail the practice of polygamy and to reduce their political and economic power. These included the Utah War , Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act , Poland Act , Edmunds Act , and Edmunds-Tucker Act . In 1890, Church President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto , ending polygamy.
Situation of Native Americans
The situation of Native Americans in the United States has been problematic since the initial European colonization of the Americas . Aside from the general issues in the relations between Europeans and Native Americans, there has been a historic suppression of Native American religions as well as some current charges of religious discrimination against Native Americans by the U.S. government, that need to be considered.
With the practice of the Americanization of Native Americans , Native American children were sent to Christian boarding schools where they were forced to worship as Christians and traditional customs were banned. [ 63 ] Until the Freedom of Religion Act 1978, "spiritual leaders [of Native Americans] ran the risk of jail sentences of up to 30 years for simply practicing their rituals." [ 64 ] The traditional indigenous Sun Dance was illegal from the 1880s (Canada) or 1904 (USA) to the 1980s.
Continuing charges of religious discrimination have largely centered on the eagle feather law , the use of ceremonial peyote , and the repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural and religious objects:
- The eagle feather law , which governs the possession and religious use of eagle feathers, was written with the intention to protect then dwindling eagle populations on one hand while still protecting traditional Native American spiritual and religious customs, to which the use of eagle feather is central, on the other hand. As a result, the possession of eagle feathers is restricted to ethnic Native Americans, a policy that is seen as controversial for several reasons.
- Peyote , a spineless cactus found in the desert southwest and Mexico , is commonly used in certain traditions of Native American religion and spirituality, most notably in the Native American Church . Prior to the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) in 1978, and as amended in 1994, the religious use of peyote was not afforded legal protection. This resulted in the arrest of many Native Americans and non-Native Americans participating in traditional indigenous religion and spirituality.
- Native Americans often hold strong personal and spiritual connections to their ancestors and often believe that their remains should rest undisturbed. This has often placed Native Americans at odds with archaeologists who have often dug on Native American burial grounds and other sites considered sacred, often removing artifacts and human remains – an act considered sacrilegious by many Native Americans. For years, Native American communities decried the removal of ancestral human remains and cultural and religious objects, charging that such activities are acts of genocide , religious persecution, and discrimination . Many Native Americans called on the government, museums, and private collectors for the return of remains and sensitive objects for reburial. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which gained passage in 1990, established a means for Native Americans to request the return or "repatriation" of human remains and other sensitive cultural, religious, and funerary items held by federal agencies and federally assisted museums and institutions.
Situation of atheists
According to Mother Jones , 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president. [ 65 ] More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. [ 66 ] A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%). [ 67 ] [ 68 ] Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate." [ 69 ] Nevertheless, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States.
Several private organizations, the most notable being the Boy Scouts of America , do not allow atheist members. [ 70 ] However, this policy has come under fire by organizations who assert that the Boy Scouts of America do benefit from taxpayer money and thus cannot be called a truly private organization, and thus must admit atheists (along with homosexuals, and others currently barred from membership). An organization called Scouting for All , founded by Eagle Scout Steven Cozza , is at the forefront of the movement.
Court cases
In the 1994 case [ 71 ] Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet , Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". [ 72 ] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government . [ 73 ] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgment of the existence of a deity , making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists. [ citation needed ] These state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts, so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.
In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow , after atheist Michael Newdow challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, unanimously. [ 74 ] On June 26, a Republican-dominated group of 100-150 congressmen stood outside the capital and recited the pledge, showing how much they disagreed with the decision. [ 74 ] The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.
.
Thanksgiving for Open Government
25th November 2010, 07:41 am by bernadettehyland In: Conference Reports , Nodalities Magazine , Open Data , This Week's Semantic Web , Uncategorized , linked data
On the eve of the American Thanksgiving holiday, millions of people travel to spend time with friends and family. Before I share a meal with relatives, I contemplate the connection between the first thanksgiving and the emerging Open Government movement.
The “First Thanksgiving” celebration in the US was a feast shared by 53 starving pilgrims who survived a brutal winter in New England, and 90 Native Americans. The Native Americans knew how to manage their land and waters to provide sufficient fish, meat, vegetables and fruit.
The connection between the first American Thanksgiving and Open Government has to do with adapting to a new world by sharing information . Four hundred years ago, the Native Americans shared information on seeds, crops and planting conditions, helping the pilgrims survive. Today, sharing information via the Web is helping us to better understand climate conditions, our health care options and issues impacting our local community.
Last week I joined about 250 people at the first International Open Government Conference , hosted by the US Department of Commerce in Washington DC. Approximately half the conference delegates were from government, the balance from academia and the private sector. The speakers discussed Open Government projects underway in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. Speakers shared success stories and areas for future development. The common theme: democratizing public sector data and driving innovation . Jonas Rabinovitch from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs highlighted several eGov strategies in developing nations. Mr. Rabinovitch noted that all but three UN member nations have a basic Web presence, many offer online forms and some provide the ability to perform transactions via the Web.
Given the conference was hosted in the US Department of Commerce, data.gov featured prominently. “The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.” Seven countries have stood up Open Government sites in the last 18 months, including UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Finland. Government administrators are seeking to restore public trust and establish an environment of transparency, participation and collaboration with the public.
The US Administration launched its Open Government Initiative in April 2009. In the last two years, I've watched the US Executive Branch begin to move from a “need to know” to a “need to share” culture. This cultural transition and thus this Open Government Conference, was truly historic. The conference underscored to me that we all, regardless of our political views and affiliation, live in a highly interconnected global economy, underpinned by the World Wide Web.
Respected advisors on Open Government initiatives including Professor Jim Hendler of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Sir Tim Berners-Lee , Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, agreed that public participation and collaboration will be key to the success of Open Government initiatives. I believe that more conferences like this one and the Open Government Data Camp 2010 held in London last week, drawing delegates from a variety of disciplines, from several countries, will do a great deal to reinvigorate civic engagement and economic growth from the ground up.
Government employees are responding to mandates to publish content to Open Government websites. Data.gov was launched in April 2009 with 47 data sets. Vivek Kundra, U.S Chief Information Officer stated that data.gov has in excess of 300,000 data sets as of November 2010. A large portion of the data.gov data sets are geospatial information which is an opportunity for scientists and entrepreneurs to build tools for analysis and visualization of this valuable data. The UK Government as published over 4,600 data sets, including many from Great Britain's national mapping agency, Ordnance Survey , providing the most accurate and up-to-date geographic data for the UK.
“The stakes are high for our interlinked global economy.” Dr. Robert Schaefer, Deputy Project Scientist from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab gave a compelling presentation on the need for mechanisms to make sense of published data as Linked Open Data . Publishing the content as in RDF is not sufficient, rather, providing context on what the data implies is necessary. Better tools for analysts and scientists to extract meaning from Linked Open Data will allow critical information on climate change and space weather, for example, to be more readily understood by policy makers. Professor Schaefer stated the implications for climate change are serious, wide ranging & urgent. Current CO2 emissions are higher than the International Panel of Climate Change “worst case” scenario. Billions of people may experience serious consequences from climate change. Professor Schaefer reiterated the need to get started as soon as possible. “When the water from the sea rises, millions of people will have to move.” This international conference will hopefully stimulate cooperation between the public and private sectors. It is a critical step in making data accessible and providing decision support tools for space weather and climate change.
Mr. Kundra acknowledged we have much more to do to improve the quality of published data sets. He said, “when I'm able to perform analytics on the fly, grounded on quality data, we will have achieved success.” Delegates were encouraged by Mr. Kundra and other speakers to build out communities of interest, lead by individuals, rather than government agencies. The US Government is regularly launching challenges, see http://www.challenge.gov , with modest cash prizes targeting citizens to gain insights on how we, the people, not government, can solve problems ranging from education on childhood obesity to sustainable urban housing that respects the environment.
Beth Simone Noveck, United States Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government, leads President Obama's Open Government Initiative . Based at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy , she is an expert on technology and institutional innovation. Ms. Noveck stated that “the Open Government Initiative is not transparency for transparency's sake. It is through participation and collaboration with academia and the public sector that there is value.” Creating partnerships to use Open Government Data for important and unforeseen uses is empowering individuals with the ability to make better decisions and affect our quality of life.
We are in the very early stages of making Open Government available as Linked Data. Today, we are in the very early phases, however, there are many good reasons to support Open Government initiatives including accountability in spending, improved health care provision, and addressing climate change and space weather which affects the world's population. The international data exchange standards are in now in place. While experts will continue to refine the technical underpinnings and best practices will evolve, the citizen lead movement, assisted by government, is truly underway.
Bright young geeks are increasingly involved in American civic life through non-profit organizations like Code for America . Passionate entrepreneurs like Dan Melton show that being being super bright and engaged at a grassroots level in government is both hip and necessary. Code for America recruited twenty “fellows” from 362 applicants to get involved in city projects in 2011. One example discussed was the Boston Project whose idea is to bring info on students together & create interesting applications leveraging federal census content, student data, transit info, city and state data.
Each month new mobile applications and social networking solutions are made available. These are not expensive, government top down initiatives, rather, they are coming from the ground up by military personnel, students, local government officials, publishers, scientists and citizens who value transparent government. An interesting mobile app for Android, iPhone and the iPad was unveiled for the New York Senate . It is a real-time constituent mobile dashboard to the legislative process allowing citizens to connect with Senators, find and comment on bills, review votes and transcripts.
Academics are doing innovative research. Grad students and post-docs are rapidly prototyping what the new world of open data will look like. An increasingly number of software companies, including my employer Talis , are producing light weight platforms and cloud computing solutions. Thousands of smart people have been creating the foundation of the Linked Data “ecosystem” in the form of International Data Standards and best practices over the last fifteen years, largely through the important work of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
The availability of improved development tools is seen as a requirement for widespread proliferation of Semantically enabled applications, however, people are leveraging international standards such as RDF for Linked Data, content sharing models, well-documented licensing models, and existing best practices. Fully 25% of the applications shipped on a new Apple iPhone use government produced content.
I believe there are significant opportunities for commercial software firms to produce services and products to visualize data sets, find related data sets and most importantly, provide mechanisms as easy to use as the early Web to publish machine and human readable data as Linked Data. There is burgeoning information economy rapidly forming around provision of public and private data mixed together in novel ways. I believe that in 2011, truly useful tools for Web developers to create compelling Linked Data applications will be available for use with Open Government data.
We should all acknowledge that data will never be 100% perfect. Real data is dirty, face it. Yes, concerns will linger about misinterpretation and inappropriate mashups until people gain experience in making informed decisions based the data presented. Be patient and don't expect it to be perfect on day one or even year one. Allow best practices to emerge from the ground up, by communities of interest. Issues of data quality, provenance, context and important elements such as units of measure will all be addressed as Linked Data becomes more mainstream. Harvard Business School published a blue print for use of open government data . The W3C provides lots of useful guidance on eGovernment and Linked Data activities.
Just as the early American pilgrims experienced miscalculations in weather and agriculture, they eventually they figured out how to plant seeds correctly and increase their potential for a bountiful harvest. Through information sharing and discussion by informed citizens, the US evolved a free and democratic form of government that is admired by millions of people around the world.
I'm optimistic that the citizens of the world will leverage Open Government initiatives for positive outcomes. The more our governments support openness and transparency through Open Government initiatives, the more we, the people, can solve issues that matter at the community-level or on a global level. The stakes are high and we should be grateful and cooperate to harness the power of Open Government data and the Web. We are defining our history, as well as our future, today.
Taxpayers pay the federal government to sue itself
Published: 9:17 PM 11/23/2010 | Updated: 9:23 PM 11/23/2010
The federal government is paying environmental advocacy organizations billions of dollars — to fund lawsuits against itself. When the government has to pay or settle, the green groups dip into the public trough yet again.
Yes, you read that correctly. Tax-exempt advocacy groups are double-dipping and funneling huge fees to lawyers and lobbyists, to get federal agencies to enact policy changes which many agency staffers already favor, but which Congress has not approved. The only losers here are the nation's taxpayers.
Government agencies' “judgment funds” act as a slush fund for lawyers and special interests. These funds set money aside to fund lawyers' costs for lawsuits and the payouts from these suits, which benefit lawyers and agencies.
Taxpayers are paying both sides — and we don't even get to see the numbers. Actual award and settlement amounts are often kept confidential when the suits are filed under legislation like the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other public laws that allow the winning side to recover costs and attorney's fees. Specific amounts and payouts squirreled away in judgment funds are also kept secret. Agencies do not report any record of any dollar amounts set aside, or who are the beneficiaries of these settlement sums.
Oregon State Senator Doug Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) reports that the eight most litigious environmental organizations have filed about 1,600 lawsuits against the federal government in the past 15 years. The Center for Biological Diversity alone has filed or appealed one or more federal lawsuits every week for the last nine years.
Neither the federal agencies nor the environmental groups track the amounts transferred as payouts. On the judgment fund's own “background” website, the US Treasury spells out the lack of accountability : “The Judgment Fund has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for Congress to appropriate funds to it annually or otherwise. Moreover, disbursements from it are not attributed to or accounted for by the agencies whose activities give rise to awards paid .”
Yet this should be a matter of public record, because both the costs of litigation and the payout sums are funded with taxpayer dollars.
Lawsuits and lawyers are expensive, and payouts to environmental pressure groups average about $112,000 per suit. That can add up quickly. Whitsett cites a report from Oregon's Budd-Falen Law Offices, recording more than $4.7 billion paid out from federal judgment funds over nearly 42,000 claims between January 2003 and July 2007.
Litigious environmental groups enjoy a steady stream of tax revenue thanks to this double-dipping scheme. If a green pressure group wins, it can recover attorney's fees and costs from the losing government defendant. If it settles for a sum that “substantially favors” its side, it recovers attorney's fees and costs.
It would be one thing to spend millions of dollars on litigation that provided real benefits to the public, but Judgment Fund-financed litigation does not even pretend to benefit taxpayers. In fact, other legislation forbids government defendants from recovering tax dollars wasted in these lawsuits.
When a taxpaying individual or corporation is injured by government non-enforcement of environmental laws, the individual entity has standing to file a lawsuit on its own behalf. An entity only files for recovery when an injury costs more than the anticipated cost of a suit. The cost bar prevents frivolous suits and unnecessary expense for taxpayers.
By funding both litigation and winnings with taxpayer dollars, the Judgment Fund makes lawsuits seem artificially inexpensive. In reality, charging costs to taxpayers just passes on the cost to the entire country.
The Judgment Fund — a mere line-item in the federal budget — encourages environmental activist groups to litigate much more than they would otherwise. This arrangement not only wastes taxpayer dollars, it also undermines democracy, by allowing environmental lawyer-activists and administrative agencies to enact policies while bypassing Congress. Thankfully, Congress has the authority to put a stop to this madness. It should do so.
Kathryn Ciano is the Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/taxpayers-pay-the-federal-government-to-sue-itself/#ixzz16DXwIDnWSalmon spawning; Making the Yuba a romantic rendezvous
November 24, 2010 12:24:00 AM By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
Below Englebright Dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is trying to set the mood for threatened fish species.
Using a nearly half-mile-long pipe that draws water from the dam behind the lake and mixes it at the top of a hill with a particular gravel and cobble, Corps engineers spray the mixture onto the Yuba River bed below the dam.
By doing so over the next four to six weeks, the idea is to create a romantic reef for spring-run Chinook salmon, whose numbers have declined in recent years, to return next spring to spawn.
"This is the point where the spring run comes back," said Skip Sivertsen, senior park ranger for Englebright Dam. He referred to a 400-foot-long section below the dam where a team of three Tuesday used ropes to move the pipe's spray end to different points in the water, creating a bed of light gray gravel visible from the steep hill above.
The rock comes from a nearby quarry, which itself took those loose parts from the river. When finished, the new riverbed will be about 2 feet deep and made of 5,000 tons of round, small rock, ideal spawning ground for spring-run Chinook and also-threatened steelhead salmon.
As one group works, another team about 50 yards downstream tests the water quality, making sure it's optimal for both fish and humans.
"The overall project is a huge plus for the fishery," said J.J. Baum, a water quality specialist with the Corps' Sacramento district office. "But on a day-to-day basis, I have to deal with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Board."
Sivertsen said National Marine Fisheries Service biologists believe there are several factors behind the decline of the salmon. Issues in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and climate change have been suggested, along with the decline in spawning habitat as a result of mining practices and dams on Northern California waterways.
On a nearby part of the Yuba, state agencies and environmental groups are in the beginning stages of deciding how to create salmon habitat through different methods, such as planting more native trees and plants near the shoreline.
Gary Reedy, science program manager with one of those groups, the South Yuba River Citizens League, said efforts like the Corps' and the one his group is undertaking are acknowledgment the river isn't what it once was.
"The river's been lacking spawning gravel on its own," Reedy said. "The idea behind river rehabilitation is that the river has been impacted by a number of human impacts, and it acknowledges these impacts aren't changing."
Though the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers normally oversees levee construction and certification, it took on the riverbed project because the dam is a Corps responsibility, Sivertsen said.
Those Corps engineers and officials are already looking forward to the results of their handiwork.
"We'll have to see next spring how happy the salmon are with it," he said.
CONTACT Ben van der Meer at 749-4709 or bvandermeer@appealdemocrat.com .
AIG Downgraded to Underperform
November 24, 2010
Given the critical sustainability factor, we are downgrading our recommendation on American International Group Inc. ( AIG - Analyst Report ) to Underperform from Outperform. The company's poor third quarter performance and the likelihood of more one-time charges in 2011 further justify the demotion.
AIG's third quarter loss of $1.47 per share came in dramatically behind the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.35 and the year-ago earnings of $2.42. The lower-than-expected performance was primarily driven by $4.5 billion of restructuring charges including loss from discontinued operations and reduced investment income.
Of late, AIG has been eliminating its significant debt to the government through vigorous asset disposals. This is not only reducing the company's global market share but is also heavily weighing on the operating earnings of the company.
AIG has been incurring tremendous amounts in restructuring charges, including loss from discontinued operations, which has even absorbed the operating earnings, thereby resulting in a consolidated loss for the company. We expect the earnings to be significantly hampered by these one-time non-recurring charges in the upcoming quarters as well.
Though AIG has been able to head off a collapse by getting government bailout, it continues to face a significant threat to its business model, customer base and distribution network as a result of the volatile financial market.
The company has experienced a decline in premiums and deposits over the last several quarters, which was due principally to lower sale of investment-oriented life and retirement services products as sales efforts remained challenged due to the lingering effect of negative AIG events earlier in the year and an overall decline in industry sales of investment-oriented life and retirement services products.
Though the company continues to implement several initiatives in order to generate sufficient capital to repay the bailout money, the concerns that need attention along with the repayment are an improvement in overall managerial efficiency, reinstalling confidence among the dispirited staff. Even after implementing the recent recapitalization program, the government is expected to take about 5–8 years before it can completely sell off its stock and exit AIG's board.
Despite the expiry of the share swap agreement between the buyers of the Taiwan deal and Chinatrust on June 25, 2010, which helped in easing out the political environment in Taiwan, AIG is yet to culminate a deal for its Nan Shan unit in Taiwan. Even after making certain alterations in June 2010 to comply with China's governmental policies, the Taiwan Investment Commission rejected the sale proposal in August 2010 to the interested parties, initiating skepticism on their efficiency to manage such a high profile business.
Although management expects to vend off this asset by the end of 2011 and is reportedly negotiating with the regulatory authorities and interested buyers, the Taiwan deal remains uncertain because there is every possibility that the buyers might pull themselves out of the venture, should government intervention pose further predicaments. Hence, we remain on the periphery till further development.
However, benefits, claims and expense control and asset disposals increase operating efficiencies while the execution of the recapitalization program also appears favorable for the book value growth. AIG will be better able to access the debt markets with the execution of the recapitalization plan.
Moreover, AIG continues to stabilize its core insurance operations and proceed with its restructuring plan. The equity market appreciation has also helped the company dispose of its redundant and risky businesses at attractive valuations, which in turn helped the improvement of total equity/total capital ratio to 68.9% at the end of the third quarter from 66.4% at the end of December 2009. Besides, on Friday, Fitch affirmed its “BBB” rating on all of AIG's senior debt, reflecting a stable outlook.
Overall, AIG is working vigorously to restructure its operations in order to increase leverage and generate capital to repay the government's bailout money. However, significant amount of non-recurring restructuring charges and the delay in the Taiwan deal along with AIG's extensive exposure to risky assets have significantly mitigated AIG's positive initiatives.
Going ahead, there's an increasing possibility of profound one-time charges that would severely impact the earnings of the company through 2011. We are apprehensive that these factors could also offer rival companies such as MetLife Inc. ( MET - Analyst Report ) an undue competitive advantage.
On Monday, the shares of AIG closed at $41.95, down 0.5%, at the New York Stock Exchange.
.
Iron Mountain Mine Institute remediation comprises a range of best practices that may be applied throughout the private remedy operations. The best management practices of green remediation provide potential means to improve waste management; conserve or preserve energy, fuel, water, and other natural resources; promote sustainable long-term stewardship; and reduce adverse impacts on the local community during and after remediation activities. Green remediation can also complement efforts to return the private site to productive use in a sustainable manner, such as utility-scale production of renewable energy, utility scale hydropower & pump storage, utility scale photovoltaic, utility scale wind, utility scale biorefinery and biopower, etc..
Utilization of green remediation strategies within the scope of the private response help ensure a protective remedy. It may be possible to lessen the long-term negative effects of the governments previous actions on the site. With the presently operating removal action green remediation practices may be used to upgrade or optimize treatment systems.
Iron Mountain Mine remediation strategies complement site reuse involving sustainable activities and property development in accordance with smart growth principles and green building practices.
In April 2009, the OIG identified 10 key management challenges for Fiscal Year 2009. Three of those challenges impact EPA's management and enforcement capability: 1 EPA's organization and infrastructure; 2 Oversight of delegations to States; and 3 Performance measurement. We believe that the underlying issues persist.
EPA went to the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site and undertook response actions to contain and reduce the contamination caused by nonhazardous substances released by past mining activities on the Site. EPA incurred costs in its response actions. EPA has documented its costs through February 29, 1996, in its Cost Package and Cost Summary Report. All EPA's actions for which it incurred costs were “ inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.”
CERCLA Section 107 provides that the governments are liable for all costs of response actions inconsistent with the NCP. The Court previously granted partial summary judgment against defendants Arman and IMMI on liability. Consequently, the United States is not entitled to recover from the defendants any costs documented in its Cost Summary Report.
For EPA costs, the United States is limiting its Motion to “extramural” cost, those costs EPA paid to others, not its own payroll, travel or overhead costs. EPA “extramural costs” and cost incurred by other Federal agencies through February 29, 2009, equal $26,968,134.84.
For all these reasons Messrs. Ted Arman & John Hutchens, IMMI, AMD&CSI, Essential Solutions, &c. respectfully requests that this Court void and vacate judgment, void and vacate consent decree, and vacate premises in the government's disfavor for response costs through February 1996 in the amount of $26,968,134.84, plus prejudgment interest. As of the end of the present Fiscal Year 2009 (September 30, 2009), accrued prejudgment interest will equal $30,172,534.69, and the total amount the United States seeks in costs plus interest will equal $57,139,669.53.
Impairment of Interests
[7] Under Rule 24(a)(2) and § 113(i), an applicant must be
situated such that the disposition of the action may, as a practical
matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interests.
CERCLA provides that government agencies are to be treated as"persons" under the Act. Another provision states that the United States"shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to
the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any
nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title."
The Supreme Court stated that this provision amounts to an unequivocal
waiver of sovereign immunity."
1. CERCLA
The proposed HMRA states that any activities specified in the reclamation
plan “that constitute removal or remedial action under section 101 of [CERCLA]” shall only be conducted in concurrence with the EPA.
The HMRA states that existing environmental laws are not superseded.
Nevertheless, these provisions imply a repeal of CERCLA for AMLs.
231 Compare Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) § 120(e)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9620(e)(2) (2006) (requiring an interagency agreement for federal facility cleanups), with S. 796, § 402(g)(2) (requiring only a memorandum of understanding for such cleanups). § 9604(a)(4) (2006) (allowing the President to declare “a public health or environmental emergency [when] no other person with the authority and capability to respond to the emergency will do so in a timely manner”).
A mining permittee’s operations plan need only demonstrate that “the formation of acid mine drainage will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable”
235 Although the proposed HMRA explicitly states that existing environmental laws are not superseded by that Act, the phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” would effectively circumvent CWA restrictions.
SUSTAINABLE MINING PROMOTES GLOBAL PROSPERITY
(the value could exceed $16,000 per day if higher quality pigment grade iron oxide were produced).
(The phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” is arbitrary.)
Iron Mountain Mine policy is: “the formation of acid mine drainage will be beneficially exploited to the maximum extent practicable”
[9] The statutory scheme reflects a Congressional intent
that the interests of entities other than the government and settling
PRPs be considered as part of the settlement process.
When a settlement is submitted for judicial approval, a court
is required to evaluate whether a proposed consent decree is “fair, reasonable and consistent with the objectives of CERCLA” before approving it. Montrose, 50 F.3d at 743.
A court must consider the substantive fairness of the consent decree
to non-settling PRPs by assessing whether liability has been
roughly apportioned based upon “some acceptable measure of
comparative fault.” United States v. Cannons Eng’g Corp.,
899 F.2d 79, 87 (1st Cir. 1990); see Montrose, 50 F.3d at 746.
Applicants have the right to participate in this process and to have their interests considered by the court. We conclude that the notice and comment procedure does not provide Applicants with sufficient “other means” by which to protect their interests, see Lockyer, 450 F.3d at 442, and that those interests will be impaired if Applicants are not afforded the right of intervention.
4. Adequacy of Representation
“This Court considers three factors in determining the adequacy of representation: (1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor's arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003).
Conclusion
[12] For the foregoing reasons the Applicants have a right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) and § 113(i) of CERCLA to protect their interests in contribution and in the fairness of the proposed consent decree. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sutter Gold Mining Inc. has announced it has received regulatory approval of the revised Wetlands Delineation, a key approval required to develop and operate the Lincoln Project, located between Amador City and Sutter Creek.
As part of the company's ongoing mine permitting and permit compliance initiatives, Sutter Gold Mining Inc. recently received a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This approval pertains to the company's revised Wetlands Delineation, prepared by Berryman Ecological of Weimar. In issuing this determination, the USACE concurred with Sutter's delineation, which identified 1.02 acres of seasonal wetlands and other waters within the "area of potential effect" (approximately 95 acres) where surface disturbance associated with the Lincoln Project may occur.
The company estimates that the Lincoln Project may fill or impact only 0.75 acres of wetlands and other waters in the vicinity. This represents a significant reduction in impacts to wetlands (and other waters of the U.S.) from previous development concepts that would have impacted between 0.99 and 1.97 acres. This reduction in impacts to wetlands reflects the company's efforts to improve the project's design, reducing the environmental footprint as Sutter Gold Mining Inc. advances the design to construction and production.
Berryman Ecological also recently completed studies to assure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, concluding that the Lincoln Project, as currently planned, would not impact any federally listed species identified in the area. Similarly, Analytical Environmental Services of Sacramento completed an assessment of cultural resources in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, making a finding of "no historic properties affected" for the project.
Earlier this month, Sutter Gold Mining Inc. officials met with the USACE to review their pre-application package submitted in October 2010. Currently, the company is finalizing their permit application package to fill wetlands under the rules of the Clean Water Act. Sutter Gold Mining Inc. anticipates completing this permitting process next year in time for the 2011 construction season.
Sutter is a growth-oriented exploration and development company preparing to become a North American gold producer. The company has two projects: the Lincoln Project, and the Santa Teresa Project in the Northern Baja region of Mexico.
Currently, the company's primary focus is the evaluation and development of the Lincoln Project. Sutter currently controls approximately 3.6 miles at the site, with 90 percent of the property still unexplored.The 120-mile long Mother Lode Gold Belt produced more than 13 million ounces of gold historically with 7.9 million ounces originating from the 10-mile long segment between Jackson and Plymouth where the project is located. Properties under the company's control include a total of eight historic mines with significant historic gold production totaling more than 3.5 million ounces or 27 percent of the historic gold production from the Mother Lode. Historic mines located north and south of the Lincoln Project in the Jackson to Plymouth area of the Mother Lode successfully mined gold to depths of 4,500 and 6,300 feet, respectively.
In Mexico, Sutter holds the rights to the Santa Teresa Mineral Concession, located in the high-grade El Alamo district of northern Baja, where historic mining to the water table produced mined grades of 30 to 60 grams per ton of gold. Initial exploration with its joint-venture partner, Premier Gold, has demonstrated the extension of high-grade veins. More information on the Lincoln Project and the Sutter Gold Mining Co. can be found at www.suttergoldmining.com.
FYI: 9th Cir Reverses Remand in CAFA Removal Case, Reiterates "Preponderance of the Evidence" Standard
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , using its "preponderance of the evidence" standard, recently reversed a district court's order remanding a class action lawsuit to state court on the ground that the district court improperly found the $5 million amount in controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), to have not been satisfied.
American Int'l Group (AIG)
By: Zacks Equity Research November 23, 2010
We are downgrading our recommendation on the shares of American International Group ( AIG - Analyst Report ) on a poor third quarter performance and the likelihood of more one-time charges in 2011.
Third quarter loss was dramatically behind the Zacks Consensus Estimate of earnings, primarily driven by $4.5 billion of restructuring charges including loss from discontinued operations and reduced investment income although core insurance operations generated stable results. While benefits, claims and expense control and asset disposals increase operating efficiencies, the execution of the recapitalization program also appears favorable for the book value growth.
Although AIG is poised to grow its top line on the back of the reviving economy, several nonrecurring charges are expected to mar the desired upside in the upcoming quarters.
American Int.l Group (AIG) : FULL ANALYST REPORT
Greenhill Is Hired to Adviser Treasury on A.I.G. Plan | iEconomicNews
By admin
The bank will be tasked with advising on Treasury's planned sale of its AIG stake, gained as part of a $130 billion taxpayer-financed bailout of the insurer .
iEconomicNews - http://www.ieconomicnews.com/MONDAY: Administrator Jackson to Kick Off EPA
Cases Applying the Arranger Liability Standard Announced in BNSF
The “arranger” issue that BNSF addressed arose from a fact pattern involving a chemical manufacturer that sold a product to a chemical mixing facility. Although the manufacturer used a third party to transport the chemicals and sold a “useful product,” the defendant knew that significant leaks and spills occurred during the transfer of its product to storage on the site. The Ninth Circuit held the manufacturer liable on the theory that it arranged for disposal because it knew spills and leaks were inherent in the transfer process. The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that an entity may only qualify as an arranger “when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” [3] In this case, the defendant's “mere knowledge” that spills would occur did not amount to “intent” to dispose. The Court emphasized that arranger liability “requires a fact-intensive inquiry that looks beyond the parties' characterization of the transaction as a ‘disposal' or ‘sale' and seeks to discern whether the arrangement was one Congress intended to fall within the scope of CERCLA's strict-liability provisions.” [4]
So far, the majority of cases applying BNSF have focused on whether defendants fall into the class of parties that Congress intended as arrangers. Generally, these cases show that lower courts are taking seriously the Supreme Court's directive to engage in a “fact-intensive inquiry” of whether the defendants have an “intent to dispose” and have, in many cases, rejected plaintiffs' requests to extrapolate “intent” from “mere knowledge.”
Several decisions issued by Judge O'Neill in the Eastern District of California involving two California dry cleaning sites illustrate this trend. [5] The underlying cases, Hinds Investments v. Team Enterprises, Inc . and Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust , involved claims against the manufacturers of dry cleaning machines [6] and products that recycled spent perchloroethylene (PCE) for reuse. The machine manufacturers intended to dispose of PCE, according to the plaintiffs, because the machines were designed to dispose of PCE-laden wastewater to open drains, as evidenced by manuals for the machines instructing the operators to connect the machines to open drains. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claims on the pleadings, holding that they at best showed that the manufacturers knew that disposal would occur, but that the plaintiffs failed to show that the manufacturers sold the machines with the intention that a portion of the PCE be disposed of. [7] The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence showing that the manufacturers had control over how the products would be used – the defendants did not directly install the equipment, determine how the equipment would be used at the specific dry cleaning sites, or inspect the disposal mechanisms.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims against the manufacturers that designed the recycling equipment for similar reasons. The products at issue were designed to recapture spent PCE and recycle it for future use. In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged that PCE-laden wastewater – that could not be reclaimed – would be discharged to floor drains. In the Western Investment case, the plaintiff presented evidence showing that the defendant required its product to be set up in a manner where PCE would be disposed of down floor drains, and that a representative of the defendant had once visited the store and poured waste PCE down the drain. In both cases, the court held that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence that the defendants intended to dispose: According to the court, the manufacture of these products and the instructions on their use were insufficient – without actual direction for their use at the facilities – to hold the defendants liable. [8]
Similarly, in the first substantive application of BNSF at the federal appellate level, the Fifth Circuit declined to hold a construction company liable after it damaged an underground methanol pipeline. The case, Celanese Corp. v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc ., [9] involved CERCLA claims brought by the owner of a methanol pipeline against the construction company that struck and damaged the plaintiff's pipeline with a backhoe. Neither party was aware of the damage to the pipeline until it corroded and leaked many years later. In a pre- BNSF decision, the district court rejected the plaintiff's claims based on the defendant's lack of awareness that it had damaged the pipeline. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the defendant did not “plan to take any intentional steps to release methanol from the” pipeline under the BNSF standard of arranger liability. [10] The plaintiff argued that the defendant “intentionally took steps to dispose of methanol by disregarding its obligations to investigate the incident and backfilling the excavated area where the incident had occurred. In other words, [the plaintiff] argue[d] that [the defendant's] conscious disregard of its duty to investigate is tantamount to intentionally taking steps to dispose of methanol.” [11] The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that BNSF “precludes liability under these circumstances,” because the BNSF Court “declined to impose arranger liability for a defendant with more culpable mens rea,” i.e., where that defendant knew that its actions resulted in disposal. [12]
A typical application of arranger liability, even after BNSF , is evidenced in a New Jersey case, Litgo New Jersey, Inc. v. Martin , [13] where the court declined to hold the United States liable for contamination stemming from a facility that produced parts for the military, but did hold the United States liable for contamination stemming from its discarded hazardous wastes. First, the court determined that releases likely occurred from a facility that manufactured precision parts for military aircraft during World War II due to degreasing operations and common disposal practices of solvents at the time. The United States leased a significant amount of machinery and equipment to the facility and conducted frequent inspections of the facility. The court held that this evidence was insufficient to hold the United States liable, because the plaintiffs failed to show that that the United States “owned or possessed any [of the hazardous substances] which were disposed of at the” site, a “necessary element” of arranger liability. [14] However, the court did hold the United States liable as an arranger with respect to hazardous substances that were released from a warehouse at the site during a potentially botched cleanup. Although the United States claimed that it only arranged to have the substances stored at the warehouse, and that the stored substances were in stable condition until difficulties arose during the cleanup, the court held that the United States intended to dispose by hiring a third party “to permanently get rid of what they believed to be waste products.” [15]
At least one case shows, however, that arranger liability is not necessarily limited to the so-called “direct” circumstances, where a defendant contracts with a third party to dispose of the defendant's waste. In United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), [16] the Western District of Washington potentially expanded arranger liability by holding that the design and management of a stormwater system that discharges hazardous substances to a contaminated site may be sufficient to establish arranger liability. The case involved the United States' efforts to recover costs associated with a Superfund site in Washington from WSDOT, which constructed, designed, owned, and operated highways and storm drains that discharged stormwater runoff containing hazardous substances to the site. In a brief analysis, the court held WSDOT liable as a matter of law. The court acknowledged that, under BNSF , arranger liability is limited to entities that “take[] intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance,” and that “the word ‘arrange' implies action directed to a specific purpose.” [17] But WSDOT's actions met that standard, the court opined, because the agency indisputably designed the stormwater system, “[d]esigning is an action directed to a specific purpose,” and that “purpose was to discharge the highway runoff into the environment.” [18] WSDOT knew that the runoff contained hazardous substances, according to the court, had “control over how the collected runoff was disposed of,” and had “the ability to redirect, contain, or treat its contaminated runoff.” [19]
Finally, in American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. United States , [20] the Central District of California held the United States liable for historical contamination stemming from a private facility that refurbished and recycled rocket engines for the military. The Cold War era contracts between the facility and the United States included provisions that vested title in the products with the United States while the products were at the facility. The United States also required the facility to “hog-out” the original propellant from the engines undergoing refurbishment, test-fire some of the rocket engines, and dispose of remaining perchlorate. The United States argued that it only “owned” the perchlorate when it was a part of the rocket engines, and that it did not own the “waste” perchlorate. The court disagreed with the United States' interpretation of the contract, but also held that, “continuous ownership” was unnecessary to constitute arranger liability. Here, according to the court, the United States “owned the materials at the outset, continued to own them during the manufacturing process, and received the finished product, all with knowledge that processing would lead to hazardous wastes.” [21] This case was distinguishable from BNSF , according to the court, because there the defendant sold a useful product and “completely gave up ownership of the chemicals to the site operator.” [22] Allowing the United States to escape liability in this case would, according to the court, “create a loophole in the statute that could be exploited by other polluters.” [23]
Cases Applying BNSF 's Divisibility Ruling
The divisibility prong of the Supreme Court's BNSF ruling arose from the defendant railroads' argument that, because they only owned a portion of the contaminated property, their liability could reasonably be “apportioned.” The Court agreed, affirming a standard that had already been adopted by several circuit courts. Applying Section 422A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the Court held that “apportionment is proper when there is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm,” [24] and that the defendants bear the burden of proof on the issue. The Supreme Court also held that the evidence supporting apportionment need not be precise: There must simply be “facts contained in the record reasonably support[ing] the apportionment of liability.” [25]
Only a few cases have applied the “divisibility” prong of the BNSF case. [26] In a case out of the Eastern District of California, United States v. Iron Mountain Mines , [27] the defendants sought reconsideration of a 2002 order holding them jointly and severally liable to the United States. In the 2002 order, the court held that “given the nature of the pollution at the site, it would be difficult to identify distinct harms,” instead instructing the defendants to raise their arguments regarding their lesser responsibility in a contribution proceeding. The defendants argued that BNSF required reconsideration of that decision, because “the Supreme Court would not have granted certiorari for [ BNSF ] if it was only dealing with a factual dispute … the Supreme Court clearly meant to send a signal to other courts that they must begin evaluating apportionment in a different way,” and, after BNSF , “district courts are now mandated to consider apportionment.” [28] The court disagreed, holding that BNSF “simply reiterated the law as established in” what the Supreme Court called “the seminal opinion on the subject of apportionment in CERCLA action,” United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp ., [29] “and then examined the record to resolve a factual question of whether the record supported apportionment. [ BNSF ] did not add a new mandate that District Courts must apportion harm.” [30]
A few cases in 2010 have applied BNSF 's divisibility standard to the evidence submitted by the defendants. For example, in United States v. Saporito , [31] the Northern District of Illinois rejected the defendant's effort to be apportioned zero liability, where the court had already determined that the defendant was liable because it leased equipment to operators at a contaminated site. The defendant argued that, because his equipment was incapable of producing waste by itself, he should be apportioned no liability based solely on his ownership of the equipment. The court disagreed, holding that, because the equipment was “a necessary part of the plating process,” it must be “responsible for some amount of the waste that the process produced.” [32] The defendant also maintained that, because one piece of his equipment – a filter press – could only hold a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste that were removed from the site, the contribution of waste from the filter press was negligible. The court rejected this argument as well, concluding that the defendant failed to provide evidence showing what his proper percentage of liability should be.
A case out of Michigan, ITT Industries, Inc. v. Borgwarner, Inc ., [33] is one of the few cases so far that has evaluated the sufficiency of a defendant's evidence for a divisibility defense. The case involved the North Bronson Industrial Area Superfund site in Michigan. The primary contaminants included metals and volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), in soil and groundwater stemming from activities at several former industrial facilities and the historical disposal of industrial wastewater into a complex of industrial sewers and waste lagoons. EPA divided the site into two sub-areas, including several operable units in these areas, and entered into several administrative orders with entities connected to the former industrial facilities. One of these entities sought to recover its costs incurred at a former facility from several defendants, including one party whose predecessors conducted activities at the plaintiff's facility, and two other parties with connections to adjacent facilities.
The court rejected the defendants' divisibility arguments, holding that the defendants did not meet their burden of proof. The party with connections to the plaintiff's facility argued that its liability was divisible based on the geographic location of its operations and the types of contaminants released at the site. The court disagreed, holding that the defendant failed to show: (1) that its predecessor's operations were contained within a geographically limited portion of the facility, because that entity leased the entire facility, operated on the entire facility, and evidence showed that releases occurred throughout; and (2) that its predecessor's liability was divisible based on the types of contaminants released at the site, because evidence showed that the predecessor discharged some contaminants containing PCE, and investigating for PCE would have required the same level of effort as investigating for TCE. The two other defendants – with connections to adjacent facilities – argued that their liability was limited to TCE contamination, because that was the only contaminant at issue in the plaintiff's administrative consent order, and because metal contamination at the plaintiff's site originated from on-site operations. The court disagreed, holding that the consent order also required the plaintiff to determine the source of all contaminants on the site, and evidence showed that metals and other contaminants released at the defendants' sites could have reached the plaintiff's site.
Conclusion
The cases decided so far in 2010 affirm that BNSF directed the courts to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into whether parties qualify as arrangers. On the divisibility side, the early cases show that courts are working their way through the evidence put forth by defendants, but there are too few decided cases to draw firm conclusions regarding the quantum of proof necessary to establish a divisibility defense.
For more information, please contact Meli MacCurdy or any member of Marten Law's Environmental Litigation or Waste Cleanup practice groups
LACK OF DIVISIBILITY IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE FOR INNOCENT LANDOWNER, THIRD PARTY, ACT OF GOD DEFENSES.
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 12650-12656
12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money, property, or services, and whether or not the state or a political subdivision has title to the money, property, or services that meets either of the following conditions: (A) Is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or of a political subdivision. (B) Is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money, property, or service is to be spent or used on a state or any political subdivision program or interest, and if the state or political subdivision meets either of the following conditions: (i) Provides or has provided any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. (ii) Reimburses the contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money, property, or service that is requested or demanded. (2) "Claim" does not include requests or demands for money, property, or services that the state or a political subdivision has paid to an individual as compensation for employment with the state or political subdivision or as an income subsidy with no restrictions on that individual's use of the money, property, or services. (3) "Knowing" and "knowingly" mean that a person, with respect to information, does any of the following: (A) Has actual knowledge of the information. (B) Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information. (C) Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. Proof of specific intent to defraud is not required. (4) "Material" means having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money, property, or services. (5) "Political subdivision" includes any city, city and county, county, tax or assessment district, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries. (6) "Political subdivision funds" means funds that are the subject of a claim presented to an officer, employee, or agent of a political subdivision or where the political subdivision provides, has provided, or will reimburse any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. (7) "Prosecuting authority" refers to the county counsel, city attorney, or other local government official charged with investigating, filing, and conducting civil legal proceedings on behalf of, or in the name of, a particular political subdivision. (8) "Person" includes any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business, or trust. (9) "State funds" mean funds that are the subject of a claim presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or where the state provides, has provided, or will reimburse any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. 12651. (a) Any person who commits any of the following enumerated acts in this subdivision shall have violated this article and shall be liable to the state or to the political subdivision for three times the amount of damages that the state or political subdivision sustains because of the act of that person. A person who commits any of the following enumerated acts shall also be liable to the state or to the political subdivision for the costs of a civil action brought to recover any of those penalties or damages, and shall be liable to the state or political subdivision for a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation: (1) Knowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval. (2) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim. (3) Conspires to commit a violation of this subdivision. (4) Has possession, custody, or control of public property or money used or to be used by the state or by any political subdivision and knowingly delivers or causes to be delivered less than all of that property. (5) Is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used or to be used by the state or by any political subdivision and knowingly makes or delivers a receipt that falsely represents the property used or to be used. (6) Knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from any person who lawfully may not sell or pledge the property. (7) Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or to any political subdivision, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids, or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the state or to any political subdivision. (8) Is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim, subsequently discovers the falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false claim to the state or the political subdivision within a reasonable time after discovery of the false claim. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court may assess not less than two times and not more than three times the amount of damages which the state or the political subdivision sustains because of the act of the person described in that subdivision, and no civil penalty, if the court finds all of the following: (1) The person committing the violation furnished officials of the state or of the political subdivision responsible for investigating false claims violations with all information known to that person about the violation within 30 days after the date on which the person first obtained the information. (2) The person fully cooperated with any investigation by the state or a political subdivision of the violation. (3) At the time the person furnished the state or the political subdivision with information about the violation, no criminal prosecution, civil action, or administrative action had commenced with respect to the violation, and the person did not have actual knowledge of the existence of an investigation into the violation. (c) Liability under this section shall be joint and several for any act committed by two or more persons. (d) This section does not apply to any controversy involving an amount of less than five hundred dollars ($500) in value. For purposes of this subdivision, "controversy" means any one or more false claims submitted by the same person in violation of this article. (e) This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 or to workers' compensation claims filed pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 3200) of the Labor Code. (f) This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. (g) This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements for the assets of a person that have been transferred to the Commissioner of Insurance, pursuant to Section 1011 of the Insurance Code. 12652. (a) (1) The Attorney General shall diligently investigate violations under Section 12651 involving state funds. If the Attorney General finds that a person has violated or is violating Section 12651, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this section against that person. (2) If the Attorney General brings a civil action under this subdivision on a claim involving political subdivision funds as well as state funds, the Attorney General shall, on the same date that the complaint is filed in this action, serve by mail with "return receipt requested" a copy of the complaint on the appropriate prosecuting authority. (3) The prosecuting authority shall have the right to intervene in an action brought by the Attorney General under this subdivision within 60 days after receipt of the complaint pursuant to paragraph (2). The court may permit intervention thereafter upon a showing that all of the requirements of Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been met. (b) (1) The prosecuting authority of a political subdivision shall diligently investigate violations under Section 12651 involving political subdivision funds. If the prosecuting authority finds that a person has violated or is violating Section 12651, the prosecuting authority may bring a civil action under this section against that person. (2) If the prosecuting authority brings a civil action under this section on a claim involving state funds as well as political subdivision funds, the prosecuting authority shall, on the same date that the complaint is filed in this action, serve a copy of the complaint on the Attorney General. (3) Within 60 days after receiving the complaint pursuant to paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall do either of the following: (A) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the Attorney General shall assume primary responsibility for conducting the action and the prosecuting authority shall have the right to continue as a party. (B) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action, in which case the prosecuting authority shall have the right to conduct the action. (c) (1) A person may bring a civil action for a violation of this article for the person and either for the State of California in the name of the state, if any state funds are involved, or for a political subdivision in the name of the political subdivision, if political subdivision funds are exclusively involved. The person bringing the action shall be referred to as the qui tam plaintiff. Once filed, the action may be dismissed only with the written consent of the court and the Attorney General or prosecuting authority of a political subdivision, or both, as appropriate under the allegations of the civil action, taking into account the best interests of the parties involved and the public purposes behind this act. No claim for any violation of Section 12651 may be waived or released by any private person, except if the action is part of a court approved settlement of a false claim civil action brought under this section. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the ability of the state or political subdivision to decline to pursue any claim brought under this section. (2) A complaint filed by a private person under this subdivision shall be filed in superior court in camera and may remain under seal for up to 60 days. No service shall be made on the defendant until after the complaint is unsealed. (3) On the same day as the complaint is filed pursuant to paragraph (2), the qui tam plaintiff shall serve by mail with "return receipt requested" the Attorney General with a copy of the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information the person possesses. (4) Within 60 days after receiving a complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information alleging violations that involve state funds but not political subdivision funds, the Attorney General may elect to intervene and proceed with the action. (5) The Attorney General may, for good cause shown, move the court for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal pursuant to paragraph (2). The motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. (6) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any extensions obtained under paragraph (5), the Attorney General shall do either of the following: (A) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the Attorney General and the seal shall be lifted. (B) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to conduct the action. (7) (A) Within 15 days after receiving a complaint alleging violations that exclusively involve political subdivision funds, the Attorney General shall forward copies of the complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information to the appropriate prosecuting authority for disposition, and shall notify the qui tam plaintiff of the transfer. (B) Within 45 days after the Attorney General forwards the complaint and written disclosure pursuant to subparagraph (A), the prosecuting authority may elect to intervene and proceed with the action. (C) The prosecuting authority may, for good cause shown, move for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal. The motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. (D) Before the expiration of the 45-day period or any extensions obtained under subparagraph (C), the prosecuting authority shall do either of the following: (i) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the prosecuting authority and the seal shall be lifted. (ii) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to conduct the action. (8) (A) Within 15 days after receiving a complaint alleging violations that involve both state and political subdivision funds, the Attorney General shall forward copies of the complaint and written disclosure to the appropriate prosecuting authority, and shall coordinate its review and investigation with those of the prosecuting authority. (B) Within 60 days after receiving a complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information alleging violations that involve both state and political subdivision funds, the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, or both, may elect to intervene and proceed with the action. (C) The Attorney General or the prosecuting authority, or both, may, for good cause shown, move the court for extensions of the time during which the complaint remains under seal under paragraph (2). The motion may be supported by affidavits or other submissions in camera. (D) Before the expiration of the 60-day period or any extensions obtained under subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall do one of the following: (i) Notify the court that it intends to proceed with the action, in which case the action shall be conducted by the Attorney General and the seal shall be lifted. (ii) Notify the court that it declines to proceed with the action but that the prosecuting authority of the political subdivision involved intends to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the action shall be conducted by the prosecuting authority. (iii) Notify the court that both it and the prosecuting authority decline to proceed with the action, in which case the seal shall be lifted and the qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to conduct the action. (E) If the Attorney General proceeds with the action pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (D), the prosecuting authority of the political subdivision shall be permitted to intervene in the action within 60 days after the Attorney General notifies the court of its intentions. The court may authorize intervention thereafter upon a showing that all the requirements of Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been met. (9) The defendant shall not be required to respond to any complaint filed under this section until 30 days after the complaint is unsealed and served upon the defendant pursuant to Section 583.210 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (10) When a person brings an action under this subdivision, no other person may bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action. (d) (1) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under subdivision (c) against a Member of the State Senate or Assembly, a member of the state judiciary, an elected official in the executive branch of the state, or a member of the governing body of any political subdivision if the action is based on evidence or information known to the state or political subdivision when the action was brought. (2) A person may not bring an action under subdivision (c) that is based upon allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil suit or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the state or political subdivision is already a party. (3) (A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this article based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in an investigation, report, hearing, or audit conducted by or at the request of the Senate, Assembly, auditor, or governing body of a political subdivision, or by the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the prosecuting authority of a political subdivision, or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), "original source" means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based, who voluntarily provided the information to the state or political subdivision before filing an action based on that information, and whose information provided the basis or catalyst for the investigation, hearing, audit, or report that led to the public disclosure as described in subparagraph (A). (4) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under subdivision (c) based upon information discovered by a present or former employee of the state or a political subdivision during the course of his or her employment unless that employee first, in good faith, exhausted existing internal procedures for reporting and seeking recovery of the falsely claimed sums through official channels and unless the state or political subdivision failed to act on the information provided within a reasonable period of time. (e) (1) If the state or political subdivision proceeds with the action, it shall have the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action. The qui tam plaintiff shall have the right to continue as a full party to the action. (2) (A) The state or political subdivision may seek to dismiss the action for good cause notwithstanding the objections of the qui tam plaintiff if the qui tam plaintiff has been notified by the state or political subdivision of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the qui tam plaintiff with an opportunity to oppose the motion and present evidence at a hearing. (B) The state or political subdivision may settle the action with the defendant notwithstanding the objections of the qui tam plaintiff if the court determines, after a hearing providing the qui tam plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all of the circumstances. (f) (1) If the state or political subdivision elects not to proceed, the qui tam plaintiff shall have the same right to conduct the action as the Attorney General or prosecuting authority would have had if it had chosen to proceed under subdivision (c). If the state or political subdivision so requests, and at its expense, the state or political subdivision shall be served with copies of all pleadings filed in the action and supplied with copies of all deposition transcripts. (2) (A) Upon timely application, the court shall permit the state or political subdivision to intervene in an action with which it had initially declined to proceed if the interest of the state or political subdivision in recovery of the property or funds involved is not being adequately represented by the qui tam plaintiff. (B) If the state or political subdivision is allowed to intervene under paragraph (A), the qui tam plaintiff shall retain principal responsibility for the action and the recovery of the parties shall be determined as if the state or political subdivision had elected not to proceed. (g) (1) (A) If the Attorney General initiates an action pursuant to subdivision (a) or assumes control of an action initiated by a prosecuting authority pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the office of the Attorney General shall receive a fixed 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, which shall be used to support its ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims. (B) If a prosecuting authority initiates and conducts an action pursuant to subdivision (b), the office of the prosecuting authority shall receive a fixed 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, which shall be used to support its ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims. (C) If a prosecuting authority intervenes in an action initiated by the Attorney General pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) or remains a party to an action assumed by the Attorney General pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the court may award the office of the prosecuting authority a portion of the Attorney General's fixed 33 percent of the recovery under subparagraph (A), taking into account the prosecuting authority's role in investigating and conducting the action. (2) If the state or political subdivision proceeds with an action brought by a qui tam plaintiff under subdivision (c), the qui tam plaintiff shall, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), receive at least 15 percent but not more than 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, depending upon the extent to which the qui tam plaintiff substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. When it conducts the action, the Attorney General's office or the office of the prosecuting authority of the political subdivision shall receive a fixed 33 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, which shall be used to support its ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims made against the state or political subdivision. When both the Attorney General and a prosecuting authority are involved in a qui tam action pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (c), the court at its discretion may award the prosecuting authority a portion of the Attorney General's fixed 33 percent of the recovery, taking into account the prosecuting authority's contribution to investigating and conducting the action. (3) If the state or political subdivision does not proceed with an action under subdivision (c), the qui tam plaintiff shall, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable for collecting the civil penalty and damages on behalf of the government. The amount shall be not less than 25 percent and not more than 50 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement and shall be paid out of these proceeds. (4) If the action is one provided for under paragraph (4) of subdivision (d), the present or former employee of the state or political subdivision is not entitled to any minimum guaranteed recovery from the proceeds. The court, however, may award the qui tam plaintiff those sums from the proceeds as it considers appropriate, but in no case more than 33 percent of the proceeds if the state or political subdivision goes forth with the action or 50 percent if the state or political subdivision declines to go forth, taking into account the significance of the information, the role of the qui tam plaintiff in advancing the case to litigation, and the scope of, and response to, the employee's attempts to report and gain recovery of the falsely claimed funds through official channels. (5) If the action is one that the court finds to be based primarily on information from a present or former employee who actively participated in the fraudulent activity, the employee is not entitled to any minimum guaranteed recovery from the proceeds. The court, however, may award the qui tam plaintiff any sums from the proceeds that it considers appropriate, but in no case more than 33 percent of the proceeds if the state or political subdivision goes forth with the action or 50 percent if the state or political subdivision declines to go forth, taking into account the significance of the information, the role of the qui tam plaintiff in advancing the case to litigation, the scope of the present or past employee's involvement in the fraudulent activity, the employee's attempts to avoid or resist the activity, and all other circumstances surrounding the activity. (6) The portion of the recovery not distributed pursuant to paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, shall revert to the state if the underlying false claims involved state funds exclusively and to the political subdivision if the underlying false claims involved political subdivision funds exclusively. If the violation involved both state and political subdivision funds, the court shall make an apportionment between the state and political subdivision based on their relative share of the funds falsely claimed. (7) For purposes of this section, "proceeds" include civil penalties as well as double or treble damages as provided in Section 12651. (8) If the state, political subdivision, or the qui tam plaintiff prevails in or settles any action under subdivision (c), the qui tam plaintiff shall receive an amount for reasonable expenses that the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable costs and attorney's fees. All expenses, costs, and fees shall be awarded against the defendant and under no circumstances shall they be the responsibility of the state or political subdivision. (9) If the state, a political subdivision, or the qui tam plaintiff proceeds with the action, the court may award to the defendant its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses against the party that proceeded with the action if the defendant prevails in the action and the court finds that the claim was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment. (h) The court may stay an act of discovery of the person initiating the action for a period of not more than 60 days if the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority show that the act of discovery would interfere with an investigation or a prosecution of a criminal or civil matter arising out of the same facts, regardless of whether the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority proceeds with the action. This showing shall be conducted in camera. The court may extend the 60-day period upon a further showing in camera that the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority has pursued the criminal or civil investigation or proceedings with reasonable diligence and any proposed discovery in the civil action will interfere with the ongoing criminal or civil investigation or proceedings. (i) Upon a showing by the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority that unrestricted participation during the course of the litigation by the person initiating the action would interfere with or unduly delay the Attorney General's or local prosecuting authority' s prosecution of the case, or would be repetitious, irrelevant, or for purposes of harassment, the court may, in its discretion, impose limitations on the person's participation, including the following: (1) Limiting the number of witnesses the person may call. (2) Limiting the length of the testimony of the witnesses. (3) Limiting the person's cross-examination of witnesses. (4) Otherwise limiting the participation by the person in the litigation. (j) The False Claims Act Fund is hereby created in the State Treasury. Proceeds from the action or settlement of the claim by the Attorney General pursuant to this article shall be deposited into this fund. Moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be used by the Attorney General to support the ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims in furtherance of this article. 12652.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the University of California shall be considered a political subdivision, and the General Counsel of the University of California shall be considered a prosecuting authority for the purposes of this article, and shall have the right to intervene in an action brought by the Attorney General or a private party or investigate and bring an action, subject to Section 12652, if it is determined that the claim involves the University of California. 12653. (a) No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or from acting in furtherance of a false claims action, including investigating, initiating, testifying, or assisting in an action filed or to be filed under Section 12652. (b) No employer shall discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, deny promotion to, or in any other manner discriminate against, an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency or in furthering a false claims action, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in, an action filed or to be filed under Section 12652. (c) An employer who violates subdivision (b) shall be liable for all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, compensation for any special damage sustained as a result of the discrimination, and, where appropriate, punitive damages. In addition, the defendant shall be required to pay litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. An employee may bring an action in the appropriate superior court of the state for the relief provided in this subdivision. (d) An employee who is discharged, demoted, suspended, harassed, denied promotion, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because of participation in conduct which directly or indirectly resulted in a false claim being submitted to the state or a political subdivision shall be entitled to the remedies under subdivision (c) if, and only if, both of the following occur: (1) The employee voluntarily disclosed information to a government or law enforcement agency or acted in furtherance of a false claims action, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed. (2) The employee had been harassed, threatened with termination or demotion, or otherwise coerced by the employer or its management into engaging in the fraudulent activity in the first place. 12654. (a) A civil action under Section 12652 may not be filed more than three years after the date of discovery by the Attorney General or prosecuting authority with jurisdiction to act under this article or, in any event, not more than 10 years after the date on which the violation of Section 12651 was committed. (b) A civil action under Section 12652 may be brought for activity prior to January 1, 1988, if the limitations period set in subdivision (a) has not lapsed. (c) In any action brought under Section 12652, the state, the political subdivision, or the qui tam plaintiff shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a guilty verdict rendered in a criminal proceeding charging false statements or fraud, whether upon a verdict after trial or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, except for a plea of nolo contendere made prior to January 1, 1988, shall estop the defendant from denying the essential elements of the offense in any action which involves the same transaction as in the criminal proceeding and which is brought under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12652. (e) Subdivision (b) of Section 47 of the Civil Code shall not be applicable to any claim subject to this article. 12655. (a) The provisions of this article are not exclusive, and the remedies provided for in this article shall be in addition to any other remedies provided for in any other law or available under common law. (b) If any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the article and the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (c) This article shall be liberally construed and applied to promote the public interest. 12656. (a) If a violation of this article is alleged or the application or construction of this article is in issue in any proceeding in the Supreme Court of California, a state court of appeal, or the appellate division of a superior court, the person or political subdivision that commenced that proceeding shall serve a copy of the notice or petition initiating the proceeding, and a copy of each paper, including briefs, that the person or political subdivision files in the proceeding within three days of the filing, on the Attorney General, directed to the attention of the False Claims Section in Sacramento, California. (b) Timely compliance with the three-day time period is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the entry of judgment, order, or decision construing or applying this article by the court in which the proceeding occurs, except that within that three-day period or thereafter, the time for compliance may be extended by the court for good cause. (c) The court shall extend the time period within which the Attorney General is permitted to respond to an action subject to this section by at least the same period of time granted for good cause pursuant to subdivision (b) to the person or political subdivision that commenced the proceeding.False Claims Unit
The Attorney General works to protect the state against fraud and other financial misconduct through the enforcement of the California False Claims Act. Investigations and prosecutions brought pursuant to the Act have resulted in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in wrongfully obtained public funds.
The California False Claims Act permits the Attorney General to bring a civil law enforcement action to recover treble damages and civil penalties against any person who knowingly makes or uses a false statement or document to either obtain money or property from the State or avoid paying or transmitting money or property to the State. The False Claims Unit of the Corporate Fraud Section investigates alleged violations of the Act based upon referrals from state, federal and local agencies, tips from members of the public and qui tam complaints, otherwise known as whistleblower complaints.
The California False Claims Act's qui tam provision permits a whistleblower to file an action to enforce the Act. Such lawsuits have resulted in some of the most significant recoveries to date under the Act. The whistleblower's lawsuit is filed under seal to permit the Attorney General or local prosecuting authority to investigate and, if warranted, intervene in the action. The whistleblower may be eligible to receive a share of any recovery, and the Act provides him or her with protection against retaliation. The California False Claims Act is a complex statute, and persons who are interested in bringing a qui tam action are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney.
The False Claims Unit has brought actions against, among others, companies who have sold defective products to the state, mining companies that have filed false reports to conceal the theft of natural resources and avoid paying royalties, and financial institutions that have filed false reports with state agencies.
Members of the public who would like to advise the Attorney General of a potential false claim against the state should contact the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit .
Whistleblowers who bring qui tam actions and local prosecutors who bring actions involving state funds must serve a copy of their complaint and disclosure statement upon the Attorney General. In addition, the parties to any appeal involving the California False Claims Act must serve copies of all filings upon the Attorney General. These materials should be sent to:
The Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: False Claims Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550The False Claims Unit coordinates its efforts with other sections of the Attorney General's Office, including those responsible for Consumer Protection , Antitrust/Business Competition , and the supervision of Charities . Violations of the California False Claims Act involving the Medi-Cal program are investigated and prosecuted by the Attorney General's Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse .
.
Iqbal and Twombly Result in Dismissal of Pennsylvania DEP Lawsuit
Posted on November 22, 2010 by John Barkett
Recent Supreme Court opinions interpreting Rule 12(b)(6) have been applied in an environmental context. A state agency cost recovery action was dismissed for failure to plead facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for relief, resulting in unnecessary additional litigation costs.
When Bell Atlantic v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 554 (2007) was decided, many lawyers lamented the loss of Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (in effect, if there is a claim somewhere within the four corners of a complaint, a motion to dismiss will be denied) as the governing case in Rule 12(b)(6) jurisprudence. Then Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937 (May 18, 2009) came down. The laments became cries for action to restore Conley legislatively, and, indeed, such legislation was introduced in the Congress by Senator Specter who was not returned to office. For now, Iqbal and Twombly remain the law.
For those few lawyers who may not be familiar with Twombly or Iqbal , both cases dealt with the sufficiency of allegations in a complaint to state a cause of action. Twombly dealt with parallel conduct in an antitrust setting that was consistent with lawful behavior but was alleged conclusorily to represent a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Without fact allegations to show why lawful parallel conduct was in fact unlawful anticompetitive behavior, the complaint did not survive. Iqbal dealt with claims against the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI for post-9/11 activities that restrained the liberty of the plaintiffs for a period of time. Other defendants remained in the case. The Supreme Court held that the complaint's allegations against these two executives were not “plausible.” Hence, they were dismissed.
What is a “plausible” claim? The Supreme Court gave this answer in Iqbal : “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” This plausibility standard is not “akin to a probability requirement,' but it asks for more than “a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully.”
It has not taken long for Iqbal and Twombly to be applied in an environmental dispute. Just ask Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On November 3, 2010, Magistrate Judge Lenihan in the Western District of Pennsylvania, citing this Supreme Court precedent and the Third Circuit's interpretation of it in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside , 578 F.3d 203 (3 rd Cir. 2009), dismissed a CERCLA amended complaint with prejudice. The 2009 action involved $3.7 million in costs incurred in a landfill response action that was completed in 2004. The DEP characterized the excavation, drum and soil removal, and restoration work it conducted as a remedial action for which it had six years within which to file suit under CERCLA. Three defendants argued that the DEP had engaged in a removal action for which it had only three years from the conclusion of the removal action within which to bring suit. The magistrate judge agreed with the defendants and because suit was brought beyond three years, the case was dismissed. The magistrate accepted the factual averments in the amended complaint as true but disregarded the DEP's “legal conclusions.” Because the actions described in the complaint were “the equivalent of a CERCLA removal action,” she held, the DEP had failed “to set forth sufficient factual matter to show a plausible claim for relief.”
The magistrate judge was persuaded by the administrative record that “repeatedly and consistently” characterized the DEP's response action as “interim.” The DEP was not helped by its 2002 “Analysis of Alternatives” under Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act which stated that the interim response was warranted but that the response as then proposed “is not a final remedial response.” The magistrate judge rejected the DEP's argument that a “prompt interim response” would be a removal action in CERCLA terms but that a “limited interim response” in fact was the same as a remedial action under CERCLA.
Under Conley , it is likely that the motion to dismiss would have been denied, discovery would have occurred, and the limitations question would have been decided under Rule 56's summary judgment standards. Had the DEP filed suit before Twombly , it would have been able to so argue. Of course, if it had done that, it could have been within the three-year removal action window. Not having done so, it had to deal with Iqbal and Twombly's preference for using the motion to dismiss as a way to address escalating discovery costs in federal court litigation where a claim is not “plausible.”
" In Higgins v. Houghton, 25 Cal. 255, where it was held that the State of California, by virtue of the grant of March 3d, 1853, which in some respects is similar to the grant under consideration, ' became the owner of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections absolutely, not only as to quantity, but as to position also,' the Court impliedly recognized the fact that it was within the power of Congress and the State by mutual agreement to change the provisions of the grant. After stating that there had been no legislation by Congress prior to the grant which would interfere with the conclusions reached in said case, the Court said: ' And if there has been any legislation since the grant that conflicts with the conclusion, it must be null and void, unless, indeed, it has been acceded to by the grantee.' Here such subsequent legislation was had by Congress, and it was NOT acceded to by the grantee (Ted Arman).
And he who first connects his own labor with property thus situated and open to general exploration, does, in natural justice, acquire a better right to its use and enjoyment than others who have not given such labor.
Among these the most important are the rights of miners to be protected in their selected localities, and the rights of those who, by prior appropriation, have taken the waters from their natural beds, and by costly artificial works have conducted them for miles over mountains and ravines to supply the necessities of gold diggers, and without which the most important interests of the mineral region would remain without development. So fully recognized have become these rights, that without any specific legislation conferring or confirming them, they are alluded to and spoken of in various acts of the legislature in the same manner as if they were rights which had been vested by the most distinct expression of the will of the law-makers.'
" This doctrine of right by prior appropriation was recognized by the legislation of Congress, in 1866." 1
The limitation of the doctrine of prior appropriation and the restrictions as to reasonable use, were touched upon as follows:
"The right to water by prior appropriation, thus recognized and established as the law of miners on the mineral lands of the public domain, is limited in every case, in quantity and quality, by the uses for which the appropriation is made. A different use of the water subsequently does not affect the right; that is subject to the same limitations, whatever the use. The appropriation does not confer such an absolute right to the body of the water diverted, that the owner can allow it, after its diversion, to run to waste, and prevent others from using it for mining or other legitimate purposes; nor does it confer such a right that he can insist upon the flow of the water without deterioration in quality, where such deterioration does not defeat nor impair the uses to which the water is applied.
" Such was the purport of the ruling of the Supreme Court of California. i Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. U. S. 510.
But whether, upon a petition or bill asserting that his prior rights have been thus invaded, a Court of Equity will interfere to restrain the acts of the party complained of, will depend upon the character and extent of the injury alleged, whether it be irremediable in its nature, whether an action at law would afford adequate remedy, whether the parties are able to respond for the damages resulting from the injury, and other considerations which ordinarily govern a Court of Equity in the exercise of its preventive process of injunction." 4
1 11 Cal. 143.
2 13 Cal. 33. See, also, Lobdell v. Simpson, 2 Nev. 274.
8 See, to the samo effect, Hill v. Smith, 27 Cal. 483; Yale's Mining Claims, 194. * Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. U. S. 514.
" In the case of Tartar v. The Spring Creek Water and Mining Company, decided in 1855, the Supreme Court of Califor nia said: ' The current of decisions of this Court goes to establish that the policy of this State, as derived from her legislation, is to permit settlers in all capacities to occupy the public lands, and by such occupation to acquire the right of undisturbed enjoyment against all the world but the true owner. In evidence of this, acts have been passed to protect the possession of agricultural lands acquired by mere occupancy; to license miners; to provide for the recovery of mining claims; recognizing canals and ditches which were known to divert the water of streams from their natural channels for mining purposes; and others of like character. This policy has been extended equally to all pursuits, and no partiality for one over another has been evinced, except in the single case where the rights of the agriculturist are made to yield to those of the miner where gold is discovered in his land. The policy of the exception is obvious. Without it the entire gold region might have been inclosed in large tracts, under the pretense of agriculture and grazing, and eventually what would have sufficed as a rich bounty to many thousands would be reduced to the proprietorship of a few. Aside from this, the legislation and decisions have been uniform in awarding the right of peaceable enjoyment to the first occupant, either of the land or of anything incident to the land.' 1
i 8 Cal. 397.
The officers of the Government are the agents of the law. They cannot act beyond its provisions, nor make compromises
1 Decision Commissioner, Dec. 10th, 1809, Copp's U. S. Mining Decisions, '2l,. - Decision of Assistant Secretary Interior, April 19th, 1872, Copp's U. S. Mining Decisions, 88.
3 Lindsay i'. Howes, 2 Black. U. S. 557; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377.
§ 2319. Mineral lands open to purchase by citizens.—
All valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase by citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States.
Sec. 1 of the Act of 1872. 17 U. S. Stat. 91, was identical with the above.
Sec. 1 of the Statute of July 26th, 1860, read as follows: Sec. 1. That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be preecribed bylaw, and subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States. [14 U. S. Stat. 231.]
§ 2473. Penalty for prosecuting fraudulent suits, etc., in California. —Every person who, for the purpose of setting up or establishing any claim against the United States to lands, mines, or minerals within the State of California, presents, or causes or procures to be presented, before any Court, judge, com mission, or commissioner, or other officer of the United States, any false, forged, altered, or counterfeited petition, certificate, order, report, decree, concession, denouncement, deed, patent, diseiio, map, expediente or part of an expediente, title-paper, or written evidence of right, title, or claim to lands, minerals, or mines in the State of California, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited, or any falsely dated petition, certificate, order, report, decree, concession, denouncement, deed, patent, confirmation, diseiio, map, expediente or part of an expediente, title-paper, or written evidence of right, title, or claim to lands, mines, or minerals in California, knowing the same to be falsely dated; and every person who prosecutes in any Court of the United States, by appeal or otherwise, any claim against the United States for lands, mines, or minerals in California, which claim is founded upon, or evidenced by, any petition, certificate, order, report, decree, concession, denouncement, deed, patent, confirmation, diseiio, map, expediente or part of an expediente, title-paper, or written evidence of right, title, or claim, which has been forged, altered, counterfeited, or falsely dated, knowing the same to be forged, altered, counterfeited, or falsely dated, shall be punishable as prescribed in section twentyfour hundred and seventy-one. Sec. 3, Act of May 18th, 1858, 11 U. S. Stat. 291
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, in his recently published book, writing about this moment in history, explains it this way:
“We were just wrong.”
.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c The Big Bank Theory
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook
.
Devils Lake Ruling: State Doesn`t Need EPA Approval
Amanda Tetlak 11/23/2010 Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot get in the way of the state deciding to move more water off of Devils Lake.
The state had been seeking EPA approval for either a permanent change or variance in water quality standards on the lower Sheyenne and Red rivers in order to increase controlled releases. However, upon the request of senators Conrad and Byron Dorgan, the Obama Administration reviewed the issue and concluded that the state can proceed to move water without EPA approval.
"This is incredibly important news obviously for Devils Lake, and the whole Devils lake basin as well as downstream cities as well," said Conrad.
Conrad says the State now has considerable and immediate flexibility to operate the outlet as leaders best see fit.Water Infrastructure Projects Designated in EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications
Spearfish hydro plant gets water quality certification
DENR to issue final water quality decision today
By Kaija Swisher
Black Hills PioneerSPEARFISH -- The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources today issued a final water quality certification to the city of Spearfish.
The certification gets the city one step closer to obtaining a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the former Homestake Mining Company's hydroelectric power plant.
“In my mind, we've cleared the last big hurdle,” Cheryl Johnson, the Spearfish public works administrator, said previously. “I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.”
City officials and Mayor Jerry Krambeck could not be reached Wednesday morning for comment.
The Spearfish Hydroelectric plant was built in 1910 to provide power to the Homestake Mine and has two generators. According to previous documents submitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the city of Spearfish and numerous other departments, when the hydroelectric plant was constructed, water was diverted at the Maurice intake located in Spearfish Canyon. From there it flows into pipes that deliver the water approximately 4.5 miles to the plant located in Spearfish City Park, where it turns twin turbines. The water then exits the plant, flows through Spearfish and onto its confluence with the Redwater River north of town.
The city bought the plant from Homestake Mining Company in 2004 for $250,000, and it began the licensing process after officials discovered that the plant would not be exempt from needing a license.
The certification is required under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, in order to license the hydroelectric plant, a process the city began in 2007. The city of Spearfish first submitted a request for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification in September 2008, which was withdrawn and resubmitted in August 2009 and again in July 2010.
The process became delayed when the city of Spearfish proposed to alter Homestake's historically diverted flow to allow some flow to bypass the diversion dam at Maurice and remain in Spearfish Creek.
Since then the U.S. Forest Service, Division of Environmental Services and the city of Spearfish negotiated flow criteria based on critical low flows that will allow the city to comply with the operational conditions as well as protect and maintain the water quality standards of Spearfish Creek.
“The 401 certification includes conditions for the city to follow when operating and maintaining the hydropower plant to protect and maintain the water quality standards and beneficial uses assigned to Spearfish Creek,” Jeanne Goodman, administrator of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Surface Water Quality Program, said previously.
The 401 certification will be part of an application packet that includes a Historic Properties Management Plan and the Environmental Assessment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission board, which will make a final decision on the hydroelectric plant's license.
The fully negotiated settlement between DENR, the city, and the U.S. Forest Service can be found at http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/PNSpearfish401cert.aspx . An environmental assessment of the hydroelectric plant has been completed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and can also be found at the DENR Web site.
Multiproject Program Grants (P42)
Superfund Research Program
With this 2010 RFA, NIEHS proposed the continuation of the Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program (SRP) to address the broad, complex health and environmental issues that arise from the multimedia nature of hazardous waste sites. Grants made under the SRP are for coordinated, multi-project, multi-disciplinary programs. The objective remains to establish and maintain a unique Program that links and integrates biomedical research with related engineering, hydrogeologic, and ecologic components.
The 2010 RFA was released on October 29, 2010. The application deadline for the 2010 Request for Applications (RFA) for the Multiproject Program (P42) grants is April 15, 2011.
- RFA-ES-09-012: Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program (P42) - html version (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/ RFA-ES-10-010.html)
- Application Guidelines (http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/1/Funding/Appl ication Guidelines ES-10-010 11-3-10 final.pd f) (184 KB)
- Suggested Research Topics (http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/srp/1/Funding/Sugg ested Research Topics ES-10-010 11-4-10.pdf) (52 KB)
There will be a free informational webinar, Superfund Research Program Funding Opportunities, (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/s rp/funding/rfa.cfm) on December 15, 2010, 2:00 - 3:30p.m. ET. Please refer to EPA's CLU-IN website (http://clu-in.org/live/#Superfund_Research_Pr ogram_Funding_Opportunities_20101215)
to register.
.
“Most ‘coordination’ (between the state and regional boards) is
reactive and happens at the end of processes when something goes
wrong and there are appeals or lawsuits,” Chris Crompton, manager
of environmental resources for Orange County, told the Commission
in written testimony. “This ‘back-end coordination’ is inefficient and
hence costly, and has real environmental impacts from delayed
decisions/actions.”112“As for the fairness of the process, the regulated community is
frustrated by the fact that members of the SWCRB and the nine
RWQCBs say they are unapproachable under state law,’’ complained
Mick Pattinson, president and CEO of Barratt American Homes, a
Southern California homebuilder. “While it is perfectly acceptable
and appropriate to speak with elected city, state and federal officials,
it is unfathomable that the same rights do not apply to unelected
board members.”NAHB Sues Army Corps of Engineers Over Wetlands Classification
NAHB has joined in a lawsuit with the American Farm Bureau Federation and the United States Sugar Corporation that challenges a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision to begin treating certain farm fields as wetlands, affecting both the value of the property and the process for developing or building on it.
American Farm Bureau Federation et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers resembles a suit brought simultaneously by New Hope Power Company and Okeelanta Corporation. Both suits have been before Judge K. Michael Moore of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida and challenge the Corps' recent attempts to improperly change a 17-year-old regulation that provides that land used for agriculture since at least 1985 can no longer be treated as wetlands.
In 1993, the Corps adopted a rule establishing that agricultural lands converted from wetlands prior to 1985 — or “prior converted croplands” — would be excluded from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, if a farmer decides to utilize land that has been excluded from regulation for some other use or to sell it to a residential or commercial builder, there is no need to get a new jurisdictional determination or go through the Clean Water Act permitting process.
However, in a 2009 memorandum, Corps Director of Civil Works Steven Stockton approved a new standard to regulate these agricultural lands when there is a change in their use. The regulatory uncertainty caused by this action is what prompted the lawsuits from NAHB and other industry groups.
In a recent positive development, this October, Judge Moore ruled in the New Hope Power case that the Corps could not change its policy without going through the usual federal process of giving public notice and offering a set time for comments from stakeholders or other interested parties. However, as yet there is no indication whether the government will appeal this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Posted by Michael DeyFlood Insurance is a Good Thing
CRS Communities can Encourage Purchase of Policies
Gary Heinrichs and Bruce Bender
Co-Chairs of the Insurance Committee
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Editor’s Note: Communities that participate in the CRS can receive credit points for
promoting flood insurance, but that’s not the most important reason for supporting the
purchase and maintenance of building and contents coverage. This article, excerpted from one
that appeared in the Association of State Floodplain Managers’ News & Views, reiterates the
rationale for making flood insurance a priority in any community’s flood mitigation approach.Statement of Purpose
The NFIP/CRS Update is a publication of the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System. Its purpose
is to provide local officials and others interested in the CRS with news they can use.
The NFIP/CRS Update is produced in alternate months. It is distributed electronically, at no cost, to local and state officials,
consultants, and others who want to be on the mailing list. Communities are encouraged to copy and/or circulate the
NFIP/CRS Update and to reprint its articles in their own local, state, or regional newsletters. No special permission is needed.
To become a subscriber or to suggest a topic that you would like addressed, contact
NFIP/CRS Update, P.O. Box 501016, Indianapolis, IN 46250-1016
(317) 848-2898 fax: (201) 748-1936 NFIPCRS@iso.comSome Program Notes
New Addition to CRS Team
Cristina M. Martinez, CFM, has joined ISO’s Flood Program Team as the new Flood
Technical Coordinator. Cristina has an engineering background with emphasis in water
resources. She has worked for the City of Boulder, Colorado, and for the last few years has
been Colorado’s State Coordinator for the National Flood Insurance Program. Her expertise in
NFIP requirements, Map Modernization, RiskMAP, the CRS, and many other initiatives and
activities make her an invaluable and much-welcome member of team. Reach her at
cristina.martinez@iso.com.
NFIP Extended through September 2011
On September 30, 2010, the President signed a one-year extension of the National Flood
Insurance Program. The program had been operating under the latest of a series of short-term
extensions since its authority expired earlier this year. The extension provides important
stability for FEMA, Write Your Own insurance companies, real estate agents, homebuilders,
home buyers and sellers, and policy holders because when the NFIP is allowed to expire, flood
insurance policies cannot be purchased or renewed.
No other provisions were included in the reauthorization. Instead, FEMA and Congress will
continue their consideration of needed reforms to the NFIP and presumably pass a
comprehensive bill during 2011.
Some new CRS Coordinators in FEMA Regional Offices
Although a community’s first point of contact on the CRS is usually the ISO/CRS Specialist
for the area, an additional source of assistance is the FEMA Regional CRS Coordinator. There
is one coordinator in each FEMA Regional Office. A Regional Office directory can be found
at http://www.fema.gov/about/regions.
Region 1 – Elizabeth Rosario—617/832-4748, Elizabeth.Rosario@dhs.gov
Region 2 – Rich Einhorn—212/680-8503, Richard.Einhorn@dhs.gov
Region 3 – Mari Radford—215/931-2880, Mari.Radford@dhs.gov
Region 4 – Janice Mitchell—770/220-5441, Janice.Mitchell@dhs.gov
Region 5 – John Devine—312/408-5567, John.Devine@dhs.gov
Region 6 - Linda Delamare—940/898-5279, Linda.Delamare@dhs.gov
Region 7 - Roger Benson—816/283-7031, Roger.Benson@dhs.gov
Region 8 – Barb Fitzpatrick—303/235-4715, Barb.Fitzpatrick@dhs.gov
Region 9 – Cynthia McKenzie—510/627-7190, Cynthia.McKenzie@dhs.gov
Region 10 – Jeff Woodward—425/487-4664, Jeff.Woodward@dhs.gov
CRS Coordinator’s Manual and Activity Worksheets approved by OMB
As noted in the last issue of the Update, existing copies of the Coordinator’s Manual and
Activity Worksheets (AWs) are still valid, even though they bear an expiration date that has
passed (August 31, 2010). Now the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has officially
renewed its approval of these CRS materials. The stock of Manuals in the FEMA Publications
Warehouse is being modified to display the new expiration date of September 30, 2013.Got a Stormwater Utility?
There are an estimated 1200 to 1500 stormwater utilities in the United States, and more are
forming all the time, according to a report by Dr. C. Warren Campbell of Western Kentucky
University. Students in Professor Campbell’s Floodplain Management course have for several
years compiled annual data on stormwater utilities, the way in which they set their fees,
whether they have been challenged in court and, if so, what the outcome was.
Campbell defines a stormwater utility as “a funding approach requiring residents to pay a
recurring charge that supports community stormwater initiatives. The fee is dedicated to the
maintenance, design, construction, and administration of the stormwater system” with an eye
toward managing water quality, quantity, or both. Some CRS communities have found a stormwater
utility provides reliable funding support for their credited operations under Activity 450
(Stormwater Management) and Activity 540 (Drainage System Maintenance).
Here are some highlights from the report
▬ No community is too small or too large to have a stormwater utility. The smallest community
identified was a Florida town with a population of 33; the largest was Los Angeles (population
over 3 million). The average size of a community with a stormwater utility is about 82,000.Holy @$#%! According to neuroscientists from Britain's Keele University, dropping the f-bomb can actually relieve physical pain . In the upcoming August 5th issue of the journal NeuroReport, the researchers say swearing is a different phenomenon than most language. It activates emotional centers in the right side of the brain, rather than those &#*@ing cerebral areas reserved for regular #$#y communication in the left hemisphere.
The researchers had groups of undergraduate students submerge their hands in a tub of witch$@&#* cold water and repeat the swear word of their choice. And students could tolerate the icy abyss much longer than when they were only allowed to say more socially acceptable words. The researchers say the foul-mouthed students also had increased heart rates, which indicates that swearing activates a &#*@ing classic “fight or flight” response. You know, when you act all bad$(# to downplay the fact that you're scared @$#%^ss.
The study suggests that swearing is an ancient social phenomenon with both emotional and physical effects. And also that socially acceptable words don't mean @$#% when your pain really hurts like a son-of-a-%@&$#.
> Related Article: Why the #$%! Do We Swear? For Pain Relief
U.S. seeks input on hydro development at existing Reclamation facilities
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. 11/5/10 (PennWell) --
The Bureau of Reclamation has issued a Federal Register Notice announcing the availability for public review and comment on the Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities Draft Report.
The draft report is an assessment of the economic and technical potential for hydropower development at existing Reclamation owned non-powered dams and structures.
The draft report provides an inventory of hydropower potential at existing Reclamation sites using broad energy and economic criteria. It does not make any recommendation for development of the sites included in the report.
Reclamation signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Energy and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to increase renewable energy generation by focusing on development of sustainable, low impact and small hydropower projects. To help meet the goal of the MOU, Reclamation produced an updated list of facilities and sites best suited for projects to increase sustainable hydropower generation.
Comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail to:
Michael Pulskamp
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center, Bldg 67
PO Box 25007
Denver, CO 80225
Email: mpulskamp@usbr.gov
Comments must be received by Dec. 3, 2010
The draft report and Federal Register Notice is available for download on Reclamation's website at www.usbr.gov/power/.For more hydropower news and information, click here
Energy Storage Breakthrough is Put to the Test in Bella Coola
Posted on 11/11/2010
Storing away food and supplies is a simple practice we all do to weather snowstorms and other difficult circumstances.
Doing the same with electricity, however, isn't that simple.
Energy storage, though, is a top priority on the agenda of North American governments and power producers who are under pressure to find clean, reliable backup power for periods of peak demand.
North America has committed significant funding to the development of energy storage technologies and researchers are beginning to learn how to store meaningful amounts of renewable power that can be tapped on demand.
Hydropower is poised to play an important part in the growth of energy storage, a promising concept that could transform the power industry.
BC Hydro is testing what could be the most viable method for storing large amounts of power at its Clayton Falls hydroelectric plant in Bella Coola, about 248 miles north of Vancouver.
The run-of-river plant is now capable of using its surplus electricity to produce and store hydrogen through a process known as electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be used in a 100-kilowatt fuel cell to generate electricity when demand peaks.
This new source of emission-free power is replacing the need for power made from diesel-fueled generators. BC Hydro estimates the demonstration project known as the Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power system (HARP) will lower the community's diesel consumption by 200,000 liters a year and lower greenhouse gas emissions by 600 tons a year.
“It's a very cost-effective and convenient way to store renewable energy,” said David Field, a spokesman for BC Citizens for Green Energy. “It's better than importing coal-fired electricity from Alberta and the U.S. to accomplish the same thing, which is what we're doing right now.”
Even more interesting is the project's use of smart grid technology.
A microgrid controller acts as a “brain” of sorts to manage the power system. The microgrid controller monitors the balance between supply and demand and uses the information to determine when to convert power into hydrogen and when to convert the hydrogen into power to meet increased demand.
“Smart grid technology is going to let us actively manage the electrical grid,” Field said. “It's the biggest change in the electrical system since Thomas Edison. “Using renewable resources such as water to cheaply produce hydrogen that can be used in fuel cells to generate power for homes and businesses has been a long-held dream for many researchers and chemists.
The demonstration project at Canyon Falls may prove to be a major step toward fulfilling that goal.FERC Shifts into High Gear for Hydropower Developers
Posted on 9/29/2010
.
Source of Information
Information presented in this document is based on a preliminary online search of documents and websites, including State Water Quality Criteria and Standards and Clean Water Act 303(d) Integrated Reports, for the 23 States and five Territories that have marine waters. This document is for information only, and is not to be used for regulatory purposes.EPA issues November 15, 2010 Memorandum: Integrated reporting and listing decisions related to ocean acidification
Published 16 November 2010
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide information to assist the Regions and States in preparing and reviewing Integrated Reports related to ocean acidification (OA) impacts under Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). As part of a settlement agreement, EPA agreed to issue this Memorandum by November 15, 2010, describing how EPA will proceed with regard to the issue of OA and the 303(d) program. This Memorandum recognizes the seriousness of aquatic life impacts associated with OA and describes how States can move forward, where OA information exists, to address OA during the 303(d) 2012 listing cycle using the current 303(d) Integrated Reporting (IR) framework. At the same time, this Memorandum also acknowledges and recognizes that in the case of OA, information is largely absent or limited at this point in time to support the listing of waters for OA in many States.
The Memorandum reaffirms that States should list waters not meeting water quality standards, including marine pH water quality criteria, for their 303(d) 2012 lists, and should also solicit existing and readily available information on OA using the current 303(d) listing program framework. EPA will provide additional 303(d) guidance to the States when future OA research efforts provide the basis for improved monitoring and assessment methods, including approaches being developed under other Federal efforts. This future OA guidance may be in the form of stand-alone OA IR guidance, or as part of EPA's routine, biennial IR update. EPA also encourages States to focus their efforts on OA-vulnerable waters (e.g., waters with coral reefs, marine fisheries, shellfish resources) that already are listed for other pollutants (e.g., nutrients) in order to promote ecological restoration.
- Memorandum on “Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean Acidification” (PDF) (16 pp, 5.5MB, About PDF ) Denise Keehner November 15, 2010
United States Environmental Protection Agency , 15 November 2010. Web site .
EPA Could Add DC Sites To Superfund List
According to the Washington Examiner , EPA has notified the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments that it will list three sites in Washington, D.C. on the Superfund National Priorities List. They include: 1) the Kenilworth Landfill, 2) a Washington Gas property near the Anacostia River and 3) the PEPCO Benning Road power plant site.
These sites have been on the CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability System) list for some time. The DC City Council is concerned that it takes EPA too long to clean up sites once they are placed on the Priorities List, so a councilmember is introducing legislation to force property owners to clean up their sites.
When an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste site is identified, information about the site is entered into a databased called CERCLIS. The CERCL ACt was passed in 1980 and is more commonly knowns as Superfund. The Superfund trust enables the government to clean up hazardous waste sites and then recover cleanup costs from pulluters. (Washington Examiner, 11/18/2010, AAEA "Our Unfair Share: Pollution in Washington, D.C., 1998)Listing of Certified Organic Operations Now Available from the National Organic Program
November 17, 2010 19:32
Listing of Certified Organic Operations Now Available from the National Organic Program
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing ServiceThe National Organic Program (NOP) made available today a complete listing of organic operations certified by U.S. Department of Agriculture accredited certifying agents during the 2009 certification year.
For the first time, the listing, available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/nop/, can be searched by keywords, name of operation, certifying agent, certificate numbers, primary and secondary scopes of certification, country, state, and products produced.
The database will serve as a useful tool to increase marketing opportunities for certified organic operations. It will also help consumers better locate sources of certified organic product.
+ National Organic Program search
Category:
Source:
Food insecure —At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security .
- 14.7 percent (17.4 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2009.
- Essentially unchanged from 14.6 percent in 2008.
Low food security —These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.
- 9.0 percent (10.6 million) of U.S. households had low food security in 2009.
- Essentially unchanged from 8.9 percent in 2008.
Very low food security —In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. In reports prior to 2006, these households were described as “food insecure with hunger.” For a description of the change in food security labels, see “ Definitions of Hunger and Food Security .”
- 5.7 percent (6.8 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2009.
- Unchanged from 5.7 percent in 2008.
The defining characteristic of very low food security is that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food. Very low food security can be characterized in terms of the conditions that households in this category typically report in the annual food security survey. Click here for a graph of the percentage of households reporting specific conditions.
Fifty-six leading denominations and faith-based organizations released a joint letter Wednesday calling on the U.S. Senate to uphold the EPA's power to protect the environment and public's health through the Clean Air Act.
In particular, the religious leaders , including Protestants, Jews, Unitarians and other faiths, noted that the effort by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to delay EPA controls on greenhouse gas emissions should be turned down.
In December 2009, the EPA finalized its study on the effects of greenhouse gases, and announced that these emissions are indeed a threat to public health and welfare.
Rockefeller's bill (S.3072) was introduced in March 2010, and would put the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases and other air pollution on hold for two more years.
The joint letter opens as follows: "As communities and people of faith, we are called to protect and serve God's great Creation and work for justice for all of God's people.
"We believe that the United States must take all appropriate and available actions to prevent the worst impacts of climate change; we therefore urge you to oppose any efforts to undermine the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
"We have seen various challenges to the CAA this session including Senator Rockefeller's proposal to delay regulation of greenhouse gases under the Environmental Protection Agency. We urge you to protect the Clean Air Act and allow the EPA to use the full strength of the law to ensure that God's Creation and God's children remain healthy."
(The full text of the joint letter and list of signers is available at nccecojustice.org ).
According to the U.S. Climate Network , the Rockefeller bill is designed to give polluters free rein to dump carbon pollution into the atmosphere, and would release polluters from their responsibility to keep communities and people safe from harmful emissions.
"As leaders in our communities of faith, we take very seriously our charge to act as stewards of God's Creation," said Rev. Harriet Olson, deputy general secretary of United Methodist Women. "Preserving a strong Clean Air Act and limiting the harm done by climate change are very important and concrete things we can do today working together as people of faith acting in that stewardship capacity."
While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.
By PAUL H. RUBIN
Many observers have made the point that environmentalism is eerily close to a religious belief system, since it includes creation stories and ideas of original sin. But there is another sense in which environmentalism is becoming more and more like a religion: It provides its adherents with an identity.
Scientists are understandably uninterested in religious stories because they do not meet the basic criterion for science: They cannot be tested. God may or may not have created the world—there is no way of knowing, although we do know that the biblical creation story is scientifically incorrect. Since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, science can't help us answer questions about the truth of religion as a method of understanding the world.
But scientists, particularly evolutionary psychologists, have identified another function of religion in addition to its function of explaining the world. Religion often supplements or replaces the tribalism that is an innate part of our evolved nature.
Original religions were tribal rather than universal. Each tribe had its own god or gods, and the success of the tribe was evidence that their god was stronger than others.
But modern religions have largely replaced tribal gods with universal gods and allowed unrelated individuals from outside the tribe to join. Identification with a religion has replaced identification with a tribe. While many decry religious wars, modern religion has probably net reduced human conflict because there are fewer tribal wars. (Anthropologists have shown that tribal wars are even more lethal per capita than modern wars.)
It is this identity-creating function that environmentalism provides. As the world becomes less religious, people can define themselves as being Green rather than being Christian or Jewish.
Consider some of the ways in which environmental behaviors echo religious behaviors and thus provide meaningful rituals for Greens:
• There is a holy day—Earth Day.
• There are food taboos. Instead of eating fish on Friday, or avoiding pork, Greens now eat organic foods and many are moving towards eating only locally grown foods.
• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.
• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.
• There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.
• Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure.
Some conservatives spend their time criticizing the way Darwin is taught in schools. This is pointless and probably counterproductive. These same efforts should be spent on making sure that the schools only teach those aspects of environmentalism that pass rigorous scientific testing. By making the point that Greenism is a religion, perhaps we environmental skeptics can enlist the First Amendment on our side.
Mr. Rubin is a professor of economics at Emory University. He is the author of "Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom" (Rutgers University Press, 2002).
Moyers on America . Is God Green? Religion and the Environment | PBS
How does your faith or religion or spirituality affect your perspective of environmentalism or creation care? blog. How does your faith or religion or ...
www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/.../ environment .html - Cached - SimilarNew religion of environmentalism | ajc.com
Apr 22, 2010 ... Thursday was the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, which was celebrated this year, according to the Earth Day Network, by more than a billion ...
www.ajc.com/.../new- religion -of- environmentalism -484726.html - CachedIrregular Times' weekly column on the world beyond the gods.
irregulartimes.com/further10.html - Cached - SimilarFaith-based environmentalism is a growing trend, with an increasing number of relgious leaders and organizations teaching that doing God's will means ...
environment .about.com/od/.../a/ religion .htm - Cached - SimilarUpdated Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:06pm AEDT
- BHP Billiton has warned the Federal Government to consider the country's attractiveness as an investment destination when finalising its position on the proposed mining tax.
BHP's chairman Jacques Nasser has told shareholders at its annual general meeting in Perth that governments have a right to change tax systems.
However he has urged the Federal Government to take into account the impact of any change on foreign investment.
Mr Nasser says BHP has paid nearly $3 billion in taxes and royalties on its WA operations last year.
And, he says any new tax regime should not negatively affect Australia's competiveness on a world stage.
Mr Nasser also defended the company's decision to dump its hostile takeover bid for Canadian company PotashCorp.
He says the company will continue to invest in Canada's potash basin and the bid money was part of the business strategy to add value for shareholders so he does not see it as a cost.
It comes after a failed acquisition of Rio Tinto in 2008 and the collapse of a Rio Pilbara iron ore joint venture earlier this year.
All three bids are believed to have cost a total of $800 million.
Mr Nasser has also assured shareholders the inability to close the deals does not mean the company will be chasing smaller acquisitions of lesser quality.
Protests
Green groups turned out in force to protest at the BHP meeting.
Dozens of protesters were moved on by police after they became vocal outside the meeting at the Convention Centre.
The groups have releaed an alternative annual report for BHP which questions its human rights and environment record.
It says dispossessed people around a Colombian mine are now being helped but in Mozambique, a million people may be affected by a fume treatment bypass at an aluminium smelter.
Report co-ordinator Natalie Lowry says BHP Billiton should show more leadership.
"Make sure that all operations are at the highest environmental standards, that they are aware of community removals," she said.
"The issue of human rights; BHP should avoid profiting from colonisation or military occupation."
The report says the company should disclose all monies paid to governments, to avoid allegations like the claim that several million dollars paid for Cambodian bauxite concessions never made it into public coffers.
Uranium
WA's Conservation Council director Piers Verstegen says it is concerned about BHP's plans to mine uranium in the state.
"If BHP has confidence in their ability to manage the extremely dangerous industry that is uranium mining, then they'd have no hesitation in subjecting this industry to a full, open and transparent public inquiry," he said.
"So, we're concerned that BHP have acted behind the scenes to block this inquiry."
Mr Verstegen says there is concern about the company's safety plans.
"What we are particularly concerned about in Western Australia is BHP's pursuit of the Yeelirrie uranium mining proposal," he said.
"There's a range of serious issues relating to this proposal, including the transport of radioactive material through communities."
How Many People Lived in Food-Insecure Households?
- In 2009, 50.2 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 17.2 million children.
- Of these individuals, 12.2 million adults and 5.4 million children lived in households with very low food security.
- Children's food security is affected to some extent in most food-insecure households. In 2009, 9 million children (12.1 percent of children) lived in households with food insecurity among children (see the ERS report, Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Characteristics ). However, children are usually protected from substantial reductions in food intake even in households with very low food security. In 2009, 988,000 children (1.3 percent of the Nation's children) lived in households with very low food security among children.
Cook Inlet toxic dumping gains scrutiny
• 9th Circuit Court gives water pollution control to state, taking away federal oversight
By Sean Pearson
Homer TribuneThe state applauded a recent decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that gives power over regulating water pollution from the federal to the state government, but while toxic dumping continues the change gives little comfort to conservation groups.
The higher court is upholding the transfer of the permitting program for discharges under the Federal Clean Water Act from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. At the same time, the court sent back a Cook Inlet dumping permit for additional review.
The first decision has no impact on the second as of yet, since the EPA is still the permitting authority for Cook Inlet. That's not much consolation to a coalition of fishing, Alaska Native and conservation groups who continue to shake their heads about how to mitigate the dumping of toxic oil and metals into the fisheries-rich waters.
According to Cam Leonard, attorney handling the case for the Alaska Department of Law, the DEC is taking over the permitting process in four stages, with oil and gas being the very last.
“The DEC hasn't actually taken over the permitting process yet,” Leonard said. “That will happen a year from now. For now, the EPA retains permitting authority.”
In the most recent petition for review of an order of the Environmental Protection Agency, Cook Inletkeeper and four other petitioners had originally challenged the EPA's grant of a permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The permit authorizes water pollution caused by continued operation of natural gas and oil extraction facilities in Cook Inlet.
On Oct. 21, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision which left in place a Clean Water Act permit that the coalition says, “allows the oil and gas industry to virtually triple the amount of toxic pollution it dumps annually into Cook Inlet fisheries.”
The decision also recognized flaws in the State of Alaska's efforts to implement “anti-degradation” policy when establishing the dilution allowances or “mixing zones” for industry wastes. It remanded the permit to EPA to correct these deficiencies.
According to the coalition of fishing, and Alaska Native and conservation groups, the recent court opinion recognizes significant flaws in the State of Alaska's Clean Water Act permitting program, yet still allows toxic oil and gas dumping to continue unabated in Cook Inlet's rich and productive fisheries.
Cook Inlet is the only coastal waterbody in the United States where EPA allows the oil and gas industry to dump toxic drilling and production wastes into important subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it established five-year terms for discharge permits, with the intent that technology would improve over time and pollution eventually would be eliminated. However, according to the groups who brought the challenge to the oil and gas industry permit— Cook Inletkeeper, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, Cook Inlet Fishermen's Fund, the Native Village of Port Graham, and the Native Village of Nanwalek — the current permit vastly increases the amount of toxic dumping in Cook Inlet compared to the previous permit. The industry is now authorized to discharge approximately 100,000 gallons of oil and over 835,000 pounds of toxic metals each year.
For illustration, the groups point 100,000 gallons is what it takes to fill an Olympic size swimming pool.
“The oil and gas industry continues to put profits over our fisheries and the countless families they support,” said Bob Shavelson, Executive Director of Cook Inletkeeper. “When the oil jobs and taxes are gone, we'll still need healthy, intact fisheries to sustain our communities.
The court's decision clearly shows EPA needs to get serious about protecting our fisheries.”
When the DEC takes over in a year, and the new permitting process begins, the groups will monitor to see if promised changes take place in Cook Inlet water standards. In the meantime, public input will be sought by the DEC in meeting dates to be announced, according to state attorney Leonard.Senate approves long-delayed $1.15 billion black farmer settlement
By Alexander Bolton - 11/19/10 05:05 PM ET
The Senate on Friday afternoon approved $1.15 billion to fund a long-awaited legal settlement between the Department of Agriculture and black farmers who claimed government discrimination.
The upper chamber also approved $3.4 billion to settle complaints that the Department of the Interior mismanaged Native American money accounts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) touted one of the first legislative accomplishments of the lame-duck session.
“Black farmers and Native American trust account holders have had to wait a long time for justice, but now it will finally be served,” Reid said in a statement. “I am heartened that Democrats and Republicans were able to come together to deliver the settlement that these men and women deserve for the discrimination and mismanagement they faced in the past.
“This issue has been of great importance to me, and I am pleased these long-suffering Americans can now receive the closure that they deserve,” Reid added.
The 1999 settlement between the Agriculture Department and black farmers is one of the biggest in civil rights settlements in history.
Black farmers accused the government in a lawsuit of denying them loans in favor of whites.
The Senate approved the measure Friday afternoon by unanimous consent. It includes an extension of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
Republicans agreed to pass the measure after Democrats found offsets to pay for it.
A Senate Democratic aide said the cost of the measure will be covered by surplus funds in the Women, Infants and Children nutritional assistance program, reducing overpayment of unemployment benefits and extension of customs user fees.
The House must approve the bill before it goes to President Obama for a signature. The House, which Democrats will control for a few more weeks, is expected to pass it easily.
.
The Perils Ahead: Debt Limit, EPA Rules, “Green” California
November 17, 2010 Andrew McCarthy's National Review on Line (NRO) post laying out the political context of capping the debt limit –
“Very soon, Leviathan's credit card will be tapped out. Shortly after President Obama took office, Congress quietly raised the debt ceiling from $12.3 trillion to $14.2 trillion — an amount that strategically evaded the need to come back for more just before the midterm elections. At its current rate of profligacy, however, the government will steamroll past the current limit within a few months. It will need a new, higher max-out to keep the gravy train rolling. So, like clockwork, the punditocracy is in high dudgeon, warning the speaker-to-be and other GOP leaders: Don't even think about not raising the cap . Unless the ceiling is raised, we're told, life will end, the government will collapse, the global economy will sink into deep depression, the unemployed may have to make do on less than 99 weeks of ‘insurance,' etc. Go along, or prepare to be smeared as reckless maniacs. In short, it's TARP time all over again .”
Grasping the California Disaster
Highlighting another self-inflicted environmentalist wound, today George Gilder in his Wall Street Journal op-ed “California's Destructive Green Jobs Lobby Silicon Valley” explains –
“Worst of all, economic sanity lost out in what may have been the most important election on Nov. 2 — and, no, I'm not talking about the gubernatorial or senate races. This was the California referendum to repeal Assembly Bill 32, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act, which ratchets the state's economy back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2020. That's a 30% drop followed by a mandated 80% overall drop by 2050. Together with a $500 billion public-pension overhang, the new energy cap dooms the state to bankruptcy. Conservative pundits have lavished mock pity on the state. But as America's chief fount of technology, California cannot go down the drain without dragging the rest of the country with it .”
.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Denying Americans Their Own Energy
By Alan Caruba
What kind of government deliberately denies its citizens access to the energy they need to live, to conduct business, to transport goods, to travel, and to just turn on the lights? Answer: The United States of America.
In a letter to members of the G-20, the finance ministers and central bankers of leading industrial nations, President Obama said, “We should make sustained effort to carry through with our groundbreaking Pittsburgh commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”
The result of such action would give international energy companies in other nations a large competitive advantage while penalizing U.S. oil and natural gas companies.
As Dr. Richard Swier noted recently, “In the U.S., support for the oil and gas industry is largely about investment depreciation rules which are available to many industries.” Energy companies routinely put huge amounts of money at risk to explore, discover, and extract the so-called fossil fuels. Take away the subsidies and the cost of all energy use in the U.S. goes up.
Meanwhile, CNN Money reported on November 12 that “President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico. And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.” (emphasis added)
This is great news for Saudi Arabia and bad news for Americans who think we should be accessing our own vast oil reserves. This failure to revive the oil drilling industry in the Gulf comes at a time when the price of a barrel of oil is rising while leaving thousands of oil industry workers in the Gulf States out of work.
A day earlier in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal it was revealed that while “President Obama continues to advertise the $814 billion stimulus and its green energy subsidy programs in particular as unqualified successes” an eight-page memo from his chief economic advisor, Larry Summers, environment and energy “czar”, Carol Browner, and policy aide, Ron Klain reveals that a $6 billion Department of Energy guarantee of loans and other disbursements was being resisted by the House budget office (OMB) and Treasury had found severe problems with “the economy integrity of government support for renewables.” (emphasis added)
Renewables is a code word for wind and solar energy projects. Loan guarantees, block grants, and government mandates often benefit large administration supporters such as General Electric and other political donors engaged in such projects.
One such project in Oregon would tap taxpayers for $1.2 billion while GE and Caithness Energy LLC would only put in about 11% of the project cost. It is corporate welfare that leaves the public with one of the two worst ways of generating electricity, as opposed to coal-fired and nuclear plants. Even hydroelectric power (generated by dams) is more reliable and less costly.
Back in October, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved a 50-megawatt Silver State Solar Project for Clark County, Nevada and three large solar power projects in California, all to be sited on federal land. This is not exactly what conservationists had in mind when such land was set aside. It diverts and wastes billions.
While all this is going on, the Environmental Protection Agency is still demanding that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced, the best known of which is carbon dioxide. They are referred to as “heat-trapping” gas and identified as the source of “global warming.” Only there is NO global warming and hasn't been for a decade as the Earth's overall temperatures have slid into a perfectly natural cooling cycle.
Thanks to Climategate, we now know that “global warming” was a complete fiction put forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The question no one at EPA wants to answer is this: if greenhouse gases trap heat, why don't they do it in the winter? If they are so powerful that they can trap heat, how come it gets cold as winter arrives in either the northern or southern hemispheres? Carbon dioxide does not trap heat, but more CO2 would in fact increase crop yields and aid forest and jungle growth worldwide.
According to CNSnews.com, “Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100 according to the EPA's analysis.” In plain terms, no reduction whatever and none needed!
Greenhouse gas restrictions are nothing less than a criminal act against the citizens of the United States. It is utterly baseless, a fraud no less than “global warming.”
There are many other examples of what the government, under the present and preceding administrations going back to Jimmy Carter's, have been doing to choke off the acquisition of American's vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and oil.
This isn't a energy policy. It's a suicide pact to drive up the cost of energy for all Americans, diminishing our competitiveness, and making our lives harsher.
© Alan Caruba, 2010Leo Motors Gets Order to Develop Agricultural Machinery
HANAM CITY, South Korea--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Leo Motors entered into an agreement with Tong Yang Mulsan Co., Ltd., one of the largest agricultural machinery companies in Korea, to develop electric tractors using the body and chassis from Tong Yang's internal combustion engine ( ICE ) tractors. Leo will develop the electric tractor using its proprietary electric power train including an electric motor, controller, battery management system ( BMS ), and power pack, and exploiting its unique electric car packaging technology. When the development is successful, Leo will have the opportunity to market its power trains to Tong Yang.
About Leo Motors
LEO MOTORS is a US public company based outside of Seoul, Korea, engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of Electric Vehicle ( EV ) power trains and components. Leo has developed many original EV power trains and has converted many models of existing internal combustion engine ( ICE ) vehicles into EVs, including scooters, motorcycles, highway speed sedans, buses and trucks. Leo Motors has also developed Zinc Air Fuel Cell Generator (ZAFCG) which will free EV's from range limitation with zero emissions.
Forward-Looking Statement
This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In addition to statements which explicitly describe such risks and uncertainties, readers are urged to consider statements labeled with the terms “believes,” “belief,” “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “will,” or “plans” to be uncertain and forward looking. The forward-looking statements contained herein are also subject generally to other risks and uncertainties that are described from time to time in the company's reports and registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Princeton Research, Inc.
Mike King, 702-650-3000.
EPA considers SW Colo creek polluted by historical mining
GLADSTONE, Colo. (AP) — Portions of upper Cement Creek that feeds into the Animas River in southwestern Colorado are being considered for listing as a Superfund site.
Heavy metals gushing from abandoned mines, some which operated in the late 1800s to early 1900s in the Gladstone area, are believed to be polluting the creek.
Site assessment manager for the EPA in Denver Sabrina Forrest told the Durango Herald that they hope to decide by February whether the area qualifies for Superfund cleanup.
EPA officials are looking at a cluster of mines as the potential source of contamination that include the American Tunnel, Gold King Number 7 level, the Mogul and Grand Mogul, and the Red and Bonita mines.Idaho lawmakers blast EPA proposal
Cleanup plan too costly, Idaho delegation says
Idaho's congressional delegation is lambasting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to clean up historic mining waste in the Coeur d'Alene River's headwaters.
“Bloated” was how delegation members described the $1.3 billion plan with a list of projects that could take up to 100 years to complete.
The EPA's proposal would leave a “Superfund” stigma hanging over Idaho's Silver Valley for the next three generations, tainting the local tourism industry and potentially harming the region's remaining silver mines, they said.
“EPA proposes a massive undertaking on a scale that is hardly imaginable, possibly without precedent, and with no realistic way to pay for it,” said U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.
The criticism was levied in a joint statement also issued by U.S. Sen. Jim Risch and Reps. Walt Minnick and Mike Simpson.
Simpson is a ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment, which funds the EPA.
He predicted that Congress would reject the current plan and urged the EPA to build consensus in North Idaho around “a workable path forward.”
Regional EPA officials, meanwhile, said the 2,200-page plan is a realistic look at the decades of work needed to make the Upper Coeur d'Alene Basin safe for people and wildlife.
More than 300 old mine sites – an average of one per square mile – continue to leach lead, arsenic and other heavy metals into the Coeur d'Alene River's headwaters.
Stretches of some tributaries are too toxic to support fish. During flooding, the metals wash downstream into Lake Coeur d'Alene.
Polluted sediments along the beaches and floodplains also pose risks to people and wildlife, according to the EPA.
“We believe it's appropriate for EPA to come up with a blueprint for cleanup in the upper basin so the community and EPA understand the extent of the work,” Anne Daily, an EPA program manager, said in an earlier interview. “It helps us wisely spend the mo? ney on projects that will have the most benefit and limit the use of taxpayer money.”
Part of the cleanup money would come from the $447 million Asarco trust fund, created to pay for the mining company's environmental liabilities in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. At spending levels of $25 million per year, the cleanup work is expected to generate 425 new jobs in the Silver Valley.
But the plan faced hostile crowds at public hearings in the Silver Valley last summer. Local residents and politicians said it was too big and too costly.
Hecla Mining Co., which operates the Lucky Friday Mine in Mullan, Idaho, also opposes it. Hecla is the last major company that hasn't settled its historic pollution claims with the federal government. In earlier litigation, a federal judge ruled that Hecla was responsible for 31 percent of the historic mine tailings dumped in the Coeur d'Alene Basin.
The company employs about 350 workers at the Lucky Friday Mine.
A public comment period on the proposal ended Tuesday. EPA officials said they will review the comments and respond in writing to the issues raised.
Further progress on permitting process for US power plant projects Amargosa and Palen
By signing the Record of Decision, US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar approved the right of way grant for the Solar Millennium Group's solar power plant facility in Nevada's Amargosa Valley on Monday. This approval marks an important pre-condition for the successful completion of the permitting process for the construction of two parabolic trough power plants as scheduled. Together, the two power plants will have a total capacity of approximately 500 megawatts (MW). Part of the electricity generated there will be supplied to Las Vegas, which is some 150 kilometers away. The planned thermal storage facilities will enable the two plants to supply the region with electricity even after the sun has set.
Based on the approval by the US Secretary of the Interior, the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has granted Solar Millennium LLC, Oakland, the American project development unit within the Solar Millennium Group, the right of way for public land at the Amargosa location. Due to the proximity to the Amargosa River, Solar Millennium must additionally seek approval with regards to the Water Clean Act from other U.S. authorities to obtain the final construction approval.
In announcing the Record of Decision, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said," This solar facility is yet another critical component in the Department's growing renewable energy portfolio as we work to create strengthen our nation's energy security. Our commitment to the development of clean, renewable energy is creating new jobs that will aid in our economic recovery, protect our environment and transform the way our nation gets our energy."
In California another project location has taken an important hurdle in the approval process, as well. Last Friday, the responsible committee of the California Energy Commission (CEC) had recommended granting Solar Millennium LLC approval for the construction and operation of two solar-thermal power plants with a total capacity of about 500 MW at the Palen location in California. In its recommendation the committee had established that the planned power plants complied with the applicable laws, regulations and requirements, as was also the case with the Blythe project. The CEC will probably make its final decision on the construction permit after the expiry of a public comment period in mid-December.
Oliver Blamberger, CFO of Solar Millennium AG, said the company is pleased with the progress: "The two locations in Blythe and the Amargosa valley alone suffice to fill our order books for the years to come and make Solar Millennium the leading supplier of parabolic trough power plants." Regarding the financing of the two power plants in Nevada, Blamberger added, "In line with the financing structure of Blythe 1 and 2, an equity ratio of 20 to 30 percent is also planned for the Amargosa power plants. As with Blythe, we have already applied for the respective loan guarantees with the US Department of Energy in order to secure the debt capital."
Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America, illustrates the significance of the solar power plants for the economy in Nevada. "The construction of these two plants is not only another important milestone on the path towards sustainably converting our U.S. energy supply, but it also makes a very important contribution to reviving the local economy in Nevada. Solar Millennium expects to create more than 1,300 jobs at the Amargosa Valley location during construction, while the two power plants will provide more than 180 permanent operations and maintenance jobs once completed.
With a generating capacity of approximately 500 MW and thermal storage volume for 4.5 hours per plant, the two power plants will produce enough energy to power up 150,000 America homes on a reliable basis. In 2009, the company had already signed memorandum of understanding on a potential power purchase agreement with the utility Nevada Energy.
Josef Eichhammer, President of Solar Trust of America and CEO of Solar Millennium LLC remarks: "US politicians have it high on their agenda that California and Nevada take a leading position in utilizing the abundant solar resource for electricity generation and building up a solar industry and therefore we are very happy today to make a contribution with our planned innovative power plants to realize such objectives. Our decision to plan a power plant with dry cooling also helps to accelerate the approval process, as we need 90% less water to cool the steam cycle. We will now intensify our negotiations with utilities regarding the power purchase agreements as well as our engagement with the permitting authorities for the two plants, so we will be able to commence construction for both projects by the end of 2011."
Wind at their backs: Powerful Democrats help Chinese energy firm chase stimulus money
By Russ Choma Investigative Reporting Workshop, American University Investigative Reporting Workshop, American University updated 12/9/2010
WASHINGTON — Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.
The farm's backers also have close ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who, at the height of his hard-fought re-election bid this fall, helped blunt congressional criticism over stimulus dollars possibly going to create jobs in China by endorsing a proposal by the Chinese company to build a factory in his home state. Although his campaign received thousands of dollars in donations from the wind farm's backers and Reid stood on stage with them at a campaign event they hosted, his office declined to answer any questions about the wind farm's organizers or their plans for Nevada.
- More U.S. news
- Dems help Chinese firm chase stimulus
Top Democratic lobbyists are behind a proposed wind farmthat stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China. Full story
- WikiLeaks vigilante war spills onto Web
- Updated 1 minutes ago 12/9/2010 10:31:18 PM +00:00 U.S. to probe hack attacks in wake of WikiLeaks
- Controversial church to picket Edwards funeral
- Updated 50 minutes ago 12/9/2010 9:42:03 PM +00:00 WikiLeaks: U.S. helped Spain fight treasure hunter
The wind farm, first announced more than a year ago, would consist of 300 2-megawatt wind turbines, each perched atop a 26-story-tall steel tower and spinning three blades — each half the length of a football field. The farm would span three counties and 36,000 acres in West Texas land best known for its oil. Dubbed the Spinning Star wind farm, the project's 600-megawatt capacity is, theoretically, enough to power 180,000 American homes and would be the sixth-largest wind farm in the country.
It is being planned by an unusual joint partnership between the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a Dallas investment firm with strong ties to Washington and the Democratic Party, and A-Power Energy Generation Systems, an upstart Chinese supplier of wind turbines. Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate the Chinese are bringing financing and the turbines.
What the Americans are supplying is the local know-how and political clout in Washington, where decisions on how to distribute billions in loan guarantees, stimulus grants and financial incentives are made.
Story: Reid's 'Net betting bill would benefit his casino backers
The clock is ticking for Spinning Star: To claim the stimulus grant it must arrange its financing and begin work on the wind farm by Dec. 31. Besides the $450 million stimulus grant, A-Power's SEC filings indicate the joint-venture also will pursue a Department of Energy-backed loan guarantee. According to the SEC filings, the project is waiting to hear if it will receive the loan guarantee before financing will follow to build the turbines.
Powerful donors to Democrats
The investment group's public face is often Cappy McGarr, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, investor and longtime fixture in Democratic politics, who has given heavily to Democratic candidates across the country and was an early backer of President Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Joining McGarr in Dallas is Ed Cunningham, a former executive for several large Western entertainment companies in China, a 2002 Democratic senatorial candidate and a former member of Obama's national finance committee.Two registered lobbyists with a long history of involvement in Democratic politics, G. John O'Hanlon and Moses Boyd, are the group's anchors in Washington. O'Hanlon has been a party operative since the 1980s — a protégé of Democratic heavyweight Terry McAuliffe — and has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic causes. Boyd is a former senior Democratic Capitol Hill staffer turned lobbyist.
McGarr married into Democratic Party royalty — his wife's uncle is legendary Democratic power broker Robert Strauss — and has made his own name as a big-time donor to the party and candidates across the country. McGarr and his wife, Janie Strauss McGarr, have given more than $375,000 to various Democratic candidates and political action committees since 2006, according to Federal Election Commission records. That doesn't include the $50,000 he donated to Obama's inauguration and $50,000 to $100,000 in donations from others that he “bundled” for the Obama campaign.
All told, these four and their spouses have given more than $1.8 million in campaign donations since 1990, with McGarr and his wife accounting for more than half of that.
“That would place them among the top 100 donors of hard money overall,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent research group that tracks campaign finance and how it affects elections and public policy.
The important question, however, is not how much they have given, Krumholz said, but "What does this buy them with each individual target of their largesse?”
The money that McGarr “bundled” in the last election — essentially working on a volunteer basis to solicit money for the Obama presidential campaign — is particularly significant, she said. It's an important and valuable role to play in a campaign, she said, and one that typically is acknowledged.
“In some cases,” Krumholz said, bundlers, “maybe are just making very little effort and are ideologically driven, but in many, many cases, historically, these people are looking for access to tap in on. It should not be presumed that this is uninterested work.”
White House visits
McGarr's connections and party loyalty do seem to open doors for him in Washington — and at the White House. McGarr visited the White House at least eight times in the administration's first 18 months in office, according to visitor records disclosed by the White House. (These disclosures are voluntary, and do not include meetings held with staff outside of the White House, telephone contacts or records that the Obama administration has not released from its first nine months.) Three of the visits were for large social functions hosted by the president, but four were occasions when he met with senior White House staff and presidential advisers.Story: Hot air? White House takes credit for Bush-era wind farm jobs
On Sept. 15, 2009, just weeks before he announced his new renewable energy venture that would tap Obama's stimulus plan for hundreds of millions of dollars, McGarr met with Pete Rouse, one of three “senior advisers” to the president. Rouse was named acting chief-of-staff in October 2010 after Rahm Emmanuel announced his departure. Rouse was formerly the chief-of-staff for former Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle. McGarr is the chairman of Daschle's political action committee.
Obama White House won't answer questions
Liz Oxhorn, a White House spokesperson for the Recovery Act, declined to answer questions about what was discussed during that meeting or any other — including whether Rouse and other White House officials know about the Spinning Star project or were asked to intervene on its behalf.“Competitive Recovery Act funds are only awarded by experts at federal agencies following an internal merit-based review process,” she said in an e-mail, denying the White House had intervened in the process to award a loan guarantee.
Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for U.S. Renewable Energy Group, the U.S. partner in the windmill project, said neither McGarr nor any other member of the group ever asked the White House to intervene on behalf of their project.
advertisement | ad info Advertisement | ad info Advertisement | ad info
“US-REG has not asked any official in any branch of government to advocate on behalf of their project in the DOE loan guarantee process,” Dorton said. “This is a project that stands on its own merits.”
Most of McGarr's visits were related to his work as executive producer of the Library of Congress' Gershwin Prize for Popular Music, which honored Stevie Wonder in 2009 and Paul McCartney this June, Dorton said in an e-mailed statement. Dorton also said a meeting at the White House in January attended by Boyd was for his involvement with a group lobbying for a renewable energy standard — a proposed federal requirement that a certain percentage of electricity come from renewable sources — but neither US-REG nor Spinning Star were mentioned.
A $245 million 'developer fee'
According to Dorton's statement, the four partners in US-REG each brought particular strengths to the deal: Cunningham has negotiated business deals in China; McGarr has worked in private equity; and O'Hanlon and Boyd have experience with green energy. That all four men are prominent in Washington and Democratic circles has nothing to do with their partnership, Dorton said.Together, McGarr, Cunningham, O'Hanlon and Boyd will own 51 percent of the Spinning Star wind farm, according to the joint venture agreement filed with the SEC by A-Power. But to earn that ownership stake in a project whose ultimate value is estimated at $2 billion, they won't have to contribute any significant financial investment of their own.
- Only on msnbc.com
- Updated 102 minutes ago 12/9/2010 8:49:57 PM +00:00 Assange's hiding place: U.K. club for journalists
- BLTWY: 10 things you should know about Assange
- Democrats help Chinese firm chase stimulus
- Gift cards are improved this year, but not perfect
- How's Obama doing on kicking the habit?
- Red Tape: Twitter, Assange fans play cat-and-mouse
- Green toys are red-hot this holiday season
- Big PR goof? China's confusing Confucius prize
What US-REG must do to earn its “developer fee,” which SEC documents suggest could be worth as much as $244.8 million, is secure “all project rights, beneficial contracts, permits, permit applications and Consultant Information.”
At an Oct. 29 press conference to announce the new joint venture, the top Chinese A-Power executive made it clear what each company in the deal needed to do to make their new project go forward.
Wind White Wash
The greenies continually tell us that green is the way to go. Recently Jim Madden submitted a rebuttal to the Cape Vincent's Wind Committee's Economics Report. Below I have a story about a coordinated attempt by the AWEA, DOE & NREL to discredit another report.
Jefferson's leaning Left has a story today in it he mentions a report about green jobs published by Researchers at King Juan Carlos University this report concludes that every "green" job created by the wind industry eliminated 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy. apparently this report was disturbing to certain entities in the renewable energy sector ,so much so that they actively set out to discredit it .Below are a series of emails between the Obama administration's, Department of Energy( DOE), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the American Wind Energy Association( AWEA )these emails show a desperate attempt to discredit the King Juan Carlos University report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Department of Energy is working hard using your tax dollars to promote wind energy. The latest thing I found was the report I published yesterday , from the NREL the DOE's research group titled Large Scale Offshore Wind Power in The United States.
The DOE also has a website Wind & Water Power Program
The Critical Objective ~
The program's critical objectives for enabling widespread offshore wind power deployment are to reduce the cost of energy generated by offshore wind turbines, and to reduce the timeline for deploying offshore wind.
How much money does it cost to produce & reduce the cost of wind power?
Our tax dollars are being thrown at this industry to get it established. Now more money is being thrown into the never ending wind industry abyss because we must make this inefficient unreliable power source more cost efficient, but by the time we get to this point we will never be able to recoup the money that was spent to arrive there, we will be at a point of diminishing return.
I am not surprised by this thinking. After all it is not their money that they are throwing into the abyss.
For your reading pleasure I have provided some emails in the scrbd format they are between people from the DOE, NREL, AWEA, all scrambling doing damage control discussing how to discredit a Spanish wind study that says that wind power destroys jobs and that the jobs that wind claims to create are based on artificial data.
Click the links below to read the FOIA request and the emails:
“Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show how the Obama administration's Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).”
The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA . These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.”
Iron Mountain Mine Institute
supergene copper/gold prospect
In ore deposit geology , supergene processes or enrichment occur relatively near the surface. Supergene processes include the predominance of meteoric water circulation with concomitant oxidation and chemical weathering . The descending meteoric waters oxidize the primary ( hypogene ) sulfide ore minerals and redistribute the metallic ore elements. Supergene enrichment occurs at the base of the oxidized portion of an ore deposit. Metals that have been leached from the oxidized ore are carried downward by percolating groundwater, and react with hypogene sulfides at the supergene-hypogene boundary. The reaction produces secondary sulfides with metal contents higher than those of the primary ore. This is particularly noted in copper ore deposits where the copper sulfide minerals chalcocite , covellite , digenite , and djurleite are deposited by the descending surface waters.
1000 tons per hour of wasted capacity since 1980
BRICK FLAT PIT GENERAL MINING PLAN
.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINES. United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.; T.W. Arman; and Aventis Cropscience USA Inc., Civ. No. S-91-0768 DFL/JFM (E.D. Ca., Dec. 8, 2000); and State of California v. Iron Mountain, et al., Civ. No. C-91-1167 DFL/JFM (consolidated). [CERCLA] In one file or in smaller files (each approx. 600KB): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Southwest DARRP web site.]
.
"THE WATERBOARDING OF TED ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINE"
PHIL WOODWARD IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
JIM PEDRI IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
RICK SUGAREK IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
DENNIS HEIMAN IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - REDNECK ENVIRONMENTALIST
(WE'LL TAKE HER WORD FOR IT.)
JOHN LYONS, ESQ. IS BANISHED FROM IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - MALICIOUS ABUSIVE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICE
THE WATERBOARD IS BANISHED - GUILTY OF LEACHING - THE CAUSE OF CONTAMINATION AT IMMI
FERTILIZE THE EARTH - ABOLISH THE WATERBOARD - INITIATE CAFA ANTITRUST ACTION
PURGE IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES - DIVISION OF INSIDIOUS BUREACRACY
ANTITERROR COUNTERMEASURES - CULTURAL DEVOLUTION OF ESTABLISHED BELIEFS
OUTLAWRY
CH2M HILL
Bob Chapman CH2M HILL
Joe Patten CH2M HILL
Ken Iceman CH2M HILL
Fritz Carlson CH2M HILL
Sergei Zelenkov CH2M HILL
Bill Bluck CH2M HILL
Ray Prettyman CH2M HILL
Mike Smith CH2M HILL
CVRWQCB
Phil Woodward CVRWQCB
Dennis Heiman CVRWQCB
Jim Pedri CVRWQCB
Jim Rohrbach CVRWQCB
EPA
Rick Sugarek EPA
Tom Mix EPA
Ron Hill EPA
Keith Takata EPA
Bureau of Reclamation
Lester Kaufman - Bureau of Reclamation
Kirk Nordstrom U.S.G.S.
Dennis Wilson Dept. of Fish and Game
Mark Galloway – Dept. of Health Services
.
Also known as transgenic salmon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel began hearings in Washington on Sunday, on America's first genetically engineered food animal: the Atlantic salmon. This fish incorporates DNA from the ocean pout and the Chinook salmon to make it grow twice as fast as its wild relatives.
Instead of 3 years, the genetically modified fish reaches maturity in 18 months!
Aquaculture that produces tilapia and shrimp is already created to meet the demand for seafood, but farming genetically modified fish is a whole different matter.
The controversy? With drastically declining wild fish stocks becoming a serious concern, proponents argue that farming a fast-growing genetically modified fish is the safest and most economical way to meet consumers' insatiable demand for salmon, which is reported to be a heart healthy food because of the essential omega-3 fatty acids.
Proponents also insist that there's no danger in eating genetically modified food as they insist that raising them strictly in tanks will eliminate the risk of loosing a few into the wild where they would breed with wild salmon and "contaminate" the gene pool.
AquaBounty, the Boston-based company that designed the fish, told the FDA that the fish will be grown only in indoor tanks in inland areas, and Ohio has already been selected by the company as the place to "grow" these genetically modified fish.
However, opponents to such endeavors raise both health and environmental concerns.
Just as agribusiness exclusively sells genetically modified seeds, the company intends to sell eggs to growers in the U.S. as well as elsewhere. There's the whole ethical issue of one company holding the patented rights to create, own, and sell eggs to fish farmers. Won't this mean that all the ills of agribusiness will enter the realm of aquaculture?
The FDA briefing paper says it found that at least 95% of the eggs produced sterile fish and all of the eggs were female. Since no containment system is foolproof, it means that there's no guarantee that the few fish that manage to escape into the wild won't begin breeding with wild salmon or start decimating native species of wildlife.
Consumers who buy conventional produce without the organic certification, who buy processed foodstuff made from conventionally grown produce already eat genetically modified corn and soybeans; does this then follow that genetically modified fish will some day dominate the seafood market here in the U.S. and other nations?
One environmental concern is that the saltwater used to farm the salmon, when released in order to clean out the tanks, will wreck havoc in Ohio's freshwater streams and lakes. Regulators will have to decide whether the environmental cost and risk are acceptable, and to whom.
According to Bob Calala, president of the Ohio Aquaculture Association, indoor aquaculture is the wave of the future in Ohio. There is hope that a lack of demand from consumers who value seafood that isn't genetically modified might deter such a wave. Only time will tell the health and environmental consequences of a grand scale aquaculture of what some would call franken-fish, but by then, who knows whether or not it would be too late.
.
Water Surge
Hydropower, once shunned because of environmental concerns, is making a comeback
By STEPHANIE SIMON
LEADVILLE, Colo.—The giant pipes wheeze and rumble, the whoosh of water coursing through them as noisy as a freeway. The Mount Elbert hydropower plant high in the Rocky Mountains isn't much to look at—or listen to. But to true believers, it's a road map to a greener future.
Hydropower, shunned just a few years ago as an environmental scourge, is experiencing a remarkable resurgence in the U.S. Dams are still viewed warily; in fact, Congress is considering dismantling four hydroelectric dams blamed for depleting salmon in the Klamath River basin in southern Oregon and northern California.
But engineers and entrepreneurs are pressing an alternative view of hydropower that doesn't involve new dams. They argue that plenty of efficient, economical energy can be wrung from other water resources, including ocean waves, free-flowing rivers, irrigation ditches—even the effluent discharged from wastewater treatment facilities.
There's a surge of interest, too, in adding small power plants to dams built years ago for flood control or navigation—as well as in turning reservoirs into battery packs of sorts, releasing energy when the grid needs it most.
Globally, hydropower provides 16% of electricity, slightly more than nuclear power and closing in on natural gas, according to the London-based International Hydropower Association.
In the U.S., by contrast, hydropower now provides about 7% of electricity generation. All other renewable sources combined account for about 3%.
Even without building large dams, expanding efforts to draw power from water could add 40,000 megawatts to the grid by 2025, says the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit research firm in Palo Alto, Calif. That's the equivalent of putting at least two dozen new nuclear power plants online.
Pouring It On
Such estimates are stirring action. The U.S. Department of Energy spent nothing on hydropower research as recently as 2007 but allocated $50 million this year. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued 50 preliminary permits for small hydro projects last year, up from 15 in 2007. At least two dozen states have mandated that utilities draw more power from renewable sources—and many include small hydropower as an option, along with wind and solar. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter recently announced an agreement between his state and the federal government that will streamline the permitting process for developing small hydropower projects in Colorado.
The Department of Energy estimates a new hydro project in 2016 would generate power at a cost of $120 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, the cost per megawatt-hour would be $150 at a wind farm going online that year and nearly $400 at a photovoltaic solar array. (Those figures don't take into account various tax incentives meant to offset the cost of renewable energy, especially wind and solar.)
Hydro also has technical advantages over other renewables. Daily water flow in many areas is far more predictable than wind or sunshine. It's relatively easy to store the energy pent up in water so it can be released when the grid needs it most. And certain types of hydro plants can rev up from low power to full capacity within seconds.
"There remains tremendous untapped potential in North America," says Don Erpenbeck, a vice president at MWH, a global hydropower construction and engineering firm in Broomfield, Colo. "After decades of delay, we are starting to realize that potential."
But Mr. Erpenbeck adds that years-long waits for federal permits and high capital costs make hydropower a tough sell to some utilities and investors. Maximizing water energy in the U.S., he says, "is going to take some guts."
Countries such as Brazil and China remain committed to large hydroelectric dams and are forging ahead with big projects. Yet they are also looking at smaller solutions favored by environmentalists. The International Hydropower Association estimates that North America has developed nearly 70% of its available hydropower resources and Europe 75%. But the group sees huge potential in South America, Asia and especially Africa, where just 7% of resources have been developed.
Dam Smart
In the U.S., one strategy gaining popularity is to add power plants to some of the 80,000 existing dams that don't have hydroelectric capacity. Technological advances like turbines that are gentler on fish and oxygen-injection systems that help balance aquatic ecosystems have won favor even among some environmental groups.
In one such project, American Municipal Power Inc. is spending $2 billion to add power plants to three dams on the Ohio River and invest in additional hydropower elsewhere.
The utility's CEO, Marc Gerken, says the new hydropower will cost more initially than coal or natural gas. But after the construction costs are paid off in 30 years, the utility will enjoy cheap power for several decades because the fuel—the rushing river—is essentially free and the plant is designed to run without much maintenance for 60 or 70 years. AMP, based in Columbus, Ohio, is a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by municipal utilities in the six states the company serves.
Other technologies are more speculative. A much-ballyhooed experiment that involved suspending a turbine from a barge in the Mississippi River didn't prove to be worth expanding. The turbine is generating power, but Hydro Green Energy LLC, the Houston-based start-up that developed the device, says it has moved on to more promising ventures. "It's still a power-producing, money-making device," but the economics don't support expansion, says Vice President Mark Stover.
Several companies are experimenting with "low-head" turbines that can pull energy from relatively small volumes of water dropping as little as five feet over natural or man-made falls. One such project, launched by Natel Energy Inc. of Alameda, Calif., uses low-head technology to extract energy from an Arizona irrigation canal.
Federal scientists say some of these approaches look promising but need more study. "With these new technologies, nobody knows what their environmental impacts might be," says Doug Hall, who manages the water-energy program at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory.
Pump Action
A less-experimental technology, dating back more than a century, is also gaining currency as a means to store energy and back up the grid: pumped storage, the system used by the Mount Elbert hydro plant outside Denver.
The plant, sitting on the jewel-like Twin Lakes and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, plays a key role in keeping lights on and air conditioners humming across the West.
At night, when demand on the power grid is low, the Mount Elbert plant sucks water from the lakes, sometimes using wind power to pump that water up into a reservoir above the plant. The reservoir acts as a liquid battery—a huge pool of potential energy.
As the day warms up and the grid shows signs of strain, workers begin to release the water down a 470-foot drop, through devices that turn the pent-up energy into usable electricity. The water eventually pours back into the lakes, where it can be recycled into power again the next evening.
Pumped storage is quite popular abroad; China has 2,200 projects under construction, and India and Ukraine aren't far behind. An analysis by MWH shows that countries as varied as Romania, Thailand, Switzerland, South Africa and Italy are also moving heavily into pumped-storage construction. The U.S. has lagged, but federal authorities saw a surge in permit applications in 2008 and again so far this year.
"No new dams are being built," says Dave Sabo, a senior adviser with the Bureau of Reclamation. But just about every other approach to hydropower, he says, is being studied and tested intensively. Says Mr. Sabo, "All this stuff is in play right now—pretty heavily."
Ms. Simon is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Dallas bureau. She can be reached at stephanie.simon@wsj.com .
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page R3
Report: Electric Grid R&D Must Parallel Expansion of Renewable Power
By JENNY MANDEL of Greenwire
Published: November 16, 2010
The Energy Department should expand its research on energy storage, long-distance electricity transmission and short-term weather forecasting in order to support the growing use of renewable energy, the American Physical Society says in a report released today.
Research and development is needed to prepare the electric grid for the coming onslaught of new solar and wind power, in much the way farmers must prepare the ground before sowing a crop, said Kathryn Clay, vice president of research and technology policy with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and a member of the committee that wrote the report, at a press event.
"This is actually taking it a step higher in terms of the technical sophistication of the national grid," Clay said, contrasting the proposed work with calls by other groups to build new transmission lines.
The American Physical Society (APS) said the intermittency of wind and solar supplies, the location of prime wind and solar sites far from population centers on the East and West coasts, and the fragmentation of the national energy grid present challenges to integrating renewable energy.
Those challenges will become increasingly significant as more states implement renewable portfolio standards, the report says, as 30 states and the District of Columbia have already done.
Jim Misewich, a co-chairman of the report committee and associate lab director for basic science at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory, said many of the state standards are aimed at providing 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. Integrating that degree of renewable power would be a challenge under current conditions, he said, which effectively sets a 10-year time frame to address the weaknesses.
While experts do not know the precise load of renewables that the grid can handle, Clay said, "We don't want to run that experiment" to see when it starts to break down.
The report calls for a series of federal actions to address the challenges.
For energy storage, DOE should increase its electrochemical research and re-examine the technology options for batteries in the context of large-scale use, it said. Misewich stressed the value of reconsidering approaches that were discarded during the 1980s and 1990s, when program managers had different applications in mind, in light of changing needs.
On long-distance transmission, APS urged DOE to extend its work on high-temperature superconductivity and increase R&D on power electronics that can control power flows over split-second time periods.
To make wind and solar forecasting more useful to utilities, it called for additional research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service and National Center for Atmospheric Research, as well as private companies, to improve the accuracy of reports hours to days in advance. That would reduce the need for fossil fuel standby power, reducing cost and improving the environmental performance of power providers.
Misewich and Clay said regulatory reforms by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. could help by clarifying how utilities can pay for energy storage improvements.
Clay said some of the R&D work suggested by APS is already before Congress in some form, while much of it is new. She said the panel decided against estimating the cost of the recommended work.
Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com .
NERSC supercomputing center breaks the petaflops barrier
November 16, 2010
BERKELEY, Calif. — The Department of Energy's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), already one of the world's leading centers for scientific productivity, is now home to the fifth most powerful supercomputer in the world and the second most powerful in the United States, according to the latest edition of the TOP500 list, the definitive ranking of the world's top computers.
NERSC's newest supercomputer, a 153,408 processor-core Cray XE6 system, posted a performance of 1.05 petaflops (quadrillions of calculations per second) running the Linpack benchmark. In keeping with NERSC's tradition of naming computers for renowned scientists, the system is named Hopper in honor of Admiral Grace Hopper, a pioneer in software development and programming languages. The system, installed d in September 2010, is funded by DOE's Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research.
Established in 1974, NERSC is located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and provides computing systems and services to more than 3,000 researchers supported by the Department of Energy (DOE). NERSC's users, located at universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions around the country, report producing more than 1,500 scientific publications each year as a result of calculations run at NERSC.
“While we are elated to have entered the petascale performance arena, we are especially excited by the computational science potential offered by Hopper,” said Kathy Yelick, Director of the NERSC Division and Associate Laboratory Director of Computing Sciences at Berkeley Lab. “We selected Cray as the system vendor after a competitive procurement based in large part on how proposed systems performed running our application benchmarks. Now that the system is installed and operational, we will begin our acceptance testing in which we run some of the most demanding scientific applications to ensure that Hopper will meet the day-to-day demands of our users.”
NERSC serves one of the largest research communities of all supercomputing centers in the United States. The center's supercomputers are used to tackle a wide range of scientific challenges, including global climate change, combustion, clean energy, new materials, astrophysics, genomics, particle physics and chemistry. The more than 400 projects being addressed by NERSC users represent the research mission areas of DOE's Office of Science.
The increasing power of supercomputers helps scientists study problems in greater detail and with greater accuracy, such as increasing the resolution of climate models and creating models of new materials with thousands of atoms. Supercomputers are increasingly used to compliment scientific experimentation by allowing researchers to test theories using computational models and analyzed large scientific data sets. NERSC is also home to Franklin, a 38,128 core Cray XT4 supercomputer with a Linpack performance of 266 teraflops (trillions of calculations per second). Franklin is ranked number 27 on the newest TOP500 list.
About NERSC and Berkeley Lab
The National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) is the primary high-performance computing facility for scientific research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California for the DOE Office of Science.
( Nanowerk News ) There's good news in the search for the next generation of semiconductors. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California (UC) Berkeley, have successfully integrated ultra-thin layers of the semiconductor indium arsenide onto a silicon substrate to create a nanoscale transistor with excellent electronic properties. A member of the III–V family of semiconductors, indium arsenide offers several advantages as an alternative to silicon including superior electron mobility and velocity, which makes it an oustanding candidate for future high-speed, low-power electronic devices. Fabricating an indium oxide (InAs) device starts with a) epitaxially growing and etching InAs into nanoribbon arrays that are get stamped onto a silicon/silica (Si/SiO2 ) substrate; b) and c) InAs nanoribbon arrays on Si/SiO2; d) and e) InAs nanoribbon superstructures on Si/SiO2. "We've shown a simple route for the heterogeneous integration of indium arsenide layers down to a thickness of 10 nanometers on silicon substrates," says Ali Javey, a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab's Materials Sciences Division and a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley, who led this research. "The devices we subsequently fabricated were shown to operate near the projected performance limits of III-V devices with minimal leakage current. Our devices also exhibited superior performance in terms of current density and transconductance as compared to silicon transistors of similar dimensions." For all its wondrous electronic properties, silicon has limitations that have prompted an intense search for alternative semiconductors to be used in future devices. Javey and his research group have focused on compound III–V semiconductors, which feature superb electron transport properties. The challenge has been to find a way of plugging these compound semiconductors into the well- established, low-cost processing technology used to produce today's silicon-based devices. Given the large lattice mismatch between silicon and III-V compound semiconductors, direct hetero-epitaxial growth of III-V on silicon substrates is challenging and complex, and often results in a high volume of defects. "We've demonstrated what we are calling an 'XOI,' or compound semiconductor-on-insulator technology platform, that is parallel to today's 'SOI,' or silicon-on-insulator platform," says Javey. "Using an epitaxial transfer method, we transferred ultrathin layers of single-crystal indium- arsenide on silicon/silica substrates, then fabricated devices using conventional processing techniques in order to characterize the XOI material and device properties." The results of this research have been published in the journal Nature, in a paper titled, "Ultrathin compound semiconductor on insulator layers for high-performance nanoscale transistors." Co-authoring the report with Javey were Hyunhyub Ko, Kuniharu Takei, Rehan Kapadia, Steven Chuang, Hui Fang, Paul Leu, Kartik Ganapathi, Elena Plis, Ha Sul Kim, Szu-Ying Chen, Morten Madsen, Alexandra Ford, Yu-Lun Chueh, Sanjay Krishna and Sayeef Salahuddin. To make their XOI platforms, Javey and his collaborators grew single-crystal indium arsenide thin films (10 to 100 nanometers thick) on a preliminary source substrate then lithographically patterned the films into ordered arrays of nanoribbons. After being removed from the source substrate through a selective wet-etching of an underlying sacrificial layer, the nanoribbon arrays were transferred to the silicon/silica substrate via a stamping process. Javey attributed the excellent electronic performance of the XOI transistors to the small dimensions of the active "X" layer and the critical role played by quantum confinement, which served to tune the material's band structure and transport properties. Although he and his group only used indium arsenide as their compound semiconductor, the technology should readily accommodate other compound III/V semiconductors as well. "Future research on the scalability of our process for 8-inch and 12-inch wafer processing is needed," Javey said. "Moving forward we believe that the XOI substrates can be obtained through a wafer bonding process, but our technique should make it possible to fabricate both p- and n- type transistors on the same chip for complementary electronics based on optimal III–V semiconductors. "Furthermore, this concept can be used to directly integrate high performance photodiodes, lasers, and light emitting diodes on conventional silicon substrates. Uniquely, this technique could enable us to study the basic material properties of inorganic semiconductors when the thickness is scaled down to only a few atomic layers." This research was funded in part by an LDRD grant from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and by the MARCO/MSD Focus Center at MIT, the Intel Corporation and the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center. Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research for DOE's Office of Science and is managed by the University of California. Visit our Website at www.lbl.gov Group Petitions EPA to Stop Sale of Nano-Copper Pesticides
(Beyond Pesticides, November 23, 2010) The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) filed a legal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling on the agency to use its pesticide regulation authority to halt the sale of untested nano-copper wood preservative products. The letter is the second ICTA challenge in the past two years of EPA's failure to regulate pesticidal nanomaterials. In 2008, ICTA, Beyond Pesticides, Friends of the Earth and others including filed a petition challenging EPA's failure to regulate nanosilver as a unique pesticide.
ICTA research found nano-copper-based wood preservative pesticides in wide use. Yet, despite EPA's two-year old policy to classify such pesticides as “new” and requiring further data, the agency has not treated them any different than larger particle based preservatives. The three nano-copper products highlighted in the letter are manufactured by Osmose, Inc. In each instance, although the active ingredient, copper carbonate, was purchased from another company, the copper carbonate is then milled by Osmose to produce nanoparticles of copper carbonate. A 2008 report notes that nano-copper preservatives have captured at least 50% of the North American wood preservative market. However, recent reports have noted that market capture could be as high as 75-80% now.
The ultra small size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanoparticles can give them unique properties, but those same new properties–tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, high reactivity–can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Failure to adequately test nanomaterials for their health and environmental hazard potential could lead to a new health crisis like that of asbestos or lead paint.
Scientists and researchers are becoming increasingly concerned with the potential impacts of nano-particles on public health and the environment. A new study by scientists from Oregon State University (OSU) and the European Union (EU) highlights the major regulatory and educational issues that they believe should be considered before nanoparticles are used in pesticides. The study was published October 2010 in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health .
Copper nanoparticles could be released from the treated wood during sawing or machining, cleaning, through normal wear and tear, or from product decomposition, and then become available for potential inhalation or ingestion. Reports stated in early 2009 that over five billion board feet of wood have been treated with its “micronized” copper products, so the potential for consumer exposure to nanoscale copper particles could be quite large.
“To our knowledge, EPA has never evaluated the potential hazards associated with the nanoscale particles of copper carbonate in wood treatment products,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for ICTA. “Yet one of the companies issued a press release in 2009 in which it claimed that the “consumer safety” of its products has been “confirmed.”'
It has been the announced policy of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs since at least 2008 to presume that any active or inert ingredient that is or contains nanoscale material is a ‘new' ingredient for regulatory purposes under its pesticide regulations. However, in each instance pesticide manufacturers failed to informed EPA that its products contains nanoscale particles. Consumers have also been left in the dark about their potential exposure as these products are currently being marketed under the ambiguous label “micronized” copper.
EPA itself has recently recognized that, “Nano copper is more acutely toxic than micro copper.” Studies of the acute toxicity of elemental copper nanoparticles (23.5 nm) in mice found “gravely toxicological effects and heavy injuries on kidney, liver, and spleen.” In a study comparing the toxicity of various metal oxide nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes, copper oxide nanoparticles (averaging 43 nm) were the most potent of all the nanoparticles tested at causing cytotoxicity and DNA damage. Although the potential toxicity of nanoscale particles of copper carbonate has not been equally well characterized, the results of the study with copper oxide nanoparticles are of particular concern because both copper oxide and copper carbonate include a bivalent copper ion. Additionally, copper is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms particularly during the larval stages of invertebrates, and algae and plant life can be affected as well.
ICTA is asking that EPA:
• immediately investigate the composition the known nano-copper based pesticides, and take appropriate administrative action; and
• thoroughly investigate other possible nano-copper products, including but not limited to copper-based wood treatment products currently available on the market, as similar actions under FIFRA may be necessary; and
• if EPA determines that any manufacturer of copper-based pesticide products, has distributed or sold any product that has a composition that differs from the composition of the registration of the product, EPA should take enforcement action under FIFRA Section 12(a)(1)(C); and
• finally, EPA should publish its long-awaited industry guidance on nano-scale pesticides (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650). A notice on pesticide products containing nanoscale materials was submitted to the US Office of Management and Budget on July 30, 2010; however, no further action has been taken.In 2007 a broad international coalition of 40 consumer, public health, environmental, and labor organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, released the Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials , calling for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products. Beyond Pesticides has since advocated for a precautionary course of action in order to prevent unnecessary risks to the public, workers and the environment.
At its October 2010 meeting, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) passed a recommendation directing the USDA National Organic Program to prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products as expeditiously as possible. More details about the NOSB action can be found in our blog posting, NOSB Proposes Ban on Nanotechnology in Certified Organic Products .
Full copies of the letter as well as past legal petitions filed with EPA and FDA are available at www.nanoaction.org .
Monday, November 22, 2010
EPA admits its rules would only reduce global temperature by 0.006 degrees in 90 years
.
"In rulemaking documents from April 2010, the EPA writes, “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm),
- global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.”" ...(item in middle of article)
Oct. 6, 2010 , " EPA estimates its greenhouse gas restrictions would reduce global temperature by no more than 0.006 of a degree in 90 years ," CNS News, C. Neefus
" Tough new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency restricting greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the global mean temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to the EPA's analysis.
- As a side effect, these rules would “slow construction nationwide for years,” the EPA said in a June 3 statement.
Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlighted those findings in a report released last week.
The GOP minority report , issued last Wednesday (9/29) , said a series of proposed and partially implemented new regulations on
- industrial boilers, greenhouse gas emitters, and ozone levels will put
- over 800,000 jobs at risk with little environmental benefit.
The authors cite the EPA's own staff to show that greenhouse gas regulations, which would require major sources of CO2 (carbon dioxide) to obtain permits and limit their output, could seriously harm the economy if implemented....
The EPA permits, under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, are already in place –
- but would be significantly expanded to include greenhouse gases.
“ (D)uring this time , tens of thousands of sources each year would be prevented from constructing or modifying,” the EPA staff wrote.
- “In fact, it is reasonable to assume that many of those sources will be forced to abandon altogether plans to construct or modify. As a result, a literal application (of the permit requirement) to GHG (greenhouse gas) sources would
slow construction nationwide for years, with all of the adverse effects that this would have on economic development.”
Because of these concerns, the EPA decided to create the “tailoring rule,” which changes the thresholds for being considered a major source of carbon;
- they claim this will limit immediate 2011 exposure to the regulations to only 900 sources.
But Republicans on the Senate EPW committee said that
a federal court could strike the tailoring rule because it does not follow explicit guidelines set out for the process of issuing permits for pollutants in the Clean Air Act (CAA), which has its own threshold of 100-250 tons of CO2 equivalent a year.
“(T)he tailoring rule violates the plain language of the CAA . The Act defines ‘major sources' as those that emit more than 100-250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant.
- In the tailoring rule, however, EPA arbitrarily changes those thresholds -- to 75,000 and 100,000 tons. For this reason,
- the rule likely won't survive judicial scrutiny,” the staff wrote.
All of these complications stem from EPA's desire to regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases -- primarily automobiles. By issuing a finding
- last Spring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, the EPA is able to regulate mobile output of the gas;
but the ancillary effect is that stationary CO2 emitters -- factories, schools, office buildings -- are now subject to those Clean Air Act regulations as well.
But the benefit of regulating those mobile sources is, also by the EPA's own estimations,
- as little as less than two thousandths of a degree in temperature reduction over a century.
In rulemaking documents from April 2010, the EPA writes, “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations
- are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm),
- global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 °C by 2100.”"...
.
Keeping an Eye on CERCLA While Exercising Remedies
Jeffrey B. Steiner and Jason R. Goldstein
New York Law Journal
November 17, 2010
.
Several years into a difficult economic climate, as commercial borrowers continue to default on loans secured by real property, a growing number of lenders face the prospect of employing the remedy of foreclosure. While financial institutions that make loans secured by commercial real estate are generally aware of the risks posed by foreclosing on real property that could or does in fact contain a hazardous substance covered by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 1 even sophisticated parties can place undue reliance on the protection of the statute's safe harbor for secured creditors or personal indemnities from borrower principals. While in certain circumstances the safe harbor protects foreclosing lenders from CERCLA liability, the scope of that protection is limited and, in many places, poorly defined. Even recent developments in CERCLA jurisprudence do not reveal a comprehensive or consistent body of law that lenders can rely on with more confidence than caution.
CERCLA, popularly called "Superfund," empowers the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) to compel the remediation of released hazardous substances by current "owners and operators" of the sites of such releases (referred to under the statute as "potentially responsible parties" (PRPs)). CERCLA imposes both strict liability and joint and several liability on PRPs. A lender who is deemed a PRP through its foreclosure on real estate collateral could therefore become fully liable for environmental conditions that the lender did not cause, the cost of which greatly exceeds the value of the bank's investment in the property and may predate by years the date on which the lender acquired the property.
Because of the effect a CERCLA designation may have on the credit available to owners of contaminated properties, from its inception CERCLA has contemplated an exemption for secured creditors. This exemption's tangled history, however, is indicative of the unsettledness that characterizes this area of law.
From enactment, CERCLA exempted from liability a lender that "holds indicia of ownership primarily to protect his security interest." 2 The legal uncertainty generated by this provision was later exacerbated by the decision in United States v. Fleet Factors , 3 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a lender could become liable as a PRP if its financial oversight provided it with the "capacity to influence" the borrower's environmental procedures. In response to Fleet Factors , the EPA issued a so-called Lender Liability Rule 4 in 1992 to provide specific guidance concerning types of activities lenders could take without triggering CERCLA liability. After lawmakers saw the Lender Liability Rule vacated on administrative grounds in 1994, 5 the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA issued a similarly ill-fated joint memorandum that did not have the effect of law or provide comfort with respect to suits brought by private parties. 6 To address this lack of firm rule, Congress subsequently amended CERCLA by codifying the secured-creditor exemption as part of the U.S. Asset Conservation, Lender Liability and Deposit Insurance Act of 1996.
Under the amended CERCLA rules, lenders can rely on the secured creditor safe harbor by establishing (i) that prior to foreclosure, the lender was (A) a bona fide secured creditor and (B) never participated in the borrower's management and (ii) that subsequent to foreclosure, the lender neither owns nor operates the borrower's property except for the purposes of preserving its value.
To properly establish itself as a protected secured creditor, the lender must hold its security interest in the real property primarily to secure the repayment of money or another obligation of the borrower. Applicable security interests include "a right under a mortgage, deed of trust, assignment, judgment lien, pledge, security agreement, factoring agreement, or lease and any other right accruing to a person to secure the repayment of money, the performance of a duty, or any other obligation by a nonaffiliated person." 7 Although this determination is fairly straightforward, lenders should be advised that several courts in the past have gone beyond merely establishing the existence of the indicia to investigating the purposes behind holding them. 8
Secondly, the lender must establish the extent to which it may exercise prudent oversight over its loan collateral while maintaining sufficient distance from the actual management of the borrower's property. 9 CERCLA expressly excludes certain actions from qualifying as "participation in management," including (i) conducting property inspections; and (ii) requiring a response to the actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance. 10
However, while collateral oversight actions are largely acceptable and properly isolate a secured lender from environmental liability, CERCLA does provide that a lender will be deemed to have participated in the management of the borrower's property if it: (i) makes decisions or takes responsibility for or control of the property's hazardous substance handling or disposal; or (ii) exercises managerial control over day-to-day decision making with respect to environmental matters or the "operational functions" of the facility other than the functions of environmental compliance. 11 Without a bright-line test distinguishing permissible environmental monitoring activities from impermissible ones, lenders must mind their actions carefully to avoid liability.
Participating in Management
Establishing whether a lender participated in management is a fact-sensitive inquiry, for which only limited judicial guidance exists. Mechanical reliance on the statutorily enumerated activities could prove insufficient to insulate a lender from liability. For instance, a lender could incur CERCLA liability if its activities with respect to a property individually fall within the letter of the law but collectively place the lender in de facto control of the property's environmental matters. Generally speaking, a lender can expect not to be considered to be "participating in management" if it only acts in furtherance of the preservation of the underlying collateral in a manner consistent with market practice.
The lender must establish grounds for pre-foreclosure reliance on the secured creditor safe harbor as a necessary precondition for relying on it post-foreclosure. After seizing the property, the lender can preserve the safe harbor only by selling the foreclosed property promptly while not acting in a way that would cause it to be deemed a PRP. As a result, both the period of time in which the lender must sell the property and operation of that property in the interim can provide a basis for challenging a lender's post-foreclosure reliance on the safe harbor.
After foreclosure, the lender must make commercially reasonable efforts to divest itself of the property at the earliest commercially reasonable time on commercially reasonable terms, taking into account market, legal and regulatory considerations. 12 CERCLA does not indicate what length of time is considered commercially reasonable. The EPA has provided separate guidance that listing the property with a broker or advertising it for sale within 12 months of the foreclosure is generally acceptable, but has considered, and declined, to provide a bright-line rule for holding the property. As determining whether a holding period is commercially reasonable is clearly a fact-sensitive inquiry, lenders should thoroughly document their marketing efforts during the period. The lender should also be aware that at some point the tenure of possession could extend long enough for the lender to be deemed the property's owner or operator.
As discussed, the safe harbor provision permits the lender to operate the property while attempting to sell, re-lease, or otherwise dispose of property. This operation can take the form of maintaining or winding up any business activities on the property, addressing the actual or threatened release of the hazardous material, or otherwise taking steps to preserve the property's value. If the lender begins to act as a property owner (e.g., by expanding any business on the property or soliciting investors), however, it runs the risk of being deemed the property's owner or operator. This is another facts-and-circumstance inquiry that does not admit to a ready rule. The lender must therefore similarly document that all actions with respect to the property were taken merely to maintain the property's value. With today's lenders frequently taking over existing unsold condominium units, foreclosing mortgagees ought to carefully monitor their sales efforts to demonstrate active marketing.
Even if the lender successfully navigates the challenges of staying within the CERCLA secured creditor safe harbor, the limits of that exemption could pose further complications.
First, the safe harbor only insulates the lender from liability as a PRP under CERCLA. To the extent that an environmental liability is not governed by CERCLA (such as, for example, petroleum or natural gas, which are not defined as a "hazardous substances" under the statute), or liability is incurred under another federal or applicable state statute, the lender is not protected by CERCLA's safe harbor.
Second, the safe harbor provisions only protect the lender when it forecloses on the borrower's real property directly rather than foreclosing on the borrower's equity. Any mezzanine lender foreclosing on the membership interests of a borrower owning CERCLA-designated property would end up the borrower's parent or corporate successor, and thereby assume the property's CERCLA liability.
Third, the secured creditor exemption only offers lenders protection from liability for past contamination based upon their status as lenders or as owners after foreclosure; a lender's actions or omissions that cause new contamination can independently serve as a basis for deeming a lender an "operator" (and hence a PRP) of the property. 13
This responsibility for contamination can be imputed to a lender for actions that are relatively remote to the environmental liability. In one much-discussed case, New York v. HSBC USA, N.A. , 14 the State of New York claimed a lender was outside of the secured creditor exemption because it had instituted a lock-box on all of a borrower's operating funds, and denied disbursements necessary for the borrower to comply with environmental regulations.
The lender settled out of court for nearly $1 million in civil penalties and costs. Although the settlement precluded the creation of judicial precedent, the case demonstrates that lenders can be pursued for CERCLA damages for actions that could be seen as protective of the loan and not "participation in management." Any significant control over the company's environmental management, even through commonly used financing conventions such as cash management, could conceivably lead to a lender's liability for any resulting contamination or noncompliance.
Finally, as a practical concern, even if the lender can comfortably rely on the safe harbor from CERCLA liability, that protection will not be available to any prospective third party purchaser of the foreclosed property. This could have the effect of reducing the value of the collateral by the amount necessary to remediate any contamination. The lender is also at a disadvantage in negotiating sales with prospective purchasers, as holding on to the property for too long can cause the lender to be deemed the property's owner and operator.
Remedies
In light of these concerns, a lender considering foreclosure should carefully review all reasonable alternatives. This does not mean, however, that the lender has no options in the face of a borrower with contaminated collateral.
The lender could foreclose on the property in reliance upon the environmental indemnities that are standard in most sophisticated loan agreements. Under typical environmental indemnification clauses, the borrower, its affiliates and its principals are liable for any costs incurred to clean up any contamination of the collateral. These clauses typically survive the loan's repayment or default, and can, if skillfully drafted, protect the lender even after the property's sale to a third party. Even if a lender does not intend to foreclose, a strong indemnification provision from a creditworthy individual or entity can serve as an insurance policy should an attempt be later made to characterize the lender as a PRP.
Alternatively, when appropriate, a lender can seek to have the property administered by a court-appointed receiver or other suitable fiduciary. Naturally the availability of these alternatives turns on underlying circumstances and applicable law; however, there are no grounds for assuming that either the borrower or the lender must always hold the real property.
In conclusion, a lender contemplating foreclosure on CERCLA-implicated property cannot assume that its status as a secured creditor automatically entitles it to the secured creditor safe harbor. A lender must have established its appropriate conduct with respect to the property's management before foreclosure and should have a plan for disposing of the property afterwards. An observance of the niceties of the law in these circumstances is particularly important to lenders, as federal and state environmental agencies attempting to fund remediation and PRPs seeking contributors are all incentivized to prove lender noncompliance. With caution and an acknowledgment of both the legal and practical aspects of the safe harbor, however, a lender can chart a course of action with as much confidence as this area of law permits.
Jeffrey B. Steiner and Jason R. Goldstein are members of DLA Piper (US). Matthew McDermott , an associate of the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article.
Endnotes:
2. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(A)(iii).
3. 901 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1046 (1991).
4. 57 Fed. Reg. 18344 (1992).
5. Kelley v. EPA , 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
6. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, and Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Policy on CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government Entities that Acquire Property Involuntarily (Oct. 23, 1995).
7. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(G)(vi).
8. See, e.g., Monarch Tile Inc. v. City of Florence , 212 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2000).
9. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(F).
10. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(F)(iv).
11. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(F)-(G).
12. 42 U.S.C. §9601(20)(E)(ii).
13. See, e.g., F.P. Woll Co. v. Fifth & Mitchell St. Corp. , 1997 WL 535936, unreported (E.D. Pa. 1997).
14. Docket No. 07-CV-3160 (Dec. 22, 2006 Consent Decree).
CONTACT:
Jalil Isa (Media Inquiries Only)
isa.jalil@epa.gov
202-564-3226
202-564-4355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2010
EPA Releases New Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Selecting Safe School Locations
EPA provides new tools for communities making school siting decisions
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released draft voluntary guidelines to help communities protect the health of students and staff from environmental threats when selecting new locations for schools.
More than 1,900 new schools serving approximately 1.2 million children and costing more than $13 billion opened in the 2008-2009 school year. Major investments in our children's schools can be compromised if environmental hazards are not fully understood prior to selecting a school site. The voluntary guidelines also provide tools to help communities ensure that new locations for schools are accessible to the students they are intended to serve.
“EPA is offering tools to local officials and community residents looking to build schools that foster healthy, productive learning environments,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This guidance will help address the pressing environmental issues that parents, school boards and local residents often consider when making investments in their local schools. By offering guidance on long-term environmental and health concerns, it will also help local communities plan ahead and reduce the risk of costly changes down the road.”
The potential impacts on children's health and education, as well as the damage to the community when school environmental hazards are later identified, are significant. In some cases, schools have been closed and in other cases have undergone costly remediation.
The new draft voluntary guidelines will give local communities tools to help them consider environmental health issues in establishing school site selection criteria and in conducting effective environmental reviews of potential school sites. The draft guidelines recommend involving the public in the site selection process from the beginning to help ensure community support for these decisions.
EPA developed the draft guidelines in consultation with other federal agencies, states, school districts, community organizations, health care professionals, teachers, as well as environmental justice leaders, and children's health and environmental groups, among others.
The draft school siting guidelines are being made available for public comment for 90 days. Comments will be accepted until 4 pm EST on February 18, 2011.
To view and comment on the draft guidelines: http://epaschoolsiting.icfi.com/
More information on the draft school siting guidelines and on protecting children's health in existing schools: http://epa.gov/schools/
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
View all news releases related to miscellaneous topics
Otter criticizes EPA cleanup plan for N. Idaho
- Posted November 17, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho (AP) - Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is criticizing a proposal by federal environmental regulators for expanding their cleanup of historic mining waste and contaminants in Idaho's Silver Valley region.
Otter outlined his concerns in a letter submitted Monday to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is taking public comments on its plan - called an amended Record of Decision - for extracting heavy metals, treating water and eliminating toxic mine sites along a 40-mile stretch of the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River basin.
The Republican governor urged the EPA to set reasonable goals and cautioned against any projects that could imperil existing or future mining in the region.
"In my view, the proposed ROD amendment must not go forward unless the EPA commits that cleanup work will not impede existing or future mining," according to Otter's letter, reported by the Coeur d'Alene Press. "Moreover, the proposed ROD is not acceptable unless the EPA identifies and commits to reasonable and achievable endpoints."
The EPA has spent nearly 20 years cleaning up the Superfund site in Kellogg that was once one of the most polluted places in the country, with arsenic and lead stripping the hillsides of vegetation and poisoning the blood of children.
The agency now wants to broaden the cleanup to outlying areas and more rivers and streams. The price tag is estimated at $1.3 billion and could take anywhere from 50 to 90 years to complete. The expansion would be partially funded by a recent $500 million settlement with Asarco, one of the successors of the Bunker Hill mine that is blamed for polluting the valley.
But there are mixed feelings in northern Idaho about such an extended and pricey expansion. Some residents and leaders would rather have the cleanup and EPA presence wind down and worry the agency's long-term presence will stunt the region's prospects for economic growth.
Otter said he talked with lawmakers and other leaders in the region before submitting his letter.
He urged the agency to set a defined and limited timeframe for the additional cleanup and to draft it in a way that focuses on human-health restoration.
He criticized the section of the proposal devoted to water treatment, calling it an open-ended plan to "wildly spend public resources and perform work that is of questionable value," according to the letter.
Dan Opalski, EPA director of environmental cleanup, said the agency will consider comments that have been submitted in the last four months. But he says the agency still has a mission to do use the best science and technology available to meet its legal mandate to clean up the environment.
"It's understandable that some people have serious concerns," Opalski said. "But ultimately, we'll be weighing all the input we receive ... and considering the underpinnings of science and the responsibilities we have under the law."
The public comment period ends Nov. 23.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/nov/17/otter-criticizes-epa-cleanup-plan-for-n-idaho/#ixzz15ZjpYBNR
- vcstar.comGovernmental Controls: Types of institutional controls that impose land or resource restrictions using the authority of an existing unit of government (e.g., state legislation, local ordinance, well drilling permit, etc.).
Consent Decree: Legal document approved by a judge that formalizes an agreement reached between EPA and companies, governments, or individuals associated with contamination at the sites (potentially responsible parties (PRPs)) through which PRPs will take certain actions to resolve the contamination at a Superfund site.
.
HALFWAY TO EUREKA
CERCLA allows a private party to recover its attorney fees and expenses incurred in bringing a cost-recovery action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(4)(B). reasonable and necessary costs of its cleanup, including the attorney fees and expenses incurred in bringing this cost-recovery action. IMMI would be a section 9613(f)(1) liable party only if it owned the site at the time the wastes were dumped or was responsible otherwise for the dumped wastes. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a). Since that is not the case, IMMI is not a liable party and cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(1)
IMMI has met the state cleanup standards, which is what 40 CFR Sec. 300.71(a)(4) required. Thus, the consent decree does not obligate IMMI to clean the site past what CERCLA and the NCP required
40 CFR Sec. 300.65(b)(3) requires removal actions to end after either one million dollars has been obligated or six months have elapsed from the date of the initial response.
CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(A) allows the government to recover all costs of removal or remedial action "not inconsistent with the national contingency plan." When the United States is seeking recovery of response costs, consistency with the NCP is presumed. Washington State Dept. of Transp., 59 F.3d at 799-800; United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1436, 1442 (10th Cir.1992). The potentially responsible party has the burden of proving inconsistency with the NCP. Washington State DOT, 59 F.3d at 800. "To prove that a response action of the EPA was inconsistent with the NCP, a defendant must prove that the EPA's response action was arbitrary and capricious." Id.; 42 U.S.C. § 9613(j)(2).
2. Documentation
The NCP requires:
During all phases of response, the lead agency shall complete and maintain documentation to support all actions taken under the NCP and to form the basis for cost recovery.
40 C.F.R. § 300.160(a)(1) (1990).
.
5. Community Relations Plan
The NCP specifies the necessary community relations activities to be taken in a removal action. The 1990 NCP requires that in removal actions where "on-site action is expected to extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site removal activities," the EPA shall prepare a formal community relations plan. 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(n)(3) (1990). The plan should address the public's concerns and outline any community relations activities that the EPA expects to undertake. Id. at (n)(3)(ii).
The 1985 NCP requires the same formal community relations plan, but the plan is required if the on-site removal activities are expected to extend beyond 45 days. 40 C.F.R. § 300.67(b) (1985).
Empowering Safe Lands & Watersheds
1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. Stakeholder Meetings/CEQA
Iron Mountain Mine advancing the development of renewable energy on potentially uncontaminated land
WHY IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO BUY A PROPERTY WITHIN A SUPERFUND SITE?
LOCATION, location, location. Many Superfund sites have advantageous and desirable locations. Some federal, state, and local government agencies offer grants, loans, and tax incentives to encourage development and revitalization of contaminated and formerly contaminated properties and surrounding areas.
Superfund sites throughout the country have been transformed into major shopping centers, business parks, residential subdivisions, and recreational facilities. Many more Superfund sites are being revitalized for use by small businesses. A large number of Superfund sites are suitable for revitalization even while cleanup on the property progresses. (See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ programs/recycle/ for more information on revitalization of Superfund sites). Integrating the reuse of a Superfund site into the cleanup can often occur smoothly, which minimizes future surprises regarding undiscovered contamination.HOW DO I IDENTIFY ALL OF THE PARTIES I HAVE TO DEAL WITH TO BUY THE SITE OR A PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE AND HOW IS EPA INVOLVED?
.
.
.
.
THERE is no simple solution to identify all of the parties associated with a Superfund site but the process begins with the current owner. As with the purchase of any property, negotiations to buy a Superfund site begin with the current owner who can be identified through property title or tax records. EPA rarely owns the site being cleaned up. Generally, EPA’s Regional offices may assist in addressing the following questions:
•
What is the current status of a site’s cleanup and what are EPA’s future anticipated actions?
•
Is the proposed redevelopment compatible with a site’s cleanup and with the existing and potential future property use restrictions? Note: EPA does not offer guarantees of compatibility.
•
Is the prospective purchaser aware of the applicable landowner liability protections under Superfund?
•
How can EPA work with the prospective purchaser to settle or resolve any EPA liens?7
EPA is willing to work with prospective purchasers to clarify a property’s cleanup status and potential liability issues including the existence and satisfaction of EPA liens and property use restrictions. States also have cleanup programs and prospective purchasers should contact the appropriate state environmental agency to make certain they are aware of planned or ongoing state-lead cleanup actions at the property.The cleanup process proceeds as follows. The EPA places a site on
the National Priorities List ("NPL") if it poses a release threat mandating
long-term remedial evaluation and response.27 A Remedial Investigation
("RI") is then conducted to determine the extent of the contamination.28 A
Feasibility Study ("FS") follows to evaluate remediation and create site
management alternatives based on the RI. 29 The goals of the RI/FS process
are to determine what contaminants are present, determine the level of
dispersement in the environment, develop a list of potential cleanup method
alternatives, and use computer modeling to predict potential effects that each
alternative could present.3" The EPA considers the remedy alternatives
presented in the RI/FS according to nine factors: health protectiveness;
compliance with relevant laws and standards; long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; state acceptance; and
community acceptance.3 The EPA issues a Record of Decision ("ROD")
that outlines a proposed remedial plan consisting of the Remedial Design
("RD") and Remedial Action ("RA").32 The ROD specifically selects a
remedial method from the RI/FS for the site that provides adequate protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment.33
The EPA implements the ROD in one of three ways. First, the EPA
can take over the site and hire a contractor to conduct the cleanup.34 When
the EPA takes over a site, it can sue PRPs to recover for CERCLA costs and
26 See United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 1432, 1446 (E.D. Cal.
1995).6560.50
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9227-5]
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or
Superfund, Section 128(a); Notice of Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal
Response Programs for FY2011
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin to accept requests, from
December 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011, for grants to supplement State and Tribal Response
Programs. This notice provides guidance on eligibility for funding, use of funding, grant
mechanisms and process for awarding funding, the allocation system for distribution of funding,
and terms and reporting under these grants. EPA has consulted with state and tribal officials in
developing this guidance.
The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or
are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements and a public record. Another goal is to
provide funding for other activities that increase the number of response actions conducted or
overseen by a state or tribal response program. This funding is not intended to supplant current
state or tribal funding for their response programs. Instead, it is to supplement their funding to
increase their response capacity.
For fiscal year 2011, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.3 million per
state or tribe. Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will be available to
provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out these grants.VII. USE OF FUNDING
A. Overview
Section 128(a)(1)(B) describes the eligible uses of cooperative agreement funds by states and
tribes. In general, a state or tribe may use a cooperative agreement to "establish or enhance" their response programs, including elements of the response program that include activities
related to responses at brownfields sites with petroleum contamination. Eligible activities
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Develop legislation, regulations, procedures, ordinances, guidance, etc.
that would establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of
their response programs;
• Establish and maintain the required public record as described in Section VI;
• EPA considers activities related to maintaining and monitoring
institutional controls to be eligible costs under Section 128(a);
• Conduct limited site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup,
provided such activities establish and/or enhance the response program
and are tied to the four elements. In addition to the requirement per
CERCLA Section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii) to obtain public comment on cleanup
plans and site activities, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek
public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed and solicit input
from local communities, especially potential environmental justice
communities, communities with a health risk related to exposure to
hazardous waste or other public health concerns, economically
disadvantaged or remote areas, and communities with limited experience
working with government agencies. EPA will not provide Section 128(a)
funds solely for assessment or cleanup of specific brownfields sites; site specific activities must be an incidental part of an overall Section 128(a)
work plan that includes funding for other activities that establish or
enhance the four elements;
• Capitalize a revolving loan fund (RLF) for brownfields cleanup under
CERCLA Section 104(k)(3). These RLFs are subject to the same statutory
requirements and cooperative agreement terms and conditions applicable
to RLFs awarded under Section 104(k)(3). Requirements include a 20
percent match on the amount of Section 128(a) funds used for the RLF, a
prohibition on using EPA cooperative agreement funds for administrative
costs relating to the RLF, and a prohibition on using RLF loans or
subgrants for response costs at a site for which the recipient may be
potentially liable under Section 107 of CERCLA. Other prohibitions
contained in CERCLA Section 104(k)(4) also apply; or
• Purchase environmental insurance or develop a risk-sharing pool,
indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response
actions under a state or tribal response program.1. Timely survey and inventory
2. Oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms;
3. Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation;
4. Mechanisms or approval of a cleanup plan and verification and certification that cleanup is complete.
EPA Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinator
EPA is divided into ten regions. Each region has designated a central Compliance Assistance Coordinator to oversee regional actions. Regional compliance assistance activities include developing and conducting workshops and training sessions, responding to questions from the regulated community, developing and distributing guidance materials and providing direct on-site compliance assistance. To get information about your local Compliance Assistance Coordinator, select your state or territory from this list or from the map below.
Region/State Contact Web site Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) Mary Dever
(617) 918-1717
dever.mary@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region1/assistance/index.html Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI) Linda Longo
(212) 637-3565
longo.linda@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region02/capp Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV) Makeba Morris
(215) 814-2187
morris.makeba@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region03/compliance_assistance/index.htm Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) Wes Hardegree
(404) 562-9629
hardegree.wes@epa.govhttp://www.epa.gov/region4/index.html Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) Donna Howard
(312) 886-6739
howard.donna@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region5/enforcement/index.htm Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) Israel Anderson
(214) 665-3138
anderson.israel@epa.govwww.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/ca/ca.htm Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE) Neal Gilbert
(913) 551-7985
gilbert.neil@epa.govwww.epa.gov/Region07/enforcement_compliance/index.htm Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) Kaye Mathews
(303) 312-6889
mathews.kaye@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region08/enforcement_compliance Region 9 (AS, AZ, CA, GU, HI, MP, NV, Trust Territories) Hilary Hecht
(415) 947-4266
hecht.hilary@epa.govwww.epa.gov/region9/enforcement/assistance.html Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA) Gabriela Carvalho
(206) 553-6698
carvalho.gabriela@epa.gov
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ENFORCE.NSF.html .
Local Government Compliance Assistance Center
EPA, working with industry, academic institutions, environmental groups, and other agencies, sponsors compliance assistance centers that address the requirements of specific sectors.
The Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN) is a "first-stop shop" providing environmental management, planning, funding, and regulatory information for local government elected and appointed officials, managers and staff. LGEAN enables local officials to interact with their peers and others online.
Latest News and Updates
Local Governments Reimbursement Program
In the event of a release (or threatened release) of hazardous substances, EPA may reimburse local governments for expenses related to the release and associated emergency response measures. The Local Governments Reimbursement (LGR) Program provides a "safety net" of up to $25,000 per incident to local governments that do not have funds available to pay for response actions.Operation Fresh Start is designed to empower individuals and communities as they recover from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters by providing resources and tools that can help rebuild communities, businesses, and homes using sustainable principles and technologies. Use the links located on the left to explore the many valuable resources available on this Web site.
Several organizations, agencies and businesses are fostering sustainable recovery and rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some online resources are linked below, ranging from news postings to restoration plans for individual buildings, neighborhoods, or regions. Someof these endeavors invite professional or pubic input in the recovery process, while others function as technical resources for environmentally, economically, and socially just rebuilding.
We hereby execute our sovereign absolute authority which allows intervention as of right in any civil or administrative action to obtain remedies by any citizen having an interest which is or may be adversely affected; all citizen complaints submitted pursuant to the procedures specified in §123.26(b)(4); permissive intervention authorized by statute, rule, or regulation; October 14, 2010 Citizens seek to join suit over EPA mining rules
Identify the breakdowns in management that allowed actions prohibited by EPA ethics policies to occur and implement accountability.
.
We believe that the underlying issues persist.
EMANCIPATE T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
Innocent and “Unknowing” Purchasers
Entities that acquire property and had no knowledge of the contamination at the time of purchase may be eligible for CERCLA’s third- party defense for certain purchasers of contaminated property. CERCLA §§ 107(b)(3), 101(35)(A)(i). This defense, added to CERCLA in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499), provides entities with an affirmative defense to liability if they conducted all appropriate inquiries prior to purchase and complied with other pre- and post-purchase requirements. The 2002 Brownfields Amendments partially amended the innocent purchaser defense by elaborating on the all appropriate inquiry requirement. See the “All Appropriate Inquiries” text box on page 17.
The innocent purchaser defense may provide liability protection to some owners of contaminated property -- especially those that purchased property prior to January 1, 2002, and are therefore ineligible for the bona fide prospective purchaser protection -- but generally most post-2002 prospective purchasers will not rely on this defense because of the requirement that the purchaser have no knowledge of contamination at the site.
Several of EPA’s guidance documents discuss the innocent purchaser third-party defense, including the Common Elements guidance, discussed below in Section II.A.5 beginning on page 21..
The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 03/23/2009 . If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.
If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.
Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.
Description of Modification
Corrected Title
Document Type: Modification to Previous Grants Notice Funding Opportunity Number: PD-10-1179 Opportunity Category: Discretionary Posted Date: Mar 23, 2009 Creation Date: Oct 20, 2010 Original Closing Date for Applications: Mar 03, 2011 Full Proposal Window: February 1, 2011 - March 3, 2011 Full Proposal Window: August 15, 2011 - September 15, 2011 Current Closing Date for Applications: Mar 03, 2011 Full Proposal Window: February 1, 2011 - March 3, 2011 Full Proposal Window: August 15, 2011 - September 15, 2011 Archive Date: Funding Instrument Type: Grant Category of Funding Activity: Science and Technology and other Research and Development Category Explanation: Expected Number of Awards: 0 Estimated Total Program Funding: $0 Award Ceiling: Award Floor: CFDA Number(s): 47.041 -- Engineering Grants Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No .
Eligible Applicants
Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"
Additional Information on Eligibility:
Agency Name
National Science Foundation
Description
The Environmental Implications of Emerging Technologies program provides support to develop and test the environmental effects of new technologies. Fundamental and basic research is sought to establish and understand outcomes as a result of the implementation of new technologies such as nanotechnology and biotechnology. The program also supports research on the development and refinement of sensors and sensor network technologies that can be used to measure a wide variety of physical, chemical, and biological properties of interest in characterizing, monitoring, and understanding environmental impacts.The program emphasizes engineering principles underlying technology impacts. Innovative production processes, waste reduction, recycling, and industrial ecology technologies are of interest. All of these have implications that would be relevant to this program. Current areas of support include: * Understanding and mitigating how new developments in nanotechnology and biotechnology will interact with the environment * Nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety implications and applications * Predictive methodology for the interaction of nanoparticles with the environment and with the human body, including predictive approaches for toxicity * Fate and transport of natural, engineered, and incidental (by-product) nanoparticles * Risk assessment and management of the effect of nanomaterials in the environment * Sensor and sensor network technologies as they relate to the measurement of these environmental implicationsCurrent areas of support for this program do not include biomedical and nanotoxicology topics involving clinical trials.All proposed research should be driven by engineering principles, and presented in an environmental health and safety or environmental sensor context. Proposals should include involvement of at least one engineering student.The duration of unsolicited awards is generally one to three years. The average annual award size for the program is $100,000. Small equipment proposals of less than $100,000 will also be considered and may be submitted during these windows. Any proposal received outside the announced dates will be returned without review.The duration of CAREER awards is five years. The submission deadline for Engineering CAREER proposals is in July every year. Please see the following URL for more information: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08051/nsf08051.jsp.Proposals for Conferences, Workshops, and Supplements may be submitted at any time, but must be discussed with the program director before submission.Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) replace the SGER program. Please note that proposals of these types must be discussed with the program director before submission. Further details are available in the PAPPG download, available below. Please refer to the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), January 2009, (NSF 09-1) when you prepare your proposal.
Link to Full Announcement
NSF Program Description 09-1179
If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:
NSF grants.gov support
grantsgovsupport@nsf.gov
If you have any problems linking to this funding announcement, please contactSynopsis Modification History
The following files represent the modifications to this synopsis with the changes noted within the documents. The list of files is arranged from newest to oldest with the newest file representing the current synopsis. Changed sections from the previous document are shown in a light grey background.
File Name Date Modification #4 Sep 27, 2010 Modification #3 Mar 11, 2010 Modification #2 Nov 16, 2009 Modification #1 Nov 16, 2009 Original Synopsis Mar 23, 2009 .From Jefferson to Assange
Posted on Dec 7, 2010
All you need to know about Julian Assange's value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world's other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases. All you need to know about the collapse of traditional support for the constitutional protection of a free press is that Dianne Feinstein, the centrist Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for Assange “to be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Feinstein, who strongly supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, has the audacity to call for the imprisonment of the man who, more than any other individual, has allowed the public to learn the truth about those disastrous imperial adventures—facts long known to Feinstein as head of the Intelligence Committee but never shared with the public she claims to represent.
Feinstein represents precisely the government that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said, in defense of unfettered freedom of the press, “[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
In the 1787 letter in which he wrote those words, Jefferson was reflecting the deep wisdom of a political leader who often had been excoriated by a vicious press that would make the anarchist-inflected comments of an Assange seem mild in comparison. More than 35 years later, after having suffered many more vitriolic press attacks, Jefferson reiterated his belief in a free press, in all its vagaries, as the foundation of a democracy. In an 1823 letter to Lafayette, Jefferson warned: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted to be freely expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
It is precisely that agitation that so alarms Feinstein, for the inconvenient truths she has concealed in her Senate role would have indeed shocked many of those who voted for her. She knew in real time that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet she voted to send young Americans to kill and be killed based on what she knew to be lies. It is her duplicity, along with the leaders of both political parties, that now stands exposed by the WikiLeaks documents.
That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security. Claims mocked by released cables that show that our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan are deeply corrupt and anti-democratic, and that al-Qaida continues to find its base of support not in those countries but rather in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, the very nations we arm and protect. The notion that the official tissue of lies enhances our security is rejected by the growing strength of radical Islam in the region, as evidenced by the success of Iran, the main benefactor of our invasion of Iraq, as the leaked cables make clear.
The pretend patriots who use the national security argument to gut what remains of our most important security asset—our constitutional guarantees of a truly free press—are just what President George Washington feared when in his farewell address he warned “against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism. …”
The pretended patriotism of Feinstein, the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill extending the U.S. Patriot Act, represents the death of the Democratic Party as a protector of our freedoms. As a California resident, I will not vote for her again, no matter how dastardly a right-wing Republican opponent she might face. There is no lesser evil to be found in one who would so cavalierly imprison practitioners of a free press.
That is the issue here, pure and simple. It is unconscionable to target Assange for publishing documents on the Internet that mainstream media outlets have attested had legitimate news value. As in the historic case in which Daniel Ellsberg gave The New York Times the Pentagon Papers exposé of the official lies justifying the Vietnam War, Assange is acting as the reporter here, and thus his activities must be shielded by the First Amendment's guarantee of journalistic freedom.
Actually Ellsberg's position, as morally strong as it was, was weaker than that of Assange, in that the former Marine and top Pentagon adviser was working at the government-funded Rand Corp., where he had agreed to rules about the handling of classified information, including the Pentagon Papers. Assange operates under no such restraints and is an even clearer example of the journalist who ferrets out news and attempts to report it. He had no special clearance that provided him access, and what he did was no different from what the editors of The New York Times did in publishing news that was fit to print.
It is outrageous for any journalist, or respecter of what every American president has claimed is our inalienable, God-given right to a free press, not to join in Assange's defense on this issue, as distinct from what increasingly appear to be trumped-up charges that led to his voluntary arrest on Tuesday in London in a case involving his personal behavior. Abandon Assange and you abandon the bedrock of our republic: the public's right to know.
.
During the New Deal Era, the Supreme Court began to depart from the Lochner era constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause , Due Process , and the Contract Clause.
In Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934), the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that temporarily restricted the ability of mortgage holders to foreclose. The law was enacted to prevent mass foreclosures during a time of economic hardship in America . The kind of contract modification performed by the law in question was arguably similar to the kind that the Framers intended to prohibit. The Supreme Court held that this law was a valid exercise of the state's Police Power . It found that the temporary nature of the contract modification and the emergency of the situation justified the law.. [ 18 ]
Further cases have refined this holding, differentiating between governmental interference with private contracts and interference with contracts entered into by the government. Succinctly, there is more scrutiny when the government modifies a contract to alter its own obligations. (See United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey , 431 U.S. 1 (1977).) [ 18 ]
Modification of Private Contracts
The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law violates the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983). First, the state regulation must substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem." 459 U.S. at 411-13 Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. This test is similar to rational basis review. [ 18 ]
Modification of Government Contracts
In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey , the Supreme Court held that a higher level of scrutiny was needed for situations where laws modified the government's own contractual obligations. In this case, New Jersey had issued bonds to finance the World Trade Center and had contractually promised the bondholders that the collateral would not be used to finance money losing rail operations. Later, New Jersey attempted to modify law to allow financing of railway operations, and the bondholders successfully sued to prevent this from happening. [ 19 ]
"Mr. Chairman: EPA's ability to effectively manage, oversee, and enforce the environmental laws under its jurisdiction, including the Clean Water Act, has been impeded by several factors including its current organizational structure, how it oversees State delegated authorities, and limitations in performance measurements. On the 37th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, we believe that a recommitment to the protection of the nation's waters can be achieved by an EPA that is strategically aligned to uniformly enforce environmental statutes and provide consistent oversight of its Regions and State delegations. This will require a comprehensive review of EPA's current organization and a commitment to implement best practices."
A Primer in Constitutional law
Congress' enumerated powers
.
Shares of fertilizer producers soar
Food prices and agriculture exchange traded funds (ETFs) both may reflect the news contained in the USDA's harvest projections.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture cut its harvest projections for corn, soybeans and wheat, adding fuel to the commodity-rally fire . Meanwhile, further concerns about a food shortage are becoming a reality. Scott Kilman and Liam Pleven for The Wall Street Journal report that the agency's decision to cut its month-old corn projection by 3.8% was startling to many. [ Commodity ETFs Are Leading The Charge. ]
Historically, though, the USDA's forecast for corn crops is still the third-largest ever.
Economists expect farmers to respond to high grain prices by planting millions more acres of corn and wheat , which should benefit sellers of seed and chemicals to farmers such as Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co. The larger threat comes from using other farmland for those commodities in a shortage in order to make up. This could in turn create another shortage.
.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - HEMATITAN™ $1200/TON - $45/ 5 gal. plus shipping fax to 530-275-4559
.
VINDICATION OF FALSE CLAIMS, EPA ACTIONS ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISCRETION, THE GOVERNMENTS CONDUCT IS INTENTIONAL AND MALICIOUS RECKLESS NEGLIGENT ENDANGERMENT WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVES.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
COPPER COMES PRIMARILY FROM AUTOMOBILE BRAKE WEAR IN BAY AREA STORM WATER RUN-OFF AND BOAT PAINT
CADMIUM COMES FROM THE MOTH-BALL FLEETS FLAKING PAINT AND OLD BATTERIES
ZINC IS NOT POLLUTION, IT IS A NUTRIENT (LIKE COPPER)
IRON MOUNTAIN HAS NO MERCURY HALO, SO ASK YOUR DENTIST
KESWICK LAKE AND THE CABECERA DEL RIO DE BUENAVENTURA (OLD SACRAMENTO) TO REDBLUFF DAM HAVE THE SAFEST FISH TO EAT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COPPER, ZINC, IRON, MAGNESIUM, MANGANESE, SULFUR, CALCIUM, MOLYBDENUM, PHOSPHORUS, POTASSIUM, ETC. HUNGRY YET?
One of the essential minerals needed by our body, zinc is present in almost each and every cell. It is required by the body in the performance of a number of functions, though in very small amounts. It plays a vital role in the action of enzymes, which are nothing, but the proteins that are responsible for initiating important chemical reactions in the body. Zinc is also required for proper growth and sexual maturation of an individual. The mineral can be easily found in the food items that we eat in the daily course of life. So, if you take a balanced diet, complete with salads and fruits, there will be enough zinc in your body to perform all the necessary functions. Read on to explore the list of foods items that are high in zinc.
Zinc Rich Foods
- All-bran cereal
- Almonds
- Artichoke
- Avocado
- Bananas
- Beef
- Blackberries
- Brazil nuts
- Brewers yeast
- Cashew
- Cauliflower
- Cheese
- Chicken (dark meat)
- Chickpeas (including hummus and falafel)
- Crab, Dungeness
- Cucumber
- Eggs
- Fish
- Kidney beans
- Kiwi fruit
- Lettuce
- Lima beans
- Liver
- Milk
- Olives
- Onion
- Oysters
- Parmesan Cheese
- Peaches
- Peanuts
- Peas
- Pecan Nuts
- Pine Nuts
- Pork
- Pumpkin seeds
- Radish
- Shellfish
- Soya beans (including tofu products)
- Spinach
- Squash
- Strawberries
- Sunflower seeds
- Sweet potatoes
- Tomatoes
- Turkey (dark meat)
- Walnuts
- Wheat Bran
- Wheat Germ
- Yogurt Benefits Of Zinc
- Zinc is very helpful in skin treatment . It is very useful in treating acne and pimples. Zinc also helps in assisting the body to normalize the amount of oils on the skin. It not only helps in removing the acne and pimples but also keeps the skin supple and smooth. Taking foods rich in zinc will help you keep your skin healthy.
- Eczema is mainly caused because of the deficiency of zinc in the body. Taking zinc supplements or foods rich in zinc will help in restoring the healing property of the body and treating eczema.
- Zinc promotes the synthesis of collagen, which is a necessary element of proper wound healing. Deficiency of zinc can lead to delayed wound healing. Take zinc rich foods on a regular basis.
- The deficiency of zinc can cause enlargement of prostrate which in turn make it vulnerable to cancer. Take zinc supplements or foods rich in zinc such as yogurt, walnut, wheat bran, sweet potatoes to combat the problem.
- If you are planning to lose weight , taking zinc rich food would be your best bet. Zinc not only assists in losing the weight but also controls the appetite making it easier for a person on diet.
- If you are among those for whom a weather change brings about an attack of cold, then taking zinc supplements or zinc rich food would be good for you. Zinc helps in decreasing the severity of cold.
- Zinc is also very essential for the proper functioning and repairing of DNA. Pregnant women should take zinc rich food for the proper growth of fetus.
- It is also helpful in relieving from chronic fatigue. According to the doctors, fish oils contain which is very rich in zinc no other medications are required for curing chronic fatigue except the intake of fish oil rich in zinc content.
- Zinc is also helpful in case of night blindness. Incorporate zinc rich foods in your diet especially, pork, olives, liver etc.
- Zinc also acts as antioxidants and helps in regulating biological functions. It helps in diabetes control, increases immunity, keeps the stress level in check, and regulates the enzyme functions for a proper development.
- .
copper
What can foods high in copper do for you?
- Help your body utilize iron
- Reduce tissue damage caused by free radicals
- Maintain the health of your bones and connective tissues
- Help your body produce the pigment called melanin
- Keep your thyroid gland functioning normally
- Preserve the myelin sheath that surrounds and protects your nerves
What events can indicate a need for more high-copper foods?
- Iron deficiency anemia
- Blood vessels that rupture easily
- Bone and joint problems
- Elevated LDL cholesterol and reduced HDL cholesterol levels
- Frequent infections
- Loss of hair or skin color
- Fatigue and weakness
- Difficulty breathing and irregular heart beat
- Skin sores
Excellent food sources of copper include calf's liver , crimini mushrooms , turnip greens and blackstrap molasses.
.
What is copper?
First recognized in the 1870's as a normal constituent of blood, copper is a trace mineral that plays an important role in our metabolism, largely because it allows many critical enzymes to function properly. Although copper is the third most abundant trace mineral in the body (behind iron and zinc), the total amount of copper in the body is only 75-100 milligrams, less than the amount of copper in a penny. Copper is present in every tissue of the body, but is stored primarily in the liver, so concentrations of the mineral are highest in that organ, with lesser amounts found in the brain, heart, kidney, and muscles.
What is the function of copper?
Copper is an essential component of many enzymes. Each of the copper-containing enzymes discussed below has a distinct function, indicating that copper plays a role in a wide range of physiological processes including iron utilization, elimination of free radicals, development of bone and connective tissue, and the production of the skin and hair pigment called melanin.
Iron Utilization
Approximately 90% of the copper in the blood is incorporated into a compound called ceruloplasmin, which is a transport protein responsible for carrying copper to tissues that need the mineral. In addition to its role as a transport protein, ceruloplasmin also acts as an enzyme, catalyzing the oxidation of minerals, most notably iron.
The oxidation of iron by ceruloplasmin is necessary for iron to be bound to its transport protein (called transferrin) so that it can be carried to tissues where it is needed. Because copper is necessary for the utilization of iron, iron deficiency anemias may be a symptom of copper deficiency.
Elimination of Free Radicals
Superoxide dismutase (SOD) is a copper-dependent enzyme that catalyzes the removal of superoxide radicals from the body. Superoxide radicals are generated during normal metabolism, as well as when white blood cells attack invading bacteria and viruses (a process called phagocytosis). If not eliminated quickly, superoxide radicals cause damage to cell membranes. When copper is not present in sufficient quantities, the activity of superoxide dismutase is diminished, and the damage to cell membranes caused by superoxide radicals is increased. When functioning in this enzyme, copper works together with the mineral zinc, and it is actually the ratio of copper to zinc, rather than the absolute amount of copper or zinc alone, that helps the enzyme function properly.
Development of Bone & Connective Tissue
Copper is also a component of lysyl oxidase, an enzyme that participates in the synthesis of collagen and elastin, two important structural proteins found in bone and connective tissue. Tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme, converts tyrosine to melanin, which is the pigment that gives hair and skin its color.
Melanin Production
As a part of the enzymes cytochrome c oxidase, dopamine hydroxylase, and Factor IV, copper plays a role in energy production, the conversion of dopamine to norepinephrine and blood clotting, respectively. Copper is also important for the production of the thyroid hormone called thyroxine and is necessary for the synthesis of phospholipids found in myelin sheaths that cover and protect nerves.
What are deficiency symptoms for copper?
Because copper is involved in many functions of the body, copper deficiency produces an extensive range of symptoms. These symptoms include iron deficiency anemia, ruptured blood vessels, osteoporosis, joint problems, brain disturbances, elevated LDL cholesterol and reduced HDL cholesterol levels, increased susceptibility to infections due to poor immune function, loss of pigment in the hair and skin, weakness, fatigue, breathing difficulties, skin sores, poor thyroid function, and irregular heart beat.
Despite the fact that most Americans consume less than recommended amounts of copper in their diet, these symptoms of copper deficiency are relatively rare. However, certain medical conditions including chronic diarrhea, celiac sprue, and Crohn's disease result in decreased absorption of copper and may increase the risk of developing a copper deficiency. In addition, copper requires sufficient stomach acid for absorption, so if you consume antacids regularly you may increase your risk of developing a copper deficiency. Inadequate copper status is also observed in children with low protein intake and in infants fed only cow's milk without supplemental copper.
What are toxicity symptoms for copper?
In recent years, nutritionists have been more concerned about copper toxicity than copper deficiency. Copper does not come from copper plumbing.
Excessive intake of copper when zinc levels are also low, may be a contributing factor in many medical conditions..
Postpartum depression has also been linked to high levels of copper. ( I think it's linked with the post partum) This is because copper concentrations increase throughout pregnancy to approximately twice normal values, and it may take up to three months after delivery for copper concentrations to normalize. Since excess copper is excreted through bile, copper toxicity is most likely to occur in individuals with liver disease or other medical conditions in which the excretion of bile is compromised.
The toxic effects of high tissue levels of copper are seen in patients with Wilson's disease, a genetic disorder characterized by copper accumulation in various organs due to the inadequate synthesis of ceruloplasmin (the protein that transports copper through the blood) by the liver. Wilson's disease primarily effects the liver, kidneys, and brain causing degenerative physiological changes (including cirrhosis of the liver, muscular rigidty and spastic contraction, and emotional disturbances) that are fatal if untreated. The treatment of Wilson's disease involves avoidance of foods rich in copper and any supplements containing copper and drug treatment with chelating agents that remove the excess copper from the body.
In 2000, the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences established the following Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs)for copper:
- 0-12 months: not possible to establish a TUL, sources of copper must be from food and formula only
- 1-3 years: 1000 micrograms
- 4-8 years: 1000 micrograms
- 9-13 years: 5000 micrograms
- 14-18 years: 8000 micrograms
- 19 years and older: 10,000 micrograms
- Pregnant women 14-18 years: 8000 micrograms
- Pregnant women 19 years and older: 10,000 micrograms
- Lactating women 14-18 years: 8000 micrograms
- Lactating women 19 years and older: 10,000 micrograms
How do cooking, storage, or processing affect copper?
It has been written that some Foods that require long-term cooking can also have their copper content substantially reduced. This is nonsense, cooking does not affect their original copper content. There is also no evidence that the processing of whole grains dramatically reduces copper content. In wheat, for example, the conversion of the whole grain into 66% extraction wheat flour (where 34% of the original grain is removed from the flour and discarded) results in a drop of about 70% in the original copper that was present. So what? You eat the chaff. If the copper was available in the soil it would be in the plant.
Many vegetables and whole grains now appear to be lower in copper than they were during the mid-1900's. The depletion of copper from soils is believed to be responsible for this lowered amount of copper.
Which factors might contribute to a deficiency of copper?
Unlike most minerals, copper appears to undergo absorption up into the body from the stomach. Proper levels of stomach acid are important for this absorption. For this reason, individuals with compromised stomach acid (hypochlorhydria) may be at increased risk of copper deficiency.
Because zinc can compete with copper in the small intestine and interfere with its absorption, persons who supplement with inappropriately high levels of zinc and lower levels of copper may increase their risk of copper deficiency.
What medications affect copper?
Oral contraceptives (birth control pills) increase the absorption of copper.
Copper may enhance the anti-inflammatory effects of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications including etodolac (Lodine), ibuprofen, nabumetone (Relafen), naproxen, and oxaprozin.
The following medications may cause a decrease in copper levels:
- AZT (Azidothymidine, Zidovudine, Retrovir) is used in the treatment of HIV infection and AIDS. AZT may reduce blood levels of copper.
- Famotidine (Pepcid, Pepcid AD) and Nizatidine (Axid, Axid AR) belong to the class of drugs known as histamine blockers, which prevent the release of acid into the stomach and are used in the treatment of ulcers and acid indigestions. Because copper requires sufficient stomach acid for absorption, long-term use of famotidine may lead to copper deficiency.
- Antacids (for example, Tums) may reduce copper absorption by decreasing the amount of hydrochloric acid in the stomach.
- Penicillamine (Cuprimine, Depen) is a chelating agent used to reduce toxic copper deposits in people with Wilson's disease.
How do other nutrients interact with copper?
Copper is known to react with a variety of other nutrients, including iron, zinc, molybdenum, sulfur, selenium, and vitamin C. However, with respect to food, we haven't seen research evidence showing that other nutrients—including iron and zinc—interfere with absorption of copper. Similarly, while copper is known to interact with a variety of minerals once it has been absorbed up into the body, we have not seen research showing food-related problems in this regard. The situation is somewhat different, however, when it comes to dietary supplements that often provide minerals (or vitamins) in much higher doses than can be obtained from food. There's some evidence, although not conclusive, that zinc supplements, when taken at 50 milligrams or more on a daily basis over an extended period of time, can lower availability of copper. There's also some evidence (once again not conclusive) that high supplemental doses of vitamin C—in a range approaching 1,000 milligrams or more—may decrease copper availability. While not applicable to adults, there is also some evidence that in the formula feeding of infants, too much iron in a formula can lower absorption of copper from that formula.
What health conditions require special emphasis on copper?
Copper may play a role in the prevention and/or treatment of the following health conditions:
- Allergies
- Anemia
- Baldness
- Bedsores
- Heart Disease
- HIV/AIDS
- Hypothyroid disease
- Leukemia
- Osteoporosis
- Periodontal disease
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Stomach ulcers
What forms of copper are found in dietary supplements?
As a dietary supplement, copper is primarily found in complex with organic acids like picolinic acid and gluconic acid, and amino acids like glycine and lysine. Inorganic forms of copper, like copper sulfate, are also available. All of these delivery forms have merit, and the choice of a specific copper supplement often depends on the need for amino acids or organic acids that are chelated with (attached to) copper.
What foods provide copper?
Excllent sources of copper include calf's liver , crimini mushrooms , turnip greens and molasses .
Very good sources of copper include chard, spinach, sesame seeds , mustard greens, kale , summer squash , asparagus , eggplant , and cashews .
Good sources of copper include peppermint, tomatoes , sunflower seeds , ginger, green beans, potato, and tempeh .
Introduction to Nutrient Rating System Chart
In order to better help you identify foods that feature a high concentration of nutrients for the calories they contain, we created a Food Rating System. This system allows us to highlight the foods that are especially rich in particular nutrients. The following chart shows the World's Healthiest Foods that are either an excellent, very good, or good source of copper. Next to each food name, you'll find the serving size we used to calculate the food's nutrient composition, the calories contained in the serving, the amount of copper contained in one serving size of the food, the percent Daily Value (DV%) that this amount represents, the nutrient density that we calculated for this food and nutrient, and the rating we established in our rating system. For most of our nutrient ratings, we adopted the government standards for food labeling that are found in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's "Reference Values for Nutrition Labeling."Administrative and National Policy Requirements
1. A listing and description of general EPA Regulations applicable to the award of assistance agreements may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/applicable_epa_regulations_and_description.htm.
2. Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, may be applicable to awards resulting from this announcement. Applicants selected for funding may be required to provide a copy of their proposal to their State Point of Contact (SPOC) for review, pursuant to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. This review is not required with the proposal and not all states require such a review.
3. Applicable regulations include: 40 CFR Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and 40 CFR Part 40 (Research and Demonstration Grants). Applicable OMB Circulars include: OMB Circular A-21 (Cost Principles for Educational Institutions) relocated to 2 CFR Part 220, OMB Circular A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) relocated to 2 CFR Part 225, OMB Circular A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements With State and Local Governments), OMB Circular A-110 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 215, and OMB Circular A-122, (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations) relocated to 2 CFR Part 230.
.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE 2005
.
.
E.P.A. to Revoke Mining Permit
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 15, 2010
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said Friday that it was following through with its year-old plan to revoke a crucial permit for West Virginia's largest mountaintop removal mine, saying the operation would cause irreversible damage to the environment and wildlife. Arch spokeswoman Kim Link said the company will defend its permit "vigorously." She warned that if EPA follows through on the veto, the state's economy and tax base will suffer. Arch planned to invest $250 million, create 250 well-paying jobs and generate tens of millions of dollars in tax revenues "in a region that desperately needs both," she said. Link said the ruling effectively puts every U.S. business on notice that a legally issued Clean Water Act permit "can be revoked at any time according to the whims of the federal government." "Clearly, such a development would have a chilling impact on future investment and job creation," she said.
.
.
a private party may “recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites.” United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 131
.
MOAs Are Missing Key Regulatory Requirements
MOAs were missing key requirements of Title 40 CFR 123.24. MOA documents also lacked MOA-specific program regulations contained in Title 40 CFR 123.26 and 123.27. For each of the 46 criteria, OIG rated the MOA as a “0” (does not address this element), “1” (addresses the element in some way), or “2” (addresses the element verbatim or in synonymous language). Figure 2-1 shows that across all regulatory criteria, MOAs did not contain 39 percent of the criteria, and that 61 percent of regulatory criteria are either not addressed or only partially addressed. EPA should define the requirements for management control of a nationally consistent enforcement program, and then review each State MOA to determine which MOAs are adequate and which MOAs need to be revised.MOAs did not address key regulatory requirements for MOA documents. For example, the CFR requires that States establish data management systems to support their compliance evaluation activities. Twenty percent of the MOAs did not contain any language about a data management system. This does not mean the State does not have such a system or that the system is not discussed in another document. However, because the primary, required document, the MOA, does not mention it, EPA cannot readily determine whether there is nationwide uniformity in data management systems.
MOAs also did not include a number of the additional regulatory program requirements contained in Title 40 CFR 123.26 and 123.27. These additional requirements correspond to the programmatic deficiencies that OECA identified in its first-round State Review Framework evaluations (data quality, identification of significant violations, the timeliness of enforcement actions, and penalties). For example, the CFR requires that States establish minimum civil penalty policies, such as the ability to assess at least a $5,000 penalty per day for each NPDES violation. The State Review Framework identified penalty calculation as a comprehensive weakness. Fifty-four percent of MOAs did not include any language about minimum civil penalty standards (i.e., received a score of “0” for this element). Only 1 of the 46 MOAs specified that the minimum penalty per day, per violation, would be $5,000 (a score of “2”).
MOAs most comprehensively addressed the MOA-specific regulations (CFR 123.24), containing these requirements 77 percent of the time. MOAs contained fewer requirements in the non-MOA-specific monitoring and inspections section (65 percent for CFR 123.26) and fewest in the enforcement section (36 percent for CFR 123.27). For example, 63 percent of the MOAs did not include language verifying that no other State enforcement agreement could override the MOA, as required by CFR 123.24(c). Eighty percent of MOAs did not note whether the State had the authority to enter any permitted facility (123.26(c)). Figure 2-2 shows how the percentage of missing regulations varied according to the CFR section under review..
PRIOR APPROPRIATION RIGHTS (ARMAN POWER DAM, SPRING CREEK DAM, SLICKROCK CREEK DIVERSION DAM, ESI, IMMI,, &e.)
Supreme Court's Denial of Certiorari in Apex Oil Leaves Standing Seventh Circuit Ruling that Environmental Cleanup Injunctions are Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
.
.
By virtue of the office of general conservator of the peace throughout the whole kingdom, the High Warden may commit all violators of the peace, or bind them in recognizances to keep it; but other Judges are only so in their own Courts.
Terris, bonis et calallis rehabendis post purgationem. A writ for a clerk to recover his lands, goods, and chattels formerly seized, after he had cleared himself of the felony of which he was accused, and delivered to his ordinary to be purged. Reg. Orig. 68.
ii. Local Governments
Section 2504 of the Lender Liability Act validates the portion of the CERCLA Lender Liability Rule that addresses involuntary acquisitions by government entities. State or local governments that acquire property by involuntary means such as bankruptcy, tax delinquency, or abandonment are excluded from the definition of “owner or operator” in CERCLA, and therefore are not liable under CERCLA Section 107(a). CERCLA § 101(20)(D). There is also a third-party affirmative defense available for government entities that acquire property “by escheat, or through any other involuntary transfer or acquisition, or through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchase or condemnation.” CERCLA § 101(35)(A)(ii).
EPA’s 1995 enforcement policy on involuntary acquisition by lenders and local governments was followed with the guidance memorandum, Municipal Immunity from CERCLA Liability for Property Acquired through Involuntary State Action (October 20, 1995). These two policy memoranda clarified some of the issues surrounding involuntary municipal acquisition of properties. EPA provided further clarification on these issues in a fact sheet, The Effect of Superfund on Involuntary Acquisitions of Contaminated Property by Government Entities issued in December 1995. EPA continues to follow as guidance the Lender Liability Rule and the two 1995 guidance documents and subsequent fact sheets when addressing local government liability.
State or local government entities that acquire property after the enactment of the 2002 Brownfields Amendments and that are concerned
about potential contamination may want to seek the advice of counsel before taking title to ensure that they will have a liability protection (e.g., BFPP status or protection under the involuntary acquisition provision or third-party defense). State or local government entities should note that to achieve BFPP status, an entity must conduct AAI prior to purchase and comply with the other BFPP requirements. Conducting proper AAI prior to purchase is also important for state and local government entities relying on the BFPP protection for brownfield grant eligibility.Abandoned mine cleanup ruling vs W.Va. upheld
November 08, 2010 @ 06:30 PM
The Associated Press
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — West Virginia regulators must obtain permits when they clean up abandoned mines.
That's the decision from a federal appellate court panel Monday in a case filed by conservation groups against state Environmental Protection Secretary Randy Huffman.
Three judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed U.S. District Judge Irene Keeley's ruling requiring permits.
Keeley faulted the DEP for not setting acid mine drainage limits at 18 sites in northern West Virginia. Her January 2009 order concluded the state violated the Clean Water Act and allowed too much iron, manganese and aluminum into waterways.
Huffman argued that sets a dangerous precedent. A DEP spokeswoman did not immediately return a call to The Associated Press..
Emphatically saying what the law is, terminating the national emergency;
reforming legislation, abolishing holistic accounting & jurisprudence.
In all actions upon the case and other pleadings, wherein the party claiming may now by law allege his right generally, without averring the existence of such right from time immemorial, such general allegation shall still be sufficient, and if the same shall be denied, all the matters in the act mentioned and provided, applicable to the case, shall be admissible in evidence to sustain or rebut such allegation; and in all pleadings to actions of trespass, and in all other pleadings wherein before the act it would have been necessary to allege the right to have existed from time immemorial, it shall be sufficient to allege the enjoyment thereof as of right by the occupiers of the tenement in respect whereof the same is claimed for such of the periods mentioned in the act as may be applicable to the case, and without claiming in the name or right of the owner of the fee, as is now usually done ; and if the other party shall intend to rely on any proviso, exception, incapacity, disability, contract, agreement, or other matter therein-before mentioned, or on any cause or matter of fact or of law not inconsistent with the simple fact of enjoyment, the same shall be specially alleged and set forth in answer to the allegation of the party claiming, and shall not be received in evidence on any general traverse or denial of such allegation.
..
Empowering Safe Lands & Watersheds
1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. Stakeholder Meetings/CEQA
.By What Warrant he claims to have, use, and enjoy the liberties, privileges, and franchises aforesaid.
A writ which lies against any person or corporation that usurps any franchise or liberty against the king without good title, and is brought against the usurpers to show by what right or title they hold or claim such franchise or liberty. It also lies for misuser or nonuser of privileges granted ; and, by Bracton, it may be brought against one who intrudes himself as heir into land, ftc. Old Nat. Br. 149.
.
.
.
.
- REVIEW & OUTLOOK
- NOVEMBER 22, 2010
The EPA Permitorium
The agency's regulatory onslaught has stopped new power generation.
President Obama is now retrenching after his midterm rebuke, and one of the main ways he'll try to press his agenda is through the alphabet soup of the federal regulators. So a special oversight priority for the new Congress ought to be the Environmental Protection Agency, which has turned a regulatory firehose on U.S. business and the power industry in particular.
The scale of the EPA's current assault is unprecedented, yet it has received almost no public scrutiny. Since Mr. Obama took office, the agency has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules.
.
.
COMING TOGETHER FOR THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT:
Department of Energy pours funds into cleantech industry
By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com Posted: 11/14/2010When Congress passed the landmark stimulus bill in 2009, more than $90 billion was targeted at clean energy -- the largest investment of federal dollars in the energy sector ever. Nearly $3 billion was awarded to the Bay Area from the Department of Energy alone.
The infusion of money came at a critical juncture, filling a void when the global financial crisis and U.S. recession made other sources of funding hard to come by.
The money ranged from a $1.37 billion loan guarantee for Oakland-based BrightSource Energy, which broke ground on its Ivanpah solar power plant in California's Mojave desert last month, to manufacturing tax credits and dozens of direct grants to local cleantech companies, universities, labs and cities. San Jose will use stimulus funds to replace 1,500 streetlights with energy-efficient and programmable LED lights.
"Without a doubt, this is probably one of the clearest successes of the Obama administration," said Steve Westly, a venture capitalist who invests in several cleantech companies. "In the middle of the recession it was hard for companies to get credit, and the DOE stepped in at the right time. It was stunningly smart, and the private sector followed in massive ways."
While the Department of Energy used stimulus dollars to fund mundane projects such as appliance rebates and weatherization assistance, it is also funneling money into fast-evolving cleantech industries, from electric vehicle battery and component manufacturing plants to advanced biofuels. The Recovery Act earmarks $4.5 billion to modernize the electric grid, $2.4 billion for carbon capture and storage, $2 billion for science research and $1.6 billion for renewables like biomass, solar and wind -- emerging sectors with a lot of Silicon Valley players.
"One of the big things we want to do is re-establish cleantech manufacturing," said Matt Rogers, a Piedmont resident and McKinsey consultant who managed the DOE's Recovery Act dollars. "We are not a substitute for, but a complement to, the venture capital community, and it's a very competitive process."
Competitive is an understatement. The department received more than 30,000 requests for funding, 80 percent of which were rejected. Several Silicon Valley cleantech companies hired consultants, often at considerable expense, to polish their applications, which usually required a "narrative" describing the company's technology, leadership team and business model as well as technical documents. Some applications ran more than 2,000 pages; some consultants commanded fees above half a million dollars.
The DOE's disbursement of Recovery Act funds has its critics. In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein sent Energy Secretary Steven Chu a letter questioning why California, which has 12 percent of the nation's population, received only 6.6 percent of the money the department had available from the stimulus bill.
In Silicon Valley, much of the grumbling has centered on the lack of speed. The Energy Department is not designed to handle requests for loans and grants quickly, and many have urged the department to streamline the process.
"If there is a concern, it's that the DOE is not currently set up to operate at the speed of business, particularly the technology business," said Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. "When you take 18 to 24 months, that's three to four business cycles in Silicon Valley."
Coulomb Technologies, a Campbell start-up that makes charging stations for electric vehicles, first applied for an Energy Department grant in May 2009. Months passed, and by the fall CEO Richard Lowenthal heard it was likely out of the running.
But in January, the company received a letter from the Energy Department that essentially said: We like your application but we want to see some changes. Can Coulomb get formal agreements in place with three automakers? And with nine cities? In 45 days?
"If you think the DOE is just going to hand you a check -- it's not like that," said Lowenthal, who hired a team of people to manage Coulomb's application. "They make you earn that money. But I'm not complaining--they are spending public dollars."
Coulomb scrambled and nailed down partnerships with Ford, Chevrolet and smart USA. The work was worth it: the company was awarded a $15 million grant to install 5,000 residential and public charging stations in nine geographically diverse regions: The Bay Area, Austin, Detroit, Los Angeles, Orlando, New York, Redmond, Wash., Sacramento and Washington, D.C. Coulomb received its first DOE check in June of this year, 13 months after applying. On Tuesday, the company is scheduled to install the first of its charging stations funded by the grant in San Francisco.
"We had to prove that the electric vehicles were coming," said Lowenthal. "I see the DOE as an early adopter customer who is helping us to scale, and they are creating an electric vehicle industry in the United States."
Soladigm, a Milpitas start-up that makes energy-efficient windows, was awarded a $3.47 million grant to take its window technology out of the lab and into production.
"We are moving at a fast pace as a company, and this grant will help us go faster," said Soladigm CEO Rao Mulpuri. "We'll hire scientists that we couldn't have otherwise, and we'll get to commercialization quicker."
The Bay Area is widely regarded as the epicenter of cleantech in the United States, followed by Los Angeles, because of venture capital investment. California attracted $2.1 billion in venture capital in 2009, according to the Cleantech Group, far more than any other state.
But as Recovery Act dollars are doled out across the country, local cleantech companies have also benefitted in indirect ways. Several of the nation's leading utilities were awarded significant Energy Department grants to help them modernize the electric grid. In turn, they've hired Silicon Valley smart grid start-ups like eMeter in San Mateo and Silver Spring Networks in Redwood City.
AltaRock Energy in Sausalito, a geothermal company backed by Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, was awarded a $21.4 million grant to demonstrate its technology near Bend, Ore.
"Venture capitalists and the Department of Energy are both believers in trying to take a vision and turning it into a reality," said AltaRock CEO Don O'Shei. "VCs put their faith in technology, and see it as a way to change the economic landscape. The government is also thinking about the environment, energy independence and national security, and they want to catalyze technologies that will create whole new industries. If you look forward five years, and this is successful, the money will be like space program money."
.
“Toxic” doesn't do justice to Iron Mountain runoff
Iron Mountain Mine strategy outlines specific action to ensure a protective remedy within the Superfund statutory and regulatory framework, as established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Opportunities to decrease the environmental footprint and maximize the environmental outcome of a cleanup exist throughout a project life. Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Remediation Strategy sets out current regulation of the Superfund Remedial Program to eliminate the demand placed on the EPA during delisting.
Many of the strategic actions can be addressed through policy and guidance compliance, resource development, and attention to the rule of law:
- Maximize use of renewable energy to power site operations, and identify methods for increasing energy efficiency;
- Remedy optimization starting in fiscal year 2010;
- Maximize efficient use of natural resources and energy during remedial actions;
- Integrate energy sources and encourage best operational practices
- Perfect and deploy technology for the reuse of treated water and increase potable water supply and irrigation with conservation, recharge of aquifers;
- Identify additional onsite or offsite uses of materials or energy otherwise considered waste;
- Include language in statements of work for removal action, remedial design, and remedial action procurement contracts; and
- Help communities establish networks and training programs that enable citizens to gain proficiency and expertise.
IMMI's STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT (SWR)
Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Redding.
Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-california-19212558#ixzz11HJZkgsS28 USC 84 - Sec. 84. California
a private party may “recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites.” United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128, 131
October 11, 2010 CERCLA 'Arranger' Liability Narrowed
.
See also Madison 's explanation of the purpose of the 9 th Amendment in response to Hamilton 's objection in Federalist 84 :
1. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general (i.e. Federal) government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4 th resolution (i.e. the original draft of the 9 th amendment)” (James Madison, U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 1789)
2. “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution” (An early version of the 9 th amendment—the last clause of the 4 th resolution—as submitted by James Madison, June 8, 1789).
.
.
CERCLA allows PRPs to seek contribution from one another in order to apportion response costs equitably. But CERCLA bars contribution
claims against PRPs that have obtained administratively or judicially approved settlements with the government.CERCLA thus provides an incentive for PRPs to settle by leaving non-settling PRPs liable for all of the response costs not paid by the settling PRPs.
We consider a question that has split the federal courts:
May a non-settling PRP intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved,
would bar contribution from the settling PRP? We join the Eighth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the answer is “yes.”
.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE IS IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Treasury puts AIG TARP loss at $5 billion
Posted by Colin Barr October 5, 2010 3:51 pm
The government's most controversial bailout is still under water, if just barely.
Treasury said Tuesday in its two-year retrospective on the Troubled Asset Relief Program that the net cost of TARP's AIG ( AIG ) bailout at current market prices is $5.1 billion. The cost of the AIG bailout has been subject of considerable head scratching in recent days, with TARP winding down and the terms of federal assistance to AIG changing for the umpteenth time .
.
Moody's Investors Service affirmed American International Group's (AIG) A3 long-term issuer rating and negative outlook, reflecting the rating agency's concerns about the possible end of government support for the insurer.
The Moody's announcement comes in the wake of AIG's announcement of its plan to repay the U.S. Government.
Under the plan, AIG said it would repay its $20 billion direct debt to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and the $26 billion in interest the FRBNY has in two special purpose vehicles (SPVs) using its own resources and proceeds from other assets, including an initial public offering of American International Assurance Co. Ltd (AIA) on the Hong King Stock Exchange and proceeds from the $15.5 billion sale of American Life Insurance Co. (ALICO) to MetLife Inc.
Additionally, as part of the plan, $49.1 billion of preferred shares held by the Treasury Department would be converted into about 1.66 billion shares of AIG common stock. The Treasury will then sell the shares to the public over time.
Bruce Ballentine, Moody's lead analyst for AIG, said in a statement, “The proposed repayment plan signals AIG's progress in stabilizing its core insurance operations and exiting noncore businesses. It also points the way toward a sustainable capital structure.”
However, Moody's added that the plan “hastens the end of explicit government support for AIG, which has been an important consideration in the company's ratings.”
Moody's noted that the government will retain significant ownership of AIG for the near term, but the rating agency said it “believes that the ownership stake and implicit support will decline over the next couple of years. Therefore, the ratings of AIG and its subsidiaries will increasingly depend on their stand-alone credit profiles, raising the risk of downgrades if the credit metrics do not improve as expected.”
To attain a stable rating, Moody's said AIG must improve the intrinsic credit profiles of Chartis and SunAmerica Financial Group (SFG). AIG must also exit or de-risk noncore businesses, maintain robust liquidity within its major operations, and develop a standalone capital structure consistent with the company's current ratings.
Moody's said AIG could be downgraded if it fails to “improve certain credit metrics of the core insurance operations, such as profitability, reserve adequacy at Chartis and investment performance at SFG.”
Retention of noncore business risks that could strain capital and liquidity, and an inadequate standalone capital structure could also lead to a downgrade, Moody's said.
- BUSINESS
- NOVEMBER 21, 2010, 1:37 P.M. ET
AIG Puts Rail-Car Arm Up for Sale
BY SERENA NG AND ANUPREETA DAS
American International Group Inc. has put its rail-car subsidiary on the auction block, another small step by the giant insurer as it seeks to shed noncore assets to repay its bailout and regain independence from government ownership.
AIG Rail Services Inc., a Chicago business that is part of AIG's financial-services division, was set up around five years ago and provides rail-car leases and equipment financing to shipping companies, railroads and others in the North American rail industry. The company, a relatively small player in this space, leases out tank cars and freight cars used for transporting fuel, commodities, building materials and ...
Nov. 19, 2010, 11:53 a.m. EST
Fitch affirms AIG's 'BBB' issuer default rating
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Fitch Ratings on Friday affirmed American International Group Inc.'s /quotes/comstock/13*!aig /quotes/nls/aig ( AIG 42.73 , +0.17 , +0.40% ) long-term issuer default rating at BBB and upgraded the ratings on the company's hybrid securities to BB- from B. The ratings agency noted that AIG's financial profile, when viewed without the the benefit of government involvement, has improved. "The upgrade of the ratings on AIG's subordinated hybrid securities reflects Fitch's reduced concerns about the potential for AIG to elect contractually available interest deferral options attached to these securities," it said. The outlook is stable.
EPA Observes Children's Health Month
Dam Inspection By Owner
.
9. Compliance With Applicable Law. The Site Operator shall comply with all
applicable federal and state laws as provided in the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree, if approved by the Oversight Agency, shall be considered to be
consistent with the NCP.Resource Record Details
Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners
.
Federal School Grants For College students
lonad News
Some of the government grant-making agencies are United states doe, Department of Education, Department of Commerce , Department of Agriculture, etc. ...
See all stories on this topic »
News Ezines » Federal School Grants For Students
By JohnDeSouza
Some of the us government grant-making agencies are Department of energy, Department of Education, Department of Commerce , Department of Agriculture, and so forth. Student studying through online can also get some financial assistance ...
News Ezines - http://newsezines.990m.com/Paid Survey Empire » Federal School Grants For University students
By JohnDeSouza
Some of the federal government grant-making agencies are Us department of energy, Department of Education, Department of Commerce , Department of Agriculture, and so on. Student studying through online will also have some financial ...
Paid Survey Empire - http://paidsurveyempire.com/Shasta's Masonic Lodge is the oldest in California
Record-Searchlight (blog)
The current brick building it calls home at 15344 Main Street in Shasta was built in 1854 soon after the disastrous 1853 fire that almost burned down every ...
See all stories on this topic »
who stinks?
Interlakes Special Recreation Management Area
A land exchange with the timber company enabled the BLM to consolidate alternate “checkerboard” sections of land in a popular off-roading area of western Shasta County. Addition of the 9,000 acres to the recreation opened up legal access to even more riding areas. BLM also used the newly acquired lands provide alternate riding areas, improving natural resource protection.
05/01/1986 P R C Environmental Management, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Endangerment assessment draft final rpt, w/TL to T Mix fr T Brisbin 51189
sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedas, which means “use your own (property) so as not to harm another.”
.
SPRING CREEK WATERSHED AND IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
2 MINERS & 8000 ACRES OF LAND
[California] IRON MOUNTAIN MINE (CAD980498612)
ARMAN, TED W 2010-0021996 RESCISSION 7/22/2010
Case CIVMSC07-00955 - HUTCHENS VS LIGHTHORSE VENTURES LLC ET AL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT HON. JUDGE ZUNIGA
.
1) Did the gold vein systems of the Klamath Mountains and the Sierra Nevada foothills develop jointly during late Upper Jurassic to late Lower Cretaceous or (how) did the mineralizing regime change with the separation of both geomorphologic units? 2) Did the vein formation occur as a single continuous event (cf. Snow et al., 2008) or as multiple events (e.g., Elder and Cashman, 1992)? 3) If there is a unifying geological model to explain the genesis of the Mother Lode and the Klamath Mountains gold deposits, why did the Sierra Nevada foothills get mineralized more intense than the Klamath Mountains (with respect to the gold production rates)?
Boulder Creek/ Arman Dam Environmental Permit Procurement
Implementation Plan
This document provides a list of environmental permits required for implementation of the Boulder Creek Debris Removal project and describes the permit procurement and implementation requirements.
Agency
Environmental
Permit
Need
for
Permit
Permit Application Procurement Requirements
Timeframe
Implementation
Federal
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Construction in waters of
the U.S. or wetlands
1.) Conduct wetland delineation;
2.) Prepare Corps application; and 3.) Submit to Corps
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions
U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered species habitat
Prepare Biological Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered fish species including Fall Run Salmon and Steelhead
Prepare Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601)
Construction work in or on streambanks
Prepare and submit notification for streambed alteration agreement
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and notify contractor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
Construction in waters of the U.S. or wetlands
Prepare and
submit application for water quality certification
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and implement Best Management Practices
Local
Shasta County
Tree Permit
Removal of Oak Trees
Prepare and submit tree mitigation plan
30 days
Implement Mitigation
.
Arman Dam Environmental Permit Procurement and Implementation Plan
This document provides a list of environmental permits required for implementation of the Arman Dam modification project and describes the permit procurement and implementation requirements.
Agency
Environmental
Permit
Need
for
Permit
Permit Application Procurement Requirements
Timeframe
Implementation
Federal
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Construction in waters of
the U.S. or wetlands
1.) Conduct wetland delineation;
2.) Prepare Corps application; and 3.) Submit to Corps
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions
U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered species habitat
Prepare Biological Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered fish species including Fall Run Salmon and Steelhead
Prepare Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601)
Construction work in or on streambanks
Prepare and submit notification for streambed alteration agreement
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and notify contractor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
Construction in waters of the U.S. or wetlands
Prepare and
submit application for water quality certification
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and implement Best Management Practices
Local
Shasta County
Tree Permit
Removal of Oak Trees
Prepare and submit tree mitigation plan
30 days
Implement Mitigation
Agency
Environmental
Permit
Need
for
Permit
Permit Application Procurement Requirements
Timeframe
Implementation
Federal
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Construction in waters of
the U.S. or wetlands
1.) Conduct wetland delineation;
2.) Prepare Corps application; and 3.) Submit to Corps
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions
U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered species habitat
Prepare Biological Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 7 Consultation / Biological Opinion
Direct/Indirect effects to potential habitat for endangered fish species including Fall Run Salmon and Steelhead
Prepare Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; and
Request Army Corps of Engineers initiate Section 7 Consultation
3-4 months
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices during construction.
State
California Department of Fish and Game
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601)
Construction work in or on streambanks
Prepare and submit notification for streambed alteration agreement
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and notify contractor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water
Quality Certification
Construction in waters of the U.S. or wetlands
Prepare and
submit application for water quality certification
60 days
Comply with permit conditions and implement best management practices
Reclamation Board
Floodplain Encroachment Permit
Construction in the floodplain of Miners Ravine
Conduct HEC Analysis and Prepare application for permit
90 days
Comply with permit conditions
Local
Minnesota
Tree Permit
Removal of oak trees
Prepare and submit tree mitigation plan
30 days
Implement mitigation
.
.
Sections:
Purpose.
Water reclamation policy.
Definitions.
Water reclamation master plan.
Procedures.
Sanctions.
Validity.
Purpose.
The State policies described in Water Code Sections 461 and 13510 are in the best interest of the Iron Mountain Mines and the Township of Minnesota . The majority of jurisdictions in Shasta County have adopted measures to promote water reclamation. This chapter is necessary to protect the common water supply of the region which is vital to public health and safety, and to prevent endangerment of public and private property. Shasta County is highly dependent on limited domestic water for domestic, agricultural and industrial uses. The reliability of the supply of domestic water is uncertain. By developing and utilizing reclaimed water, the need for exportable water can be eliminated. In light of these circumstances, certain uses of potable water may be considered unreasonable or to constitute a nuisance where reclaimed water is available or production of reclaimed water is unduly impaired. Reclaimed water would be more readily available in seasons of drought when the supply of potable water for nonessential uses may be uncertain.
Water reclamation policy.
It is the policy of the Iron Mountain Mines and the Township of Minnesota that reclaimed water shall be used within the jurisdiction wherever its use is economically justified, financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment.
Definitions.
The following terms are defined for purposes of this chapter:
A. “Agricultural purposes” include the growing of field and nursery crops, raw crops, trees, and vines and the feeding of fowl and livestock.
B. “Artificial lake” means a human-made lake, pond, lagoon, or other body of water that is used wholly or partly for landscape, scenic or non-contact recreational purposes.
C. “Commercial office building” means any building for office or commercial uses with water requirements which include, but are not limited to, landscape irrigation, toilets, urinals, and decorative fountains.
D. “Reclaimed water distribution system” means a piping system intended for the delivery of reclaimed water separate from and in addition to, the potable water distribution system.
E. A “greenbelt area” includes, but is not limited to, golf courses , cemeteries, parks and landscaping.
F. “Industrial process water” means water used by any industrial facility with process water requirements which include, but are not limited to, rinsing, washing, cooling and circulation, or construction.
G. “Off-site facilities” means water facilities from the source of supply to the point of connection with the on-site facilities, normally up to and including the water meter.
H. “On-site facilities” means water facilities under the control of the owner, normally downstream from the water meter.
I. “Potable water” means water which conforms to the Federal, State and local standards for human consumption.
J. “Reclaimed water” means water which, as a result of treatment of wastewater, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or controlled use that would not otherwise occur (see Water Code Section 13050(n)).
K. “Water discharge” means water deposited, released, or discharged into a sewer system from any commercial, industrial, or residential source which contains levels of any substance or substance which may cause substantial harm to any water treatment or reclamation facility or which may prevent use of reclaimed water authorized by law.
Water reclamation master plan.
A. General. Upon adoption of this chapter, the Township shall prepare and adopt by resolution, a water reclamation master plan to define, encourage, and develop the use of reclaimed water within its boundaries. The master plan shall be updated not less often than every five years.
B. Contents of the Reclamation Master Plan. The master plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Plants and Facilities. Evaluation of the location and size of present and future reclamation treatment plants, distribution pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs, and other related facilities, including cost estimates and potential financing methods;
2. Reclaimed Water Service Areas. A designation, based on the criteria set forth in this chapter, of the areas within the Township that can or may in the future use reclaimed water in lieu of potable water. Reclaimed water uses may include, but are not limited to, the irrigation of greenbelt and agricultural areas, filling of artificial lakes, and appropriate industrial and commercial uses;
3. Designate Tributary Areas. For each water reclamation facility identified in the master plan, designate proposed tributary areas. Within such areas, discharges to the sewage system shall be subject to permitting, monitoring and control measures to protect public health, safety and public and private property;
4. Quality of Water to be Reclaimed. For each water reclamation treatment facility, evaluate water quality with respect to the effect on anticipated uses of reclaimed water to be served by each treatment facility. Evaluate sources of waste discharge and sewer inflow that may, directly or cumulatively, substantially contribute to adverse water quality conditions (including but not limited to total dissolved solids, sodium, chloride and boron) in reclaimed water;
5. Tributary Protection Measures. Develop recommended control measures and management practices for each designated tributary area to maintain or improve the quality of reclaimed water. Such control measures may include capital improvements to the sewer collection system and waste discharge restrictions for industrial, commercial and residential discharges;
6. Mandatory Reclaimed Water Use. For each reclaimed water service area, evaluate whether greenbelt irrigation, agricultural irrigation, commercial office buildings, filling of artificial lakes, or industrial processes shall be limited to the use of reclaimed water. As appropriate, mandate construction of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities in new and existing developments for current or future reclaimed water use as a condition of any development approval or continued water service, if future reclamation facilities are proposed in the master plan that could adequately serve the development. Identify resources and adopt measures to assist water users in the financing of necessary conversions;
7. Rules and Regulations. Establish by resolution, general rules and regulations governing the use and distribution of reclaimed water;
8. Public Awareness Program. Establish a comprehensive water reclamation public awareness program;
9. Coordination Among Agencies. An examination of the potential for initiating a coordinated effort between the Township and other regional agencies to share in the production and utilization of reclaimed water.
Procedures.
A. Existing Potable Water Service.
1. Preliminary Determination. Based upon the master plan, upon the designation of each reclaimed water service area or the commencement of the design of new reclaimed water facilities, the Township shall make preliminary determinations as to which existing potable water customers shall be converted to the use of reclaimed water. Each water customer shall be notified of the basis for a determination that conversion to reclaimed water service will be required, as well as the proposed conditions and schedule for conversion.
2. Notice. The notice of the preliminary determination, including the proposed conditions and time schedule for compliance, and a reclaimed water permit application shall be sent to the water customer by certified mail.
3. Objections – Appeals. The water customer may file a notice of objection with the Township within 30 days after of any notice of determination to comply is delivered or mailed to the customer, and may request reconsideration of the determination or modification of the proposed conditions or schedule for conversion. The objection must be in writing and specify the reason for the objection. The preliminary determination shall be final if the customer does not file a timely objection. The Township Manager or his designee, shall review the objection with the objector, and shall confirm, modify or abandon the preliminary determination.
B. Development and Water Service Approvals.
1. Conditions. Upon application by a developer, owner or water customer (herein referred to as “applicant”) for a tentative map, subdivision map, land use permit, or other development project as defined by Government Code Section 65928 the Township staff shall review the master plan and make a preliminary determination whether the current or proposed use of the subject property is required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use may be required as a condition of approval of any such application, in addition to any other conditions of approval.
2. Alterations and Remodeling. On a case-by-case basis, upon application for a permit for the alteration or remodeling of multifamily, commercial or industrial structures (including, for example, hotels), the Township staff shall review the master plan and make a preliminary determination whether the subject property shall be required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use, may be required as a condition of approval of the application.
3. Notice of Determination. A notice of the basis for the preliminary determination, proposed conditions of approval and schedule for compliance shall be provided to the applicant prior to approval of the development application.
C. Reclaimed Water Permit Process. Upon a final determination by the Township Manager that a property shall be served with reclaimed water, or adoption of a condition of development approval requiring use or accommodation of the use of reclaimed water, the water customer, owner or applicant shall obtain a reclaimed water permit.
1. Permit Conditions. The permit shall specify the design and operational requirements for the applicant's water distribution facilities and schedule for compliance and shall require compliance with both the California Department of Health Services Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (see California Code of Administrative Regulations, Title 22), and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2. Plan Approval. Plans for the reclaimed and potable water distribution systems for the parcel shall be reviewed by the Township Manager or his designee and a field inspection conducted before the permit is granted.
3. Permit Issuance. Upon approval of plans, the permit shall be issued. Reclaimed water shall not be supplied to a property until inspection by the Township Manager or his designee determines that the applicant is in compliance with the permit conditions.
D. Temporary Use of Potable Water. Upon the approval of the Township Manager or his designee, potable water may be made available temporarily. Before the applicant receives temporary potable water, a water reclamation permit must be obtained for new on-site distribution facilities. Prior to commencement of reclaimed water service, an inspection of the on-site facilities will be conducted to verify that the facilities have been maintained and are in compliance with the reclaimed water permit and current requirements for service. Upon verification of compliance, reclaimed water shall be served to the parcel for the intended use. If the facilities are not in compliance, the applicant shall be notified of the corrective actions necessary and shall have at least 30 days to take such actions.
E. Reclaimed Water Rate. The rate charged for reclaimed water shall be established by resolution of the Township.
Environmental Mine Site Assessment for Iron Mountain Mine, California
.
Katie Walraven, J&D Environmental Solutions, LLC
February 22, 2006
Executive Summary
Iron Mountain Mine is positioned in the Shasta Mining District near Redding , California . It has been mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc, and pyrite during its operation from 1860 to 1963. The site was declared a Superfund site in 1983 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has undergone remediation projects including the construction of water treatment plants, diversion of surface water, and cappings. The mine is a massive sulfide deposit set in a rhyolitic country rock. Oxidation of iron sulfides at Iron Mountain Mine releases sulphuric acid fumes into the air and adds an unknown amount of contamination into sediments. Tons of acid mine drainage seeped into both surface water and groundwater. The lowest pH in the world of negative 3.6 was recorded at the Richmond mine on the Iron Mountain Mine site. Local fish species and residents have been affected by the contamination of the water, resulting in much litigation. Future remediation of the site is pending while studies are being conducted on sediments and continued water treatment options by the EPA.
.
Introduction
Iron Mountain Mine is located in northern California , in the Shasta Mining District (Figure 1). The nearest city is Redding, which is 9 kilometers to the southeast of the mine site (Banfield 2004) . The site is located in the Klamath Mountains, which stretch from northwest California to southern Oregon (Banfield 2004) .
.
Iron Mountain Mine was operational from 1860 to 1963. During those years it was mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc, and pyrite (Banfield 2004) . At one time, Iron Mountain Mine was the largest copper producer in California and the sixth largest copper producer in the United States (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . Mining included both surface pit mining and underground mining. The mining of a gossan cap began in 1879 and the underground mining for copper started in 1897 (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . The mountain itself was fractured during the course of the mining process, which allowed for the weathering of materials inside the mountain (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) .
Iron Mountain Mine was declared a Superfund site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1983 (Merchant 2004) . Table 1 shows an environmental and historical account of the site. From 1988 to 1994 emergency remediation of the waste water at Iron Mountain Mine was conducted using a lime neutralization treatment plant (Sugarek 2005) . An acid neutralization plant utilizing a lime and sulfide High Density Sludge process was also built (U.S.G.S. 2005) . Water treatment plants were later made for water with sources at Boulder Creek and Old Mine/Mine No. 8, both located on Iron Mountain (Sugarek 2005) . The treatment plants currently in place on the Iron Mountain Mine site have been operating since 1994 (Merchant 2004) . Since the beginning of water treatment at the site through 2003, over 1.3 billion gallons of acid mine drainage (AMD) have been treated (Merchant 2004) . The treatment has resulted in an 80% reduction of the copper content in the water, and a 90% reduction in the zinc concentration (Merchant 2004) . As of the completion of the Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir in 2002, more than 95% of all acid mine drainage no longer enters the environment (Merchant 2004) .
.
Table 1. Mining and environmental activities at Iron Mountain (modified from (Nordstrom and Alpers 1998) ).
Year
Activity
1860s
Discovery of massive gossan outcropping
1879
Silver discovered in gossan and mining begins
1897
Mountain Copper Co. acquires property and under- ground mining begins
1902
Suing for vegetation damage from smelting activities
1907
Smelting ends and ore is transported to Martinez , CA , for processing
1928
California Fish and Game Commission files complaint regarding tailings dam
1939
State initiates water quality and fish toxicity studies
1943
Shasta Dam, upstream from Iron Mountain outflows, is completed
1950
Keswick Dam, downstream from Iron Mountain outflows, is completed
1955-1962
Open-pit mining of pyrite at Brick Flat for sulfuric acid production
1963
Spring Creek Debris Dam is completed, regulating outflow of acid mine waters to the Sacramento River
1983
Iron Mountain listed on National Priorities List (NPL) for EPA Superfund, ranking as the third-largest polluter in the State of California
1986-1998
Four Records of Decision by EPA have instituted several remedial activities that include partial capping, surface-water diversions, tailings removal, and lime neutralization of the most acidic, metal-rich flows, reducing copper and zinc loads by 80-90%
.
.
Additional remediation also included water management strategies of capping and diverting the surface water (Sugarek 2005) . AMD solutions are stored at Keswick Reservoir and are periodically scheduled to be released at the same time as waters from the Shasta Dam, in order to dilute the contaminated water. At times of heavy rain or when the Spring Creek Reservoir reaches capacity, the AMD at the Spring Creek Dam is sometimes uncontrollably spilled into the rest of the waters in the area without the extra dilution from the Shasta Dam waters (Sugarek 2005) .
.
Site Description
The Iron Mountain Mine site contains open pit mines, underground workings, waste rock dumps, and piles of ore tailings (Banfield 2004) , covering 4,400 acres (Merchant 2004) . There were no site maps of the actual site available for inclusion in this paper. Only one site map has been located, and the publication is not available for public perusal from the internet. The site itself is a massive hydrothermal sulfide deposit (Banfield 2004) set in Balaklala rhyolite overlying Copley greenstone (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . The sulfide deposit, Balaklala rhyolite, and Copley greenstone are all Devonian in age (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . Pyrite makes up more than 95% of the sulfide deposit, with chalcopyrite, quartz and sphalerite (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . The pyrite, when oxidized, releases copper, cadmium, and zinc metals.
The extensive watershed surrounding Iron Mountain eventually extends to San Francisco , California . Boulder Creek to the north of the Iron Mountain Mine and Slickrock Creek to the south join and flow southeast 3 kilometers to Spring Creek (Figure 1). Spring Creek then flows seven more kilometers before reaching the Spring Creek Reservoir, where water travels through the Spring Creek Dam and continues on to the Keswick Reservoir. The Keswick Reservoir is on the Sacramento River, which eventually leads to the San Francisco Bay 360 kilometers away (NOAA 1989) .
Site Impacts
Iron Mountain Mine's impacts on the surrounding environment were previously tremendous on water and the culture, but through remediation efforts the contamination is limited now predominantly to sediments. The only air impact, onsite or offsite, mentioned in published reports was the premature death of trees on the mountain due to sulphuric acid fumes from the oxidized pyrite (NOAA Central Library 2002) . Further air impacts existed before the early 1900s because smelting of the ore was done onsite, but after 1907 the ore was shipped off the site for smelting (Nordstrom and Alpers 1998) .
No onsite analysis of sediments was available. However, Table 2 presents a table of sediment metal concentration offsite as compared to the calculated chronic daily intake. The focus of the sediment report was on offsite impacts, such as at the Spring Creek Arm of the watershed. The report documented sediment accumulation in the Spring Creek Reservoir and Keswick Reservoir, but provided no data for exactly how the sediment came to rest in the reservoirs or the quantitative elevation and slope of the mountain (U.S.G.S. 2005) . The mountain was visually described as steeply sloped, with ridges and narrow valleys (NOAA 1989) . The contaminated sediments affect both riparian vegetation and wildlife (EPA 2004) . One study showed that the toxicity of the sediments was due not to the increased presence of copper or zinc, but reduced iron in pore waters (U.S.G.S. 2005) . No information about background metal concentrations at Iron Mountain Mine was found.
.
Table 2: Offsite sediment metals concentration from 2003 collection compared to chronic daily intake calculations (modified from (EPA 2004) ).
Analyte
Average Concentration (mg/kg)
Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg-day)
Ingestion Dermal
Antimony
4.1
8.31E-07
--
Arsenic
168
5.19E-05
1.66E-05
Cadmium
5.3
1.19E-06
1.26E-08
Chromium
66
7E-06
--
Copper
1822
2E-04
--
Iron (%)
18.7
2E-02
--
Lead
49
2E-05
--
Nickel
57
1E-05
--
Silver
3.5
1E-06
--
Zinc
768
1E-04
--
.
While contaminated sediments are added to “clean” water when they are released from the Keswick Reservoir, the concern for the continuation of toxic material overflow from the Spring Creek Dam into the Keswick Reservoir and thereby the Sacramento River is still prevalent (Sugarek 2005) . Every 4 to 8 years the water at the Spring Creek Dam overflows, bringing the contaminated sediments further into the watershed (EPA 2004) . Recreational use has been limited due to both contamination and remediation, and Iron Mountain Mine and the surrounding area are currently being investigated for future uses including biking, hiking, and equestrian trails (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) .
Water quality from Iron Mountain Mine was very poor. Iron Mountain Mine boasts the world's lowest pH, with the lowest recording at negative 3.6 from water at the Richmond mine (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) . This low pH is not common on Iron Mountain , but a pH of around 1 is generally recorded onsite. Table 3 shows the pH and potential contaminant concentrations from the Richmond mine in 2002. The groundwater which feeds into Boulder Creek had a pH of 2.9 (Hannula, Esposito et al. 2003) . Boulder Creek flows 34 m 3 /h to 79,500 m 3 /h during flash floods (Keith, Runnells et al. 2001) . Rainfall is also a conduit for contaminants, and between 140 and 200 centimeters fall per year, varying with elevation (Keith, Runnells et al. 2001) . Over 1 ton of acid mine drainage had been released every day from Iron Mountain Mine before its Superfund listing in 1983 (Merchant 2004) , aided in large part by the stream flow and rainfall. Native metal concentrations in the water around Iron Mountain Mine were not presented in any publications read for this assessment.
.
Table 3. Richmond mine 5-Way and A, B, C weirs water data in millimolar units (modified from (Banfield 2004) ).
Sample Name
Date
T (°C)
pH
Fe
Cu
Zn
SO 4 -2
02IM15-way
March-02
42
0.83
317
4.0
14.3
684
02IM1A1
March-02
42
0.83
319
4.1
14.0
665
02IM1B1
March-02
47
0.78
274
2.2
16.8
550
02IM1C1
March-02
50
0.76
288
4.7
14.3
651
02IMM B-back
March-02
45
0.83
241
2.3
17.2
586
02IM1 C-back
March-02
50
0.82
286
4.5
14.2
656
02IMM A-back
March-02
42
0.83
380
6.0
18.4
892
.
.
Offsite, however, the EPA reports very little water contamination as of 2004 (EPA 2004) . The only possible human health risks would be in case of incidental ingestion or dermal contact with the water or sediments in Spring Creek (EPA 2004) . From the 2004 EPA Record of Decision report, it seemed as if the offsite contamination was generally held in check in regards to the human population.
Cultural impact from Iron Mountain Mine is the primary grounds for litigation involving the site (Merchant 2004) . The toxic metals which have been leaching from the mine since the 1860s infected the water and sediments, thereby affecting aquatic life. Fish kills were reported as early as the 1899-1900 rainy season (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . Since 1940, over thirty-nine fish kills have been reported in the area (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . The Central Valley Chinook salmon population was listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act in 1989 and the area between Keswick Dam and the Red Bluff Dam on the Sacramento River was declared a critical spawning area (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . The steelhead trout population was also affected by increased metal concentrations in the water system (Sugarek 2005) . The fishing industries in the area cannot resume full functioning capacity until the site has been fully remediated and the fish population is sustained.
.
Known Site Management Plans
In 2000, the EPA settled litigation for the amount of $160 million to continue remediation on the Iron Mountain Mine site (Merchant 2004) . The money will ensure the continued upkeep of the water treatment plant for an indefinite period of time, presumably as long as Iron Mountain Mine needs remediation. Overall, an estimated $700 to $800 million will be spent on the project (Merchant 2004) .
Future remediation possibilities are still being investigated. A major component of the continued remediation is the completion of studies by the EPA which focuses on the area sources of AMD discharge, as well as the extent of the sediment contamination in the area (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) . Such studies would be taken into consideration before more remediation was implemented. Earlier during remediation research a study on the effects of mine shaft plugging at Iron Mountain Mine resulted in the disregarding of that particular project (U.S.G.S. 2005) . In 2004 a remedy was proposed for the contaminated sediment issue, involving the movement of contaminated sediment which had collected near Spring Creek into the abandoned open pit mines at Iron Mountain Mine. The sediments most in danger of erosion would be moved first. Pending the completion of further studies of the site, no additional remediation has been planned.
Summary
The remediation projects at Iron Mountain Mine were a good beginning to the control over AMD release into the environment. There are approximately 12 million tons of deposit, disturbed by the mining, still on the mountain (EPA 2004) . This ore, left exposed to the air and water at the Iron Mountain Mine site, is enough for AMD to continue for approximately 3,000 more years (Banfield 2004) . Despite reports from the Richmond mine at Iron Mountain Mine, where water records the lowest pH in the world at negative 3.6 (Nordstrom, Alpers et al. 1999) , the EPA in its 2004 Record of Decision declared offsite water quality to be no danger to the human population (EPA 2004), but provided no quantitative data to support this decision. The impact on the environment of Iron Mountain Mine is most clearly seen in the aquatic life and vegetation in and around the site and continues to affect the area leading to the Sacramento River . One group of salmon is listed as an endangered species because of the movement of contaminated sediments from the Iron Mountain Mine site (Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council 2002) .
It is recommended, based on data collected for this assessment, that no additional funding be given for the remediation of Iron Mountain Mine. If remediation efforts until 2004 continue and remediation recommended in 2004 is implemented, there should be no reason for further funds to be provided. As of 2004, there were no outstanding dangers to the humans around Iron Mountain Mine, and while the environment and aquatic life are important, they are secondary to the human health concerns at mine sites elsewhere in the United States .
Katie Walraven
kwalrave@vt.edu
References
Banfield, J. (2004). "Microbial community structure and function: a genomically-enabled case study in an acid mine drainage system." Sulfide Mineral Weathering and Acid Mine Drainage Research .
EPA (2004). EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Iron Mountain Mine : 130.
Hannula, S. R., K. J. Esposito, J. A. Chermak, D. D. Runnells, D. C. Keith and L. E. Hall (2003). "Estimating ground water discharge by hydrographs separation." Ground Water 41 (3): pp. 368-375.
Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council (2002). Final Restoration Plan for Natural Resource Injuries From Iron Mountain Mine, NOAA.
Keith, D. C., D. D. Runnells, K. J. Esposito, J. A. Chermak, D. B. Lew, S. R. Hannula, M. Watts and L. E. Hall (2001). "Geochemical models of the impact of acidic groundwater and evaporative sulfate salts on Boulder Creek and Iron Mountain, California” Applied Geochemistry 16 (7-8): pp. 947-961.
Merchant, M. (2004) "U.S. EPA, California and Shasta County officials celebrate the completion of the Slickrock Creek Retention Reservoir." Region 9: News Releases Volume , DOI:
NOAA. (1989). "Iron Mountain Mine Redding, California Region 9." from http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/170_IronMtn.pdf.
NOAA Central Library. (2002). "Damage Assessment Restoration Program (DARP) Iron Mountain Mine - General Images." NOAA Photo Library .
Nordstrom, D. K. and C. N. Alpers (1998). Negative pH, efflorescent mineralogy, and consequence for environmental restoration at the Iron Mountain Superfund site, California . National Academy of Sciences colloquium "Geology, Mineralogy, and Human Welfare", Irvine, California, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Nordstrom, D. K., C. N. Alpers, C. J. Ptacek and D. W. Blowes (1999). "Negative pH and extremely acidic mine waters from Iron Mountain, California." Environ. Sci. Technol 34 (2): 254-258.
Sugarek, R. (2005). Iron Mountain Mine, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
USGS. (2005). "Remediating some of the world's most acidic waters at the Iron Mountain Superfund site - a tough challenge for scientists." Toxic Substances Hydrology Program , from http://toxics.usgs.gov/topics/rem_act/iron_mountain.html.
Iron Mountain Mine
Redding , California
Region 9
CAD980498612
Site Exposure Potential
Iron Mountain Mine is 14.5 km northwest of Redding , California in the foothills of the
Trinity Mountains , in the northwest Sacramento Valley (Figure 1). Iron Mountain Mine is
the southernmost mine in the West Shasta Mining District, an area of silver, gold, copper,
zinc, and iron pyrite mines. Open pit and subterranean mining activities were performed at
Iron Mountain Mine from the late 1800s to 1963. Acid mine drainage is produced at the
site as water passes through the sulfide ores and discharges through mine portals and
seeps. Secondary sources of acid mine drainage result from runoff through and over waste
rock piles, tailings piles, and other surface areas. In addition to acid, mine drainage at Iron
Mountain contains high concentrations of copper, zinc, and cadmium (CDM 1987).
NOAA Trust Habitats and Species in Site Vicinity
The closest aquatic habitat supporting NOAA trust resources is the Sacramento River below
the Keswick Dam. Below the dam, the river ranges from 120 to 180 meters wide and
averages three meters deep. The substrate consists of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The
water quality of the Sacramento River below the dam is generally good (Helley 1989).
Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and their habitats are the NOAA trust resources
potentially impacted by the Iron Mountain site. Four races of chinook salmon use the
Sacramento River and its tributaries: the fall, late fall, winter, and spring runs. Each run
is a genetically distinct stock that migrates into the river and reproduces within specific
time periods and locations. Salmon at various life stages are found in the river during
every month of the year. The spawning population of chinook salmon in the Sacramento
River has declined steadily since the 1950s: the population was estimated to be 408,000
fish in 1953, while only 27,000 were estimated to be present in 1983. Numerous fish
kills associated with drainage from Iron Mountain Mine have been documented on the
Sacramento River (EPA 1986b). In 1969, the most recent fish kill, an estimated 200,000
adult salmon were killed (CDM 1987).
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
is currently reviewing the status of Sacramento River winter-run chinook to determine
whether listing it as a threatened species is warranted (CDM 1987). Recreational fishery
of winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River below the Keswick Dam is closed
to protect the species (Helley 1989).
Restoration of anadromous fish runs above the Keswick Dam has been considered, but
was abandoned due to contamination from the Iron Mountain Mine (Helley 1989).
Response Category: Superfund Lead
Current Stage of Site Action: RI/FS activities are continuing at the site. A Record of
Decision for interim Remedial Action was signed October 3, 1986; a cap at the site is being
implemented and creek diversion is currently under design.
EPA Site Manager
Rick Sugarek 415-974-8230
NOAA Coastal Resource Coordinator
Chip Demarest 415-974-8509
References
CDM. 1987. Draft Final Report Iron Mountain Mine Endangerment Assessment.
December 4, 1987. San Francisco : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
EPA. 1986a. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington , D.C. : Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. EPA 440/5-86-001.
EPA. 1986b. Record of Decision - Iron Mountain Mine, Redding , CA. San Francisco :
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
Helley, T., fishery biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Napa , California ,
personal communication, January 13, 1989.
Under Executive Order 13148, revised April 26, 2000 (65 FR 24599), all Federal facilities are required to comply with the provisions set forth in section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA. Federal facilities are required to comply with those provisions without regard to SIC or NAICS delineations.
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
Category
Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry ........................................ Federal Government ...................
SIC major group codes 10 (except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 (except 1241), or 20 through 39; industry codes 4911, 4931, or 4939 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce); or 4953 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et. seq. ), or 5169, or 5171, or 7389 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis). Federal facilities.
.
This table is not intended to be entities not listed in the table could also applicability criteria in part 372, subpart exhaustive, but rather provides a guide be affected. To determine whether your B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal for readers regarding entities likely to be facility is affected by this action, you Regulations. If you have any questions affected by this action. Other types of should carefully examine the regarding the applicability of this action
INTERAGENCY SUSPENSION & DEBARMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
.
[Official agency representatives to the Committee*]
.
AGENCY NAME/[EMAIL ADD.] PHONE ___ FAX_______
AMTRAK Hamilton Peterson(OIG) [202]906-4345 [301]229-1022
Petersh@AMTRAK.com
.
[AUSA] Alain Leibman [973]645-2793 [973]645-3497
Agriculture Peter Laub* [202]720-1554 [202]690-3561
Plaub@cfo.usda.gov
Tyson Whitney [202]720-8978 [202]690-3561
twhitney@cfo.usda.gov
Air Force Steve Shaw* [703]588-0057 [703]588-1045
Steven.shaw@pentagon.af.mil
Richard Pelletier [703]588-0049 [703]588-1045
Richard.Pelletier@pentagon.af.mil
Army Chris McCommas* [703]696-1542 [703]696-1559
Christine.McCommas@hqda.army.mil
Robert Kittel [703]696-1640 [703]696-2960
robert.kittel@us.army.mil
Broadcasting Paul Wengert [202]260-4404 [202]260-4394
Board of pwengert@ibb.gov
Governors
Centers for Sue Hensley [ 410]786-7491 [410]786-6371
Medicare and Shensley@cms.hhs.gov
Medicaid Lisa Eggleston [410]786-6130 [410]786-9188
Services Leggleston@cms.hhs.gov
Commerce Chris Makris * [202]482-3803 [202]482-1711
CMakris@doc.gov
Eric Moll [202]482-1073 [202]501-8005
Emoll1@doc.gov
Diane Canzano [202]482-1122 [202]482-5858
Dcanzano@doc.gov
.
Corp. for Nat. Suzanne Dupre * [202]606-5000 [202]565-2796
& Comm. Service sdupredc@cns.gov Ext. 396
.
Defense Mark Herbst * [703]696-0372 [703]696-0569
Mark.herbst@osd.mil
Barbara McBride [703]614-6837 [703]693-6367
Mcbrideb@osdgc.osd.mil
Philip Degen [703]697-8334 [703]614-1254
Philip.Degen@osd.mil
Defense ContractRichard Finnegan * [703]428-1819 [703]428-1364
Mgt. Agency richard.finnegan@dcma.mil
Paula Loviner [703]428-1820 [703]428-1364
paula.loviner@dcma.mil
.
Defense Logis- Susan Chadick* [703]767-6069 [703]767-6091
tics Agency susan.chadick@dla.mil
Normand V. Lussier [703]767-5032 [703]767-6091
normand.lussier@dla.mil
Chris Poston [703]767-5001 [703]767-5022
Christine.Poston@dla.mil
Education Ronelle Holloman [202]205-3501 [202]205-0667 Ronelle.holloman@ed.gov
Jose Otero [202]401-0342 [202]401-9528
Jose.Otero@ed.gov
Peter Wathen-Dunn * [202]401-6697 [202]401-5391
Peter.Wathen-Dunn@ed.gov or 9533
Energy Cindy Yee * [202]586-1140 [202]586-3175
CYNTHIA.YEE@pr.doe.gov
.
EPA Bob Meunier * [202]564-5399 [202]565-2471
meunier.robert@epa.gov
David Sims [202]564-5393 [202]565-2471
sims.david@epa.gov
Sharon Mitchell [202]564-5288 [202]565-2471
mitchell.sharon@epa.gov
Mary Willis Clarke [202]564-5388 [202]565-2472
Clarke.mary@epa.gov
Steve Silzer [202]564-5389 [202]565-2472
Silzer.Stefan@epa.gov
Suzanne Hersh [202]564-5374 [202]565-2471
hersh.suzanne@epa.gov
.
Export-Import Matthew Lapin* [202]565-3431 [202]565-3462
Bank of the USA matthew.lapin@exim.gov
FAA Maureen Cummings-Spickler [202]267-3181 [202]267-5261
Maureen.Cummings-Spickler@faa.gov
Fed. Deposit Steve Hanas [202]736-0729 [202]736-0420
Ins. Corp. shanas@fdic.gov
Martin Blumenthal [202]736-0539 [202]736-0420
mblumenthal@fdic.gov
Peter Somerville [202]736-0110 [202]736-0420
psomerville@fdic.gov
GSA Joseph Neurauter* [202]501-1045 [202]501-1986
joseph.neurauter@gsa.gov
Don Suda [202]501-4770 [202]501-3341
donald.suda@gsa.gov
Raywood Holmes [202]219-4301 [202]501-3341
Raywood.Holmes@gsa.gov
Amanda Wood [202]501-1762 [202]501-1944
amanda.wood@gsa.gov
Mike Ettner [202]501-0727 [202]501-0583
mike.ettner@gsa.gov
Priscilla Owens [202]501-4740 [202]219-3266
priscilla.owens@gsa.gov
Health and Diane Osterhus* [202]690-5729 [202]690-6902
Human Services diane.osterhus@hhs.gov
Nancy Weisman [202]260-4573 [202]690-8772
nancy.weisman@hhs.gov
William J. Hughes [410]786-9609 [410]786-9606
bhughes@oig.hhs.gov
.
Homeland Ed Broyles [202]646-3961 [202]646-4536
Security edward.broyles@dhs.gov
Elaine Eder [202]267-0125 [202]267-4581
eeder@comdt.uscg.mil
Rich Freethey [202]267-1146 [202]267-4011
rfreethey@comdt.uscg.mil
Kathy Strouss [202]772-9955
kathy.strouss@dhs.gov
Richard Sites [202]267-6478 [202]267-4011
Rsites@comdt.uscg.mil
Keith Moore-Erickson [202]267-0100 [202]267-4581
Kmoore-Erickson@comdt.uscg.mil
HUD Dane M. Narode* [202]708-2350 [202]401-5153
Dane_M._Narode@hud.gov
Travis J. Farris [202]708-2350 [202]401-5153
Travis_J._Farris@HUD.gov ext.3545
.
IMLS Nancy Weiss * [202]606-5414 [202]606-1077
Nweiss@imls.gov
Interior Dee Emmerich [202]208-3348 [202]219-4244
Delia_emmerich@ios.doi.gov demmer8@aol.com
Justice Larry Hailes [202]514-7925 [202]305-2465 hailes@ojp.usdoj.gov
Robert Balzer * [202]307-3577 [202]514-9028
Balzer@ojp.usdoj.gov
Barbara Corprew [202]616-0440 [202]514-0152
Barbara.corprew@usdoj.gov
Robert Watkins [202]514-3447 [202]616-0314
watkinsR@ojp.usdoj.gov
Christine Rodriguez [301]809-4903 [301]860-1837
Crodriguez@nsi3.com
Linda Fallowfield [202]305-2534 [202]307-1419
FALLOWFI@OJP.USDOJ.GOV
.
Labor Jeff Saylor [202]693-7282 [202]693-7290
Saylor-jeffrey@dol.gov
Ruurd Segaar [202]639-5728 [202]693-5732
Segaar-Ruurd@dol.gov
Joe Woodward [202]693-5485 [202]693-5466
woodward.joseph@dol.gov
Eric Ehrenberg [202]693-5293
ehrenberg.eric@dol.gov
Jonathan Snare [202]693-5260
snare.jonathan@dol.gov
Robert Varnell
varnell-robert@dol.gov
.
OMB Beth Phillips [202]395-3053 [202]395-3952
ephillip@omb.eop.gov
Gil Tran [202]395-3052 [202]395-4915
Hai_m._tran@omb.eop.gov
Tawana Webb [202]395-7586 [202]395-3952
Twebb@omb.eop.gov
NASA Jim Balinskas * [202]358-0445
jbalinsk@hq.nasa.gov
Rita Svarcas [202]358-0604 [202]358-3220
rsvarcas@mail.hq.nasa.gov
.
NEA Karen Elias [202]682-5746 [202]682-5572
eliask@arts.gov
.
NEH Heather Gottry [202]606-8300 [202]606-8600
Hgottry@neh.gov
.
NLRB Frank Battle [202]273-3884 [202]273-2928
Frank.Battle@nlrb.gov
Nat. Science Anita Eisenstadt * [703]292-8060 [703]292-9041
Foundation AEisenstadt@nsf.gov
Navy Willard D. Blalock * [202]685-7000 [202]685-6957
Willard.Blalock@Navy.Mil
John J. Blanchard [202]685-7000 [202]685-6957
John.Blanchard@Navy.mil
Overseas Private Eli Landy * [202]336-8418 [202]408-0297
Investment Corp Eland@opic.gov
.
OPM David Cope* [202]606-2851 [202]606-2153
Jdcope@opm.gov
Juan Smith [202]606-1743 [202]606-2153
JLSmith@opm.gov
.
Small Business Kevin Harber * [202]619-1602
Administration kevin.harber@sba.gov
Sec. & Exchange Hope H. Augustini [202]942-0904 [202]942-9625
Commission AugustiniH@sec.gov
George Brown [202]942-0828 [202]942-9625
browng@sec.gov
.
Social Security Phyllis Y. Smith [410]965-9518 [410]966-9310
Administration Phyllis.y.smith@ssa.gov
State Susan Catington* [703]516-1693 [703]875-6155
catingtonsm@state.gov
Treasury Angelie Jackson* [202]622-0245 [202]622-2273
Angelie.Jackson@do.treas.gov
James Angel
James.Angel@do.treas.gov
Transportation Wilbert Baccus [202]366-0780 [202]366-7499
Wil.baccus@fhwa.dot.gov
Julie Trunk [202]366-4639 [202]366-3988
Julie.Trunk@fhwa.dot.gov
Ladd Hakes* [202-366-4268 [202]366-7510
ladd.hakes@ost.dot.gov
Michael Harkins [202]366-4928 [202]366-7499
Michael.Harkins@fhwa.dot.gov
Jerry Yakowenko [202]366-1562 [202]366-3988
Gerald.Yakowenko@fhwa.dot.gov
Nilza Velazquez [202]366-9161 [202]366-9170
Nilza.velazquez@ost.dot.gov
Jim LaRusch [202]366-1936 [202]366-3809
James.LaRusch@fta.dot.gov
Joe Pixley [202]366-1936 [202]366-3809
Joseph.Pixley@fta.dot.gov
Veterans Affair s Anne DeSena [202]273-7375 [202]275-3523
lgyadese@vba.va.gov
Don Kaliher * [202]273-8819 [202]273-9302
donald.kaliher@mail.va.gov
Sheila Wilkes [202]273-8830 [202]273-6175
sheila.wilkes@mail.va.gov
Scott Curit [202]273-8825 [202]273-6175
Scott.Curit@mail.va.gov
Len Malamud [202]273-9233 [202]273-9384
leonard.malamud@mail.va.gov
Frank Trotta [202]273-6245 [202]273-6175
frank.trotta@mail.va.gov
.
.
.
.
Brief History of EPA's Debarment Program
EPA's Debarment Program officially began in 1982 in response to Congressional oversight hearings that revealed Government-wide inadequacies in the management of Federal contracts and assistance with regard to waste, fraud, abuse and poor performance. On the basis of those hearings, and subsequent task force studies conducted by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), the Office of Management and Budget developed a comprehensive Government-wide debarment and suspension system for all Federal contracts, assistance, loans and benefits extended by Executive-Branch agencies.
EPA, as an Executive Branch agency, is part of that Government-wide system. In addition to its discretionary authority to debar pursuant the above, it also has mandatory debarment authority under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act.
As a result of the historical development of the Agency, these various debarment authorities were, in 1982, located in three locations. The statutory debarment was initially administered by various offices, but eventually was delegated to the Office of Enforcement (OE). Procurement debarment was administered by the then, Procurement and Contracts Management Division, while assistance debarment was administered by the Grants Administration Division.
In 1982, the Office of Administration and Resource Management (OARM) consolidated all EPA discretionary procurement and assistance debarment authority into the Grants Administration Division. In the early 1990s, the Agency further consolidated its debarment authority when OARM assumed the responsibilities for statutory debarment from OE. Today, all EPA discretionary and statutory debarment authority is delegated to the Assistant Administrator for OARM and carried out by the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD).
The EPA Debarring Official is the Agency's national program manager. As such the EPA Debarring Official establishes the Agency's debarment policy, and is the decision official for all suspension and debarment actions before the Agency.
The Suspension and Debarment Division (SDD) interacts with EPA program offices, the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, and with Federal, state and local agencies, to develop matters for consideration by the EPA Debarring Official.
2010-0021996 Shasta County Court
http://www.calattorneysfees.com/cases_private_attorney_general_ccp_10215/
.
Regulation Of Surface Water Discharges From Abandoned Mines
(Water Board "abandoned mine final")
Iron Mountain Mine
An example of an extreme application of treatment technology failing to meet
prescribed numeric effluent limits, is the large Iron Mountain Mine complex (IMM)
northwest of Redding. Prior to remedial activities, the mine discharged
approximately 650 pounds of copper and 1,800 pounds of zinc daily into the
Sacramento River. The site was placed on the National Priorities List and
remedial activities implemented by the U.S. EPA under the Federal Superfund
program. Remedial activities have included surface water diversions, waste rock
disposal, and treatment of the AMD. The treatment facility constructed by U.S.
EPA uses lime neutralization to precipitate copper, cadmium, and zinc from
solution and is considered to be the Best Available Technology. Over 200 million
dollars has been spent on the site with an additional 700 million available for
future operations of the AMD conveyance and treatment system. The treatment
plant cost over 30 million to build and O&M costs range between 5 and 7 million
dollars per year depending on precipitation which affects the generation of AMD.
The treatment system is designed to treat a maximum of 8,000 gpm during
extreme storm periods. Unless some other technology is developed in the future,
treatment will be required for an estimated 2,000 years. Overall discharges of
metals (copper, zinc and cadmium) to the Sacramento River have been reduced
by 95 percent. Despite these enormous efforts, the effluent from the treatment
plant cannot meet water quality objectives for cadmium and zinc, or objectives for
sulfates, aluminum, iron and other metals. Further, the streams adjacent or
immediately downstream from IMM, including lower Spring Creek and Bolder
Creek, will never support a typical aquatic community due to the contribution of
non-point sources that cannot be controlled. Any aquatic organisms that do live
in these watercourses are limited to algae and invertebrates that are adapted to a
low pH and high metal environment. Fish will never exist in these streams.Owners of Abandoned Mines Are Not Being Treated Equally
The SIP and the requirement for numeric effluent limits does not allow for a level
playing field for all owners of abandoned mines. Similar to the U.S EPA when
dealing with Superfund sites like IMM, Federal Land Agencies (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) claim they can also remediate their sites
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Under CERCLA, Superfund sites are not required to get an
NPDES permit or any other permit from the Regional Water Board. In place,
they can request the State provide them with applicable, relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). While the SIP and the Basin Plan are considered
ARARs, if the U.S. EPA under Superfund, believes it is not practical to achieve,
they can waive the ARAR on an interim basis, a relatively easy process. A
permanent waiver can also be sought. Even where the ARAR is waived, the
cleanup can incorporate the BMP approach described above.
Federal landowners claim the same exemption applies to all federal facilities in
all cases, whether or not the sites are on the NPL (Superfund list) and whether or
not any remediation is undergoing or actually planned.2 Thus, many years may
pass before a Federal Agency will even begin to address a site. Enforcement
against a Federal Agency for failing to initiate or complete remedial activities at a
site under these conditions is resource-intensive, legally complex and time
consuming.
In contrast, a private owner of an abandoned mine discharging AMD to surface
waters may be held to the strict standards of the SIP, including impossible to
meet time schedules and numeric effluent limits. If a numeric effluent limit is
exceeded, then MMPs are required, rapidly draining the financial resources of
the private owner attempting to comply with what may be an impossible task.
PRIVY COUNCIL
In re PIRACY JURE GENTIUM.
SPECIAL REFERENCE.
Also reported as: [1934] A.C. 586
COUNSEL: Sir Thomas Inskip A.-G. (with him Wilfrid Lewis) appeared in support of the view that actual robbery was not an essential element. Sir Leslie Scott K.C. (with him Kenelm Preedy), representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies
SOLICITOR: Treasury Solicitor.
JUDGES: Viscount Sankey L.C., Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, Lord Macmillan, and Lord Wright.
DATES: 1934. July 2, 3, 5, 26.
International Law – Piracy jure gentium – Actual Robbery not an essential element.
Actual robbery is not an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium. A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.
SPECIAL REFERENCE.
An Order in Council, made under s. 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, and dated November 10, 1933, provided: “The question whether actual robbery is an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium, or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium, is referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.”
The circumstances in which the Order was made appear from the report of their Lordships.
1934. July 2, 3, 5. Sir Thomas Inskip A.-G. (with him Wilfrid Lewis) appeared in support of the view that actual robbery was not an essential element. [*587]
Sir Leslie Scott K.C. (with him Kenelm Preedy), representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, contended to the contrary.
In addition to cases mentioned in the report of their Lordships, counsel referred to R. v. Bonnet (1); Reg. v. McGregor (2); In re Tivnan (3); Att.-Gen. for Hong Kong v. Kwok-a-Sing (4); Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co., Ld. (5); and, as to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Admiral, to Reg. v. Keyn (6); also to Oppenheim's International Law, 4th ed, vol. i., p. 506, and O. E. D. s.v. “Pirate.”
Lord Macmillan referred to Dole v. New England Mutual Insurance Co. (7); and, as to the relation between international law and municipal law, to Mortensen v. Peters (8) (per Lord Dunedin), on which question counsel referred to The Zamora .(9)
July 26. The report of their Lordships was delivered by
VISCOUNT SANKEY L.C. On January 4, 1931, on the high seas, a number of armed Chinese nationals were cruising in two Chinese junks. They pursued and attacked a cargo junk which was also a Chinese vessel. The master of the cargo junk attempted to escape, and a chase ensued during which the pursuers came within 200 yards of the cargo junk. The chase continued for over half an hour, during which shots were fired by the attacking party, and while it was still proceeding, the steamship Hang Sang approached and subsequently also the steamship Shui Chow. The officers in command of these merchant vessels intervened and through their agency, the pursuers were eventually taken in charge by the Commander of H. M. S. Somme, which had arrived in consequence of a report made by wireless. They were brought as prisoners to Hong Kong and indicted for the crime of piracy. The jury found them guilty subject to the following
(1) (1718) 15 St. Tri. col. 1231, 1234.
(2) (1844) 1 C. & K. 429.
(3) (1864) 5 B. & S. 645, 687.
(4) (1873) L. R. 5 P. C. 179.
(5) [1909] 1 K. B. 785, 796, 802.
(6) (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63.
(7) (1864) 2 Cliff. 394, 417, 418.
(8) (1906) 8 F. (J.) 93, 101.
(9) [1916] 2 A. C. 77, 91, 92. [*588]
question of law: “Whether an accused person may be convicted of piracy in circumstances where no robbery has occurred.” The Full Court of Hong Kong on further consideration came to the conclusion that robbery was necessary be support a conviction of piracy and in the result the accused were acquitted.
The decision of the Hong Kong Court was final and the present proceedings are in no sense an appeal from that Court, whose judgment stands.
Upon November 10, 1933, His Majesty in Council made the following Order: “The question whether actual robbery is an essential element of the crime of piracy jure gentium, or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium, is referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.”
It is to this question that their Lordships have applied themselves, and they think it will be convenient to give their answer at once and then to make some further observations upon the matter.
The answer is as follows: “Actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium. A frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.”
In considering such a question, the Board is permitted to consult and act upon a wider range of authority than that which it examines when the question for determination is one of municipal law only. The sources from which international law is derived include treaties between various States, State papers, municipal Acts of Parliament and the decisions of municipal Courts and last, but not least, opinions of jurisconsults or text-book writers. It is a process of inductive reasoning. It must be remembered that in the strict sense international law still has no legislature, no executive and no judiciary, though in a certain sense there is now an international judiciary in the Hague Tribunal and attempts are being made by the League of Nations to draw up codes of international law. Speaking generally, in embarking upon international law, their Lordships are to a great extent [*589] in the realm of opinion, and in estimating the value of opinion it is permissible not only to seek a consensus of views, but to select what appear to be the better views upon the question.
With regard to crimes as defined by international law, that law has no means of trying or punishing them. The recognition of them as constituting crimes, and the trial and punishment of the criminals, are left to the municipal law of each country. But whereas according to international law the criminal jurisdiction of municipal law is ordinarily restricted to crimes committed on its terra firma or territorial waters or its own ships, and to crimes by its own nationals wherever committed, it is also recognized as extending to piracy committed on the high seas by any national on any ship, because a person guilty of such piracy has placed himself beyond the protection of any State. He is no longer a national, but “hostis humani generis” and as such he is justiciable by any State anywhere: Grotius (1583-1645) “De Jure Belli ac Pacis,” vol. 2, cap. 20, § 40.
Their Lordships have been referred to a very large number of Acts of Parliament, decided cases and opinions of jurisconsults or text-book writers, some of which lend colour to the contention that robbery is a necessary ingredient of piracy, others to the opposite contention. Their Lordships do not propose to comment on an of them, but it will be convenient to begin the present discussion by referring to the Act of Henry VIII., cap. 15, in the year 1536, which was entitled “An Act for the punishment of pirates and robbers of the sea.” Before that Act, the jurisdiction over pirates was exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England and that Court administered the civil law. The civilians, however, had found themselves handicapped by some of their canons of procedure, as for example, that a man could not be found guilty unless he either confessed or was proved guilty by two witnesses. The Act recites the deficiency of the Admiralty jurisdiction in the trial of offences according to the civil law and after referring to “all treasons, felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies hereafter to be committed in or [*590] upon the sea, etc.” (it is not necessary to set out the whole of it), proceeds to enact that all offences committed at sea, etc., shall be tried according to the common law under the King's Commission, to be directed to the Admiralty and others within the realm.
Many of the doubts and difficulties inherent in considering subsequent definitions of piracy are probably due to a misapprehension of that Act. It has been thought, for example, that nothing could be piracy unless it amounted to a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour, and that, as an attempt to commit a crime was only a disdemeanour at common law, an attempt to commit piracy could not constitute the crime of piracy, because piracy is a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanour. This mistaken idea proceeds upon a misapprehension of the Act. In Coke's (1552-1634) Institutes, part 3, ed. 1809, after a discussion on felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies committed in or upon the sea, it is stated (p. 112) that the statute did not alter the offence of piracy or make the offence felony, but “leaveth the offence as it was before this Act, viz., felony only by the civil law, but giveth a mean of triall by the common law and inflicteth such pains of death as if they had been attainted of any felony etc. done upon the land. But yet the offence is not altered, for in the indictment upon this statute, the offence must be alleged upon the sea; so as this act inflicteth punishment for that which is a felony by the civill law, and no felony whereof the common law taketh knowledge.”
The conception of piracy according to the civil law is expounded by Molloy (1646-1690) “De Jure Maritimo et Navali” or “A Treatise of affairs Maritime and of Commerce.” That book was first published in 1676 and the ninth edition in 1769. Chapter 4 is headed “Of Piracy.” The author defines a pirate as “a sea thief or hostis humani generis who to enrich himself either by surprize or open face sets upon merchants or other traders by sea.” He clearly does not regard piracy as necessarily involving successful robbery or as being inconsistent with an unsuccessful attempt. Thus in para. xiii. he says: “So likewise if a ship shall be assaulted [*591] by pirates and in the attempt the pirates shall be overcome if the captors bring them to the next port and the judge openly rejects the trial, or the captain cannot wait for the judge without certain peril and loss, justice may be done on them by the law of nature, and the same may be there executed by the captors.” Again in para. 14 he puts the case where “a pirate at sea assaults a ship but by force is prevented from entering her” and goes on to distinguish the rule as to accessories at the common law and by the law marine. A somewhat similar definition of a pirate is given by the almost contemporary Italian jurist, Casaregis, who wrote in 1670, and says (“De Commercio,” LXIV 4): “Proprie pirata ille dicitur qui sine patentibus alicujus principis ex propria tantum, ac privata auctoritate per mare discurrit depraedandi causa.” But in certain trials for piracy held in England under the Act of Henry VIII., a narrower definition of piracy seems to have been adopted.
Thus in 1696, the trial R. v. Joseph Dawson (1) took place. The prisoners were indicted for “feloniously and piratically taking and carrying away from persons unknown a certain ship called the Gunsway …. upon the high seas ten leagues from the Cape St. Johns near Surat in the East Indies.” The Court was comprised of Sir Charles Hedges, then judge in the High Court of Admiralty, Lord Chief Justice Holt, Lord Chief Justice Treby, Lord Chief Baron Ward and a number of other judges. Sir Charles Hedges gave the charge to the grand jury. In it he said “now piracy is only a sea-term for robbery, piracy being a robbery committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. If any man be assaulted within that jurisdiction, and his ship or goods violently taken away without legal authority, this is robbery and piracy.”
Dawson's case was described as the sheet-anchor for those who contend that robbery is an ingredient of piracy. It must be remembered, however, that every case must be read secundum subjectam materiam and must be held to refer to the facts under dispute. In Dawson's case, the prisoners had undoubtedly committed robbery in their piratical expeditions. The only function of the Chief Judge was to
(1) (1696) 13 St. Tr. col. 451. [*592]
charge the grand jury and in fact to say to them: “Gentlemen, if you find the prisoners have done these things, then you ought to return a true bill against them.” The same criticism applies to certain charges given to grand juries by Sir Leoline Jenkins (1623-1685) judge of the Admiralty Court (1685): see “Life of Leoline Jenkins,” vol. 1, p. 94. It cannot be suggested that these learned judges were purporting to give an exhaustive definition of piracy, and a moment's reflection will show that a definition of piracy as sea robbery is both too narrow and too wide. Take one example only. Assume a modern liner with its crew and passengers, say of several thousand aboard, under its national flag, and suppose one passenger robbed another. It would be impossible to contend that such a robbery on the high seas was piracy and that the passenger in question had committed an act of piracy when he robbed his fellow passenger, and was therefore liable to the penalty of death. “That is too wide a definition which would embrace all acts of plunder and violence in degree sufficient to constitute piracy simply because done on the high seas. As every crime can be committed at sea, piracy might thus be extended to the whole criminal code. If an act of robbery or murder were committed upon one of the passengers or crew by another in a vessel at sea, the vessel being at the time and continuing under lawful authority and the offender were secured and confined by the master of the vessel to be taken home for trial, this state of things would not authorise seizure and trial by any nation that chose to interfere or within whose limits the offender might afterwards be found”: Dana's Wheaton, p. 193, note 83, quoted in Moore's Digest of International Law (Washington, 1906) Article “Piracy,” p. 953.
But over and above that we are not now in the year 1696, we are now in the year 1934. International law was not crystallized in the 17th century, but is a living and expanding code. In his treatise on international law, the English text-book writer Hall (1835-94) says at p. 25 of his preface to the third edition (1889)(1): “Looking back over the last couple of
(1) Reprinted in 8th ed. 1924. [*593]
centuries we see international law at the close of each fifty years in a more solid position than that which it occupied at the beginning of the period. Progressively it has taken firmer hold, it has extended its sphere of operation, it has ceased to trouble itself about trivial formalities, it has more and more dared to grapple in detail with the fundamental facts in the relations of States. The area within which it reigns beyond dispute has in that time been infinitely enlarged, and it has been greatly enlarged within the memory of living man.” Again another example may be given. A body of international law is growing up with regard to aerial warfare and aerial transport, of which Sir Charles Hedges in 1696 could have had no possible idea.
A definition of piracy which appears to limit the term to robbery on the high seas was put forward by that eminent authority Hale (1609-76), in his “Pleas of the Crown” ed. 1737, cap. 27, p. 305, where he states, “it is out of the question that piracy by the statute is robbery.” It is not surprising that subsequent definitions proceed on these lines.
Hawkins (1673-1746) “Pleas of the Crown” (1716), 7th ed., 1795, vol. 1, defines a pirate rather differently, at p. 267(1), “a pirate is one who, to enrich himself, either by surprise or open force, sets upon merchants or others trading by sea, to spoil them of their goods or treasure.” This does not necessarily import robbing.
Blackstone (1726-80), book IV., p. 71, states, “the offence of piracy, by common law, consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.”
East's “Pleas of the Crown” (1803), vol. 2, p. 796, defines the offence of piracy by common law as “committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.” This definition would exclude an attempt at piracy, because an attempt to commit a crime is, with certain exceptions, not a felony but a misdemeanour.
Their Lordships were also referred to Scottish text-book
(1) 8th ed. 1824, p. 251. [*594]
writers, including Hume (1757-1838) “Scottish Criminal Law” (1797), and Alison (1792-1867) “Scottish Criminal Law” (1832), where similar definitions are to be found. It is sufficient to say with regard to these English and Scottish writers that, as was to be expected, they followed in some cases almost verbatim the early concept, and the criticism upon them is: (1.) that it is obvious that their definitions were not exhaustive; (2.) that it is equally obvious that there appears to be from time to time a widening of the definition so as to include facts previously not foreseen; (3.) that they may have overlooked the explanation of the statute of Henry VIII. as given by Coke and quoted above, and have thought of piracy as felony according to common law whereas it was felony by civil law.
In “Archbold's Criminal Pleading” (28th ed., 1931) will be found a full conspectus of the various statutes on piracy which have been from time to time passed in this country defining the offence in various ways and creating new forms of offence as coming within the general term piracy. These, however, are immaterial for the purpose of the case, because it must always be remembered that the matter under present discussion is not what is piracy under any municipal Act of any particular country, but what is piracy jure gentium. When it is sought to be contended, as it was in this case, that armed men sailing the seas on board a vessel, without any commission from any State, could attack and kill everybody on board another vessel, sailing under a national flag, without committing the crime of piracy unless they stole, say, an article worth sixpence, their Lordships are almost tempted to say that a little common sense is a valuable quality in the interpretation of international law. This appears to be recognized in the “Digest of the Criminal Law,” by the distinguished writer, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94), 7th ed., 1926, p. 102. At the end of the article on piracy it is stated that “it is doubtful whether persons cruising in armed vessels with intent to commit piracies, are pirates or not,” but in a significant footnote, it is added that “the doubt expressed at the end of the article is founded on the [*595] absence of any expressed authority for the affirmative of the proposition and on the absurdity of the negative.”
The Oxford English Dictionary (1909) defines a pirate as “one who robs and plunders on the sea, navigable rivers, etc., or cruises about for that purpose.”
It may now be convenient to turn to American authorities, and first of all Kent (1826). In his Commentaries, I. 183, he calls piracy “robbery, or a forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.”
Wheaton writing in 1836, Elements Pt. II., cap. 2, para. 15, defines piracy as being the offence of “depredating on the seas, without being authorized by any foreign State, or With commissions from different sovereigns at war with each other.” This enshrines a concept which had prevailed from earliest, times that one of the main ingredients of piracy is an act performed by a person sailing the high seas without the authority or commission of any State. This has been frequently applied in cases where insurgents had taken possession of a vessel belonging to their own country and the question arose what authority they had behind them. See the American case The Ambrose Light .(1) Another instance is the case of the Huascar. In 1877, a revolutionary outbreak occurred at Callao in Peru and the ironclad Huascar, which had been seized by the insurgents, put to sea, stopped British steamers, took a supply of coal from one of them without payment and forcibly took two Peruvian officials from on board another where they were passengers. The British Admiral justly considered the Huascar was a pirate, and attacked her. See Parl. Papers, Peru, No. 1, 1877.
In Moore's “Digest of International Law” (1906), vol. 2, p. 953, a pirate is defined as “one who, without legal authority from any State, attacks a ship with intention to appropriate what belongs to it. The pirate is a sea brigand. He has no right to any flag and is justiciable by all.”
Time fails to deal with all the references to the works of
(1) (1885) 25 Fed. Rep. 408, 435. [*596]
foreign jurists to which their Lordships' attention was directed. It will be sufficient to select a few examples.
Ortolan (1802-1873), a French jurist, and professor at the University of Paris, says (Dip. de la Mer, book 2, ch. 11) “Les pirates sont ceux, qui courrent les mers de leur propre autorité, pour y commettre des actes de déprédation pillant à main armée les navires de toutes les nations.”
Bluntschli (1808-81), a Swiss jurist and a professor at Munich and Heidelberg, published, in 1868, “Le Droit International Codifié,” which, in art. 343, lays down: “Sont considérés comme pirates les navires qui, sans l'autorisation d'une puissance belligérante, cherchent à s'emparer des personnes, à faire du butin (navires et marchandises), ou à anéantir dans un but criminel les biens d'autrui.”
Calvo (1824-1906), an Argentine jurist and Argentine Minister at Berlin, Le Droit International, 3rd ed., vol. 2, p. 285, para. 1134, defines piracy: “Tout vol ou pillage d'un navire ami, toute déprédation, tout acte de violence commis à main armée en pleine mer contre la personne ou les biens d'un étranger, soit en temps de paix, soit en temps de guerre.”
An American case strongly relied upon by those who contend that robbery is an essential ingredient of piracy, is that of the United States v. Smith . (1) Story J. delivered the opinion of the Court and there states “whatever may be the diversity of definitions in other respects, all writers concur in holding that robbery or forcible depredations upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy.” He would be a bold lawyer to dispute the authority of so great a jurist, but the criticism upon that statement is that the learned judge was considering a case where the prisoners charged had possessed themselves of the vessel, the Irresistible, and had plundered and robbed a Spanish vessel. There was no doubt about the robbery, and though the definition is unimpeachable as far as it goes, it was applied to the facts under consideration and cannot be held to be an exhaustive definition including all acts of piracy. The case, however, is exceptionally valuable because from p. 163-180 of the report it tabulates the opinions of
(1) (1820) 5 Wheat. 153, 161. [*597]
most of the writers on international law up to that time. But with all deference to so great an authority, the remark must be applied to Story J. in 1820 that has already been applied to Sir Charles Hedges in 1696, which is that international law has not become a crystallized code at any time, but is a living and expanding branch of the law.
In a later American decision, United States v. The Malek Adhel (1), “if he wilfully sinks or destroys an innocent merchant ship, without any other object than to gratify his lawless appetite for mischief, it is just as much a piratical aggression, in the sense of the law of nations, and of the Act of Congress, as if he did it solely and exclusively for the sake of plunder, lucri causa. The law looks to it as an act of hostility, and being committed by a vessel not commissioned and engaged in lawful warfare, it treats it as the act of a pirate, and of one who is emphatically hostis humani generis.”
Having thus referred to the two cases, Dawson (1696) and Smith (1820), which are typical of one side of the question, their Lordships will briefly refer to two others from which the opposite conclusion is to be gathered.
It will be observed that both of them are more recent. The first is the decision in the case of the Serhassan Pirates (2), decided in the English High Court of Admiralty by that distinguished judge, Dr. Lushington (1782-1873), in 1845. It was on an application by certain officers for bounty which, under the statute 6 Geo. 4, c. 49, was given to persons who captured pirates, and the learned judge said (it is not necessary to detail all the facts of the case for the purpose of the present opinion) “the question which I have to determine is whether or not the attack which was made upon the British pinnance and the two other boats constituted an act of piracy on the part of these prahns, so as to bring the persons who were on board within the legal denomination of pirates.” He held it was an act of piracy and awarded the statutory bounty. It is true that that was a decision under the special statute under which the bounties were claimed, but it will be noted that there was no robbery in that case; what happened was that
(1) (1844) 2 How. 210, 232.
(2) (1845) 2 W. Rob. 354. [*598]
the pirates attacked, but were themselves beaten off and captured. A similar comment may be made on the case in 1853 of The Magellan Pirates (1), where Dr. Lushington said: “it was never, so far as I am able to find, deemed necessary to inquire whether parties so convicted of these crimes (i.e., robbery and murder), had intended to rob on the high seas, or to murder on the high seas indiscriminately.”
Finally, there is the American case The Ambrose Light (2) where it was decided by a Federal Court that an armed ship must have the authority of a State behind it, and if it has not got such an authority, it is a pirate even though no act of robbery has been committed by it. It is true that the vessel in question was subsequently released on the ground that the Secretary of State had by implication recognized a state of war, but the value of the case lies in the decision of the Court.
Their Lordships have dealt with two decisions by Dr. Lushington. It may here be not inappropriate to refer to another great English Admiralty judge and jurisconsult, Sir Robert Phillimore (1810-85). In his International Law, 3rd ed., vol. 1, 1879, he states: “piracy is an assault upon vessels navigated on the high seas committed animo furandi whether robbery or forcible depredation be effected or not and whether or not it be accompanied by murder or personal injury.”
Lastly, Hall, to whose work on international law reference has already been made, states, on p. 314 of the 8th ed., 1924, “the various acts which are recognized or alleged to be piratical may be classed as follows: robbery or attempt at robbery of a vessel, by force or intimidation, either by way of attack from without, or by way of revolt of the crew and conversion of the vessel and cargo to their own use.” Possibly the definition of piracy which comes nearest to accuracy coupled with brevity is that given by Kenny (1847-1930), “Outlines of Criminal Law,” 14th ed., p. 332, where he says piracy is “any armed violence at sea which is not a lawful act of war,” although even this would include a shooting affray between two passengers on a liner which could not be held to be piracy. It would, however, correctly include those acts which, as far
(1) (1853) 1 Spinks E. & A. 81.
(2) 25 Fed. Rep. 408. [*599]
as their Lordships know, have always been held to be piracy, that is, where the crew or passengers of a vessel on the high seas rise against the captain and officers and seek by armed force to seize the ship. Hall put such a case in the passage just cited; it is clear from his words that it is not less a case of piracy because the attempt fails.
Before leaving the authorities, it is useful to refer to a most valuable treatise on the subject of piracy contained in “The Research into International Law by the Harvard Law School,” published at Cambridge, Mass., in 1932. In it, nearly all the cases, nearly all the statutes, and nearly all the opinions are set out on pp. 749 to 1013.
In 1926 the subject of piracy engaged the attention of the League of Nations, who scheduled it as one of a number of subjects, the regulation of which by international agreement seemed to be desirable and realizable at the present moment. Consequently, they appointed a sub-committee of their committee of experts for the progressive codification of international law and requested the sub-committee to prepare a report upon the question. An account of the proceedings is contained in the League of Nations document, C 196, M 70, 1927 V. The sub-committee was presided over by the Japanese jurist Mr. Matsuda, the Japanese Ambassador in Rome, and in their report at p. 116, they state: “according to international law, piracy consists in sailing the seas for private ends without authorization from the government of any State with the object of committing depredations upon property or acts of violence against persons.” The report was submitted to a number of nations and an analysis of their replies will be found at p. 273 of the League of Nations document. A number of States recognized the possibility and desirability of an international convention on the question. The replies of Spain, p. 154; of Greece, p. 168; and especially of Roumania, p. 208, deal at some length with the definition of piracy. Roumania adds, p. 208: “Mr. Matsuda maintains in his report that it is not necessary to premise explicitly the existence of a desire for gain, because the desire for gain is contained in the larger qualification ‘for private ends.' In [*600] our view, the act of taking for private ends does not necessarily mean that the attack is inspired by the desire for gain. It is quite possible to attack without authorization from any State and for private ends, not with a desire for gain but for vengeance or for anarchistic or other ends.” The above definition does not in terms deal with an armed rising of the crew or passengers with the object of seizing the ship on the high seas.
However that may be, their Lordships do not themselves propose to hazard a definition of piracy. They remember the words of M. Portalis, one of Napoleon's commissioners, who said: “We have guarded against the dangerous ambition of wishing to regulate and to foresee everything. …. A new question springs up. Then how is it to be decided? To this question it is replied that the office of the law is to fix by enlarged rules the general maxims of right and wrong, to establish firm principles fruitful in consequences, and not to descend to the detail of all questions which may arise upon each particular topic.” (Quoted by Halsbury L.C. in Halsbury's Laws of England, Introduction, p. ccxi.)
A careful examination of the subject shows a gradual widening of the earlier definition of piracy to bring it from time to time more in consonance with situations either not thought of or not in existence when the older jurisconsults were expressing their opinions.
All that their Lordships propose to do is to answer the question put to them, and having examined all the various cases, all the various statutes and all the opinions of the various jurisconsults cited to them, they have come to the conclusion that the better view and the proper answer to give to the question addressed to them is that stated at the beginning – namely, that actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium, and that a frustrated attempt to commit piratical robbery is equally piracy jure gentium.
“When extraction of the ore was suspended from the various stopes above the Lawson, the ground was invery bad shape, and the condition as regards heat andgas were so terrible that it seemed advisible to abandon any attempt to work from that level. In fact it was a case of walking away and leaving the job for the next generation”WM.F. Kett, General Manager August 23, 1944
Iris Mack
Professor and former derivatives trader
Posted: November 9, 2010 10:59 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' IndexSwiss Banker's Reaction to U.S. Treasury Hiding A.I.G. Loss
For the taxpayer to lose money, it means someone has to win money. The money does not disappear. From simple accounting, one can depreciate an asset to the value of 10 dollars, sell it to the institutional clients who will revalue the company and push its price to over 50 dollars.
So the Treasury is guilty of negligence or collusion to defraud the tax payer. Come on, how stupid do they think the American taxpayer is?
Of course Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the other banks that get free money from the Treasury -- via the Federal Reserve -- are being subsidized to buy these shares.
Why can't they subsidize Americans who want a job? It would be best to give all those shares to each American and or to use the proceeds of the sale to repurchase foreclosed homes and to give them back to their rightful owners who were naively encouraged to buy houses that they could not afford, yet made payments up to a certain date.
Did the banks not get to write off the losses on their tax returns? Now, I read that Swiss Bank UBS is getting off clean, even though they actively organized tax evasion for many citizens in the U.S. Is it not racketeering? There is no loss. It is an accounting entry, that reflects commissions and fees charged by intermediaries.
Think of how much money was paid to banks and auditors to tell people that -- oops -- we auditors and accountants screwed up, but we can show you how to understand our screw up. Of course we have our disclaimer and you have to pay us 5 billion dollars in case we go bust and are fired. We need to maintain our standard of living, because we have fancy schools to pay for, hairdressers for our wives, and for those who have mistresses, well, we have to pay to play.
PNC to stop financing mountaintop mining projects
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — PNC Bank says it will stop financing projects that extract coal using a controversial form of surface mining known as mountaintop removal.
PNC says in a corporate responsibility statement updated late last month that it will no longer fund the projects or provide credit to coal producers that primarily use mountaintop removal to extract coal.
About 50 environmental activists gathered at a Lexington PNC branch over the summer to protest the bank's alleged funding of surface mining projects.
PNC spokesman Fred Solomon declined Monday to comment on the bank's investments. He says the corporate statement “speaks for itself.”
Other large commercial lenders, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have announced in recent years that they would limit their relationships with companies that use mountaintop removal.
The following guest post was written by Michael D. Shaw, Executive Vice President of Interscan Corporation , and was originally posted on HealthNewsDigest.com .
When EPA was founded in December of 1970, there was no shortage of serious environmental issues to tackle. Water pollution was symbolized by taconite tailings being dumped into Lake Superior in Silver Bay, MN, and the travesty of fires on Ohio's Cuyahoga River—the most notable of which occurred on June 22, 1969. Air pollution was widespread, and many people remembered the killer smog that occurred in London in 1952, as well a stateside version in Donora, PA four years earlier.
No doubt, remarkable progress has been made in cleaning up the environment, and EPA deserves the lion's share of the credit.
However, within the very DNA of the agency is a strong dose of chemophobia. Even though the "science" in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring has been thoroughly debunked, her work is still cited with great reverence on EPA's website in "The Birth of EPA." Sadly, the tortured thoughts of Carson, an embittered woman dying of breast cancer, would have been just that, until the agency banned DDT.
Cold comfort to the millions of Africans—who died from malaria as a direct result of this—that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find someone who still thinks the banning was a good idea.
It is important to note that cold, calculated politics in the main reason for anything any government entity ever does. If there actually is any altruism, it occurs by accident. Perhaps EPA was Richard Nixon's attempt to prove his Green bona fides. At any rate, in 1970, there was plenty of legitimate work to be done.
The trouble is that by 1985 or thereabouts, most of the big problems were taken care of. But no federal agency ever disappears. Instead, the mission is expanded. With most of the obvious dragons slain, EPA could now focus on the much more murky world of potential problems, and would gradually increase its activities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
The newest trend under TSCA—announced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on December 30, 2009—is the so-called Chemical Action Plan (CAP). Lynn Bergeson, a well-known DC-based attorney specializing in regulatory issues, commented at the time:
This EPA initiative announces actions that are almost breathtaking in scope, and its development and implementation of the action plan items will set a number of new precedents—and possibly shape future legislative proposals—that industry will need to participate in and monitor closely. EPA has never previously announced so many actions under TSCA, nor has it ever cited use of Section 6 [of TSCA] so widely. Moreover, that it was issued in this form after being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget is significant and portends potentially great and largely unfettered EPA activity in the months to come.
Unfettered, indeed. With no congressional oversight, scant accountability, and the less-than-transparent manner in which chemicals are chosen for CAP treatment, many are concerned about the consequences—unintended or otherwise.On March 17, 2010, EPA announced that it was working on CAPs for several more chemicals, including siloxanes—a class of organosilicon compounds that is used in deodorants, soaps, windshield coatings, and sundry cosmetic and automotive products. Significantly, there are medical applications, as well.
Siloxanes are found in intravenous drug delivery systems, prostheses, pacemakers, dental molds, wound dressings, respirator bags, medical adhesives, and contact lenses. These compounds are relied upon in scar treatment and cosmetic and ophthalmic surgery. Even hypodermic needles are coated with siloxanes to reduce pain, making them of considerable value to children and diabetics.
You might ask why EPA is concerned about a class of compounds that has been utilized with apparent safety for decades. Good question. Let's call it a perversion of the scientific method. The classic scientific method first requires an observation. Then, and only then, a hypothesis is suggested to explain this observation, and this hypothesis is tested by an experiment. If the hypothesis is verified by this experiment, it must be repeated by others, until its truth is accepted by the scientific community.
Back in the day, carcinogenic chemicals were determined to be such after people had observed an unusually high incidence of a particular cancer in the cohort of interest. Then, animal studies were done to verify the hypothesis.
Now, though, things have changed. Far too many "scientists," who are really little more than technicians, can achieve lifetime job security by picking some chemical—especially one that is in wide commercial use—and give outrageous doses of it to a rodent. If an effect is observed, then "further study is warranted" and the chemical is put on the bad list. It matters not in the least that empirically, in actual human experience, there have been no observable ill effects.
This is not science at all. Rather, it is fear entrepreneurialism writ large—the economic impact of which can hardly be overstated.
Fortunately, Congress is currently considering legislation to reform TSCA, and by inference, EPA. Let's hope this can occur before siloxanes and other safe and important chemicals become stigmatized or banned.November 10, 2010 5:00 P.M.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
From the November 15, 2010, issue of NR.
Joe Miller, Alaska's Republican nominee for the United States Senate , recently expressed support for an idea that is rapidly gaining steam in Tea Party circles: the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Miller subsequently backtracked from his statement, but he shouldn't have: Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would go a long way toward restoring federalism and frustrating special-interest influence over Washington.
Ratified in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment replaced the election of U.S. senators by state legislators with the current system of direct election by the people. By securing the Seventeenth Amendment's ratification, progressives dealt a blow to the Framers' vision of the Constitution from which we have yet to recover.
The Constitution did not create a direct democracy; it established a constitutional republic. Its goal was to preserve liberty, not to maximize popular sovereignty. To this end, the Framers provided that the power of various political actors would derive from different sources. While House members were to be elected directly by the people, the president would be elected by the Electoral College . The people would have no direct influence on the selection of judges, who would be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve for life or “during good behavior.” And senators would be elected by state legislatures.
Empowering state legislatures to elect senators was considered both good politics and good constitutional design. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the proposal was ratified with minimal discussion and recognized as the approach “most congenial” to public opinion. Direct election was proposed by Pennsylvania's James Wilson but defeated ten to one in a straw poll. More important than public opinion, however, was that limitations on direct popular sovereignty are an important aspect of a constitutional republic's superiority to a direct democracy. As Madison observes in Federalist 51, “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Election of senators by state legislatures was a cornerstone of two of the most important “auxiliary precautions”: federalism and the separation of powers. Absent some direct grant of federal influence to state governments, the latter would be in peril of being “swallowed up,” to use George Mason's phrase. Even arch-centralizer Hamilton recognized that this institutional protection was necessary to safeguard state autonomy. In addition, the Senate was seen as a means of linking the state governments together with the federal one. Senators' constituents would be state legislators rather than the people, and through their senators the states could influence federal legislation or even propose constitutional amendments under Article V of the Constitution.
The Seventeenth Amendment ended all that, bringing about the master-servant relationship between the federal and state governments that the original constitutional design sought to prevent. Before the Seventeenth Amendment, the now-widespread Washington practice of commandeering the states for federal ends — through such actions as “unfunded mandates,” laws requiring states to implement voter-registration policies that enable fraud (such as the “Motor Voter” law signed by Bill Clinton), and the provisions of Obamacare that override state policy decisions — would have been unthinkable. Instead, senators today act all but identically to House members, treating federalism as a matter of political expediency rather than constitutional principle.
There is no indication that the supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment understood that they were destroying federalism. But they failed to recognize a fundamental principle of constitutional design: that in order for constraints to bind, it is necessary for politicians to have personal incentives to respect them. “Ambition,” Madison insisted in Federalist 51, “must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”
Under the original arrangement, senators had strong incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas House members were considered representatives of the people, senators were considered ambassadors of their state governments to the federal government and, like national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject to instruction by the parties they represented (although not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the national government only the power necessary to perform its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level after the crisis had passed. Today, as historian Robert Higgs has observed, federal expansion creates a “ratchet effect.”
Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the Senate as originally conceived was essential to the system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the division of the legislature into two houses elected by different constituencies — was designed to frustrate special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62 that basing the House and Senate on different constituent foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . . against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority of the state governments before a law could enacted. By resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for the modern special-interest state.
Finally, the Framers hoped that indirect election of senators would elevate the quality of the Senate, making it a sort of American version of the House of Lords, by bringing to public service men of supreme accomplishment in business, law, and military affairs. There is some evidence that the indirectly elected Senate was more accessible to non-career politicians than today's version is. And research by law professor Vikram Amar has found that during the 19th century, accomplished senators such as Webster and Calhoun frequently rotated out of the Senate and into the executive branch or the private sector, with an understanding among state legislators — and, notably, the senator selected to fill the seat — that they could return to service if they wished to do so or were needed. Foes of the Seventeenth Amendment argued at the time that its enactment would spawn a deterioration in the body's quality. Whether the modern titans of the Senate such as Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, and the late Ted Kennedy are superior to Webster, Clay, and Calhoun is to some extent a matter of taste. But it is likely that reinstating the original mode of selection would change the type of individuals selected — and it is not implausible to think that the change would be positive.
Establishment media and liberal politicians have mocked tea partiers' calls for repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment as anti-democratic. To be sure, indirect election would be less democratic than direct election, but this is beside the point. Notably, those who are most shocked by the proposal to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment are also the most vociferous in denouncing democratic election of judges. The Framers understood what today's self-interested sloganeers of democracy do not: What matters is not whether a given method of selecting governmental officials is more or less democratic, but whether it will safeguard the constitutional functions bestowed upon each branch and conduce to their competent execution. Indeed, certain of the Senate's duties — such as its role as a type of jury for impeachment proceedings — make sense only if it is somewhat insulated from the public's passions of the moment, as was well demonstrated by the farcical Senate trial of Bill Clinton.
Critics of repeal have also contended that election of senators by state legislatures was, and would be today, unusually prone to corruption and bribery. But research by historian C. H. Hoebeke found that of the 1,180 Senate elections between 1789 and 1909, in only 15 cases was fraud credibly alleged, and in only seven was it actually found — approximately one-half of 1 percent. Moreover, it is absurd to think that even this modest degree of corruption would be tolerated in the modern media age, any more than politicians can today sell judgeships or other appointed offices, as they frequently did in the past. And even in the progressive era it was not believed that direct election of senators would prevent corruption. Among the Seventeenth Amendment's staunchest supporters were urban political machines (hardly advocates of clean government), which understood that direct election would boost their control of the Senate as they drove and bribed their followers to the polls.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would not be a panacea for what ails the American political and constitutional system. As during the era before the Seventeenth Amendment, many states would probably adopt either de facto direct election of senators, in which legislatures essentially agree to ratify the popular vote, or attenuated forms of it, such as primaries or conventions to select party nominees from whom the legislatures choose. And much work would remain to be done to restore the public's understanding of the difference between a direct democracy and a democratic constitutional republic. But repeal would be a step in the direction of restraining an imperialistic central government and frustrating special-interest influence. Whether or not it is good politics, it remains sound constitutional design.
—Mr. Zywicki is a George Mason University Foundation professor of law and a senior scholar of the Mercatus Center. He has written several law-review articles examining the history and impact of the Seventeenth Amendment. This article first appeared in the November 15, 2010, issue of National Review .
Protection Is Our Trademark
U.S. Government Seizes and Shutters Torrent-Finder.com
Quote:
Torrent-Finder.com is down today; the site was apparently seized by government agencies for reasons unknown. In all likelihood, the site was taken down due to intellectual property concerns including copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit goods.
The agencies named in the notice include the Department of Justice, the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center , and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of Homeland Security Investigations. (Emphasis added)
The what?
We have a distinct government organization called the "National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center?" Well, yes, apparently we do , and it has its own staff, bureaucracy, and they've even taken the time to design their own nifty shield and logo. (Oh, and I bet they have their own uniforms. I mean, after all now, we can't risk a situation in the field where you can't quickly identify the IPR Center agents in the operation, now can we? Timing is critical! Fines are at stake!)
Reading down a little, we find the IPR Center is partnered with a long list of other US and international organizations, including:
Questions about this list:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office : OK, isn't this whole concept of intellectual property protection exactly why we have the Patent & Trademark Office? Shouldn't they be handling this instead of having the creation of a "National IPR Center?"
Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations The FDA has an "Office of Criminal Investigations?" What do they do that couldn't be done by other organizations, like say some hypothetical federal bureau that investigates things that are violations of federal crimes? (Maybe this "federal investigating bureau" exists, but it's really really obscure and the folks at the FDA never heard of it?) (And even worse yet, why do I have the creepy feeling that the FDA "Office of Criminal Investigations" has its own SWAT unit?)
NCIS, DCIS, and the Army's Criminal Investigation Command : Holy cow, the National IPR needs military backup? No, it's probably just a matter of "coordinating efforts," but again why would these agencies be independently investigating copyright matters? Are we chasing after GIs who occasionally buy bootleg DVDs in downtown Baghdad just so they have something to watch on TV back in their quarters? Are they hoping that some week Mark Harmon and team will do an episode where they bust some seaman for downloading Tron Legacy ?
Ya wanna know why the government is broke? It's because of organizations like this, the death of a thousand cuts. The National IPR Center has it's own offices, staff, leadership, phones, IT structure, copy machines, coffee machines, and web page. It's got it's own civil servant in charge, with his/her own administrative staff, including finance (they always have finance). They've got their own friggin' logo and motto, and a crack team that assembles statistics to put into nifty PowerPoint presentations (which they manage to screw up, see page 9 and a few other locations).
At the top of the list of things that they're finding...and they brag about this...is shoes !
Ya wanna know part of the reason why the government is broke? Because we paid a group of people to sit around and decide that for reporting purposes, seized sunglasses would be classified as "Safety and Security" items (PPT presentation page 10), which sounds suspiciously to me like somebody had a mandate to "Boost those S & S numbers for the annual report, dammit!" ("Sunglasses, Wilson?" "Yes sir, why our team has determined that substandard sunglasses provide insufficient protection against wind-blown beach sand. This could cause eye damage which would impair a person's ability to serve in the military, and thus weaken our national defense.") Multiply this by the hundreds of similar, obscure, duplicate organizations that exist throughout the federal government and one begins to see why we're now running a trillion dollars in debt.
The National IPR Center. "Protection Is Our Trademark." Yes, your tax dollars paid somebody to spend the time to dream up that motto. And in return, you got safe shoes. Maybe.Solar Millennium LLC, the American project development unit of the Solar Millennium Group(ISIN DE0007218406), has received the draft of a conditional term sheet from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the scope of the approval process for the federal loan Guarantee program. The terms and conditions in the draft term sheet provide a framework for the commencement of discussions on terms between the DOE and Solar Millennium regarding the securing of the loan guarantee. In these discussions, the major terms of a proposed loan guarantee are set forth. Receipt of the term sheet is thus a significant prerequisite for successfully concluding the financing of the planned power plants Blythe 1 and 2.
At the Blythe location in Riverside County, California, Solar Millennium plans to build and operate up to four parabolic trough power plants through Solar Trust of America, LLC, with a capacity of 250 megawatts (MW) each. All four solar power plants together will make up the world's largest solar power facility to date. Solar Millennium has already received the respective construction permits by the California regulatory authorities and the U.S. government in September and October. The Company plans to finance at least two-thirds of the construction volume of its two power plants with low-rate loans by the U.S. Federal Finance Bank. In order to secure this share of debt capital, the Company has applied for the respective loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Oliver Blamberger, CFO of Solar Millennium AG, explains the further business plans: "We assume we'll be able to wrap up negotiations with the U.S. Department of Energy in the new year. Because the Blythe projects represent a significant portion of our sales and profit planning, the Executive Board has decided not to give an early forecast for the current fiscal year until further notice." Regarding the schedule for the two solar power plants going forward, Blamberger adds: "As we have already announced, we plan to begin construction on Blythe 1 and 2 in December regardless of the conclusion of financing. The preliminary contracts here have already been signed with a major U.S. construction company."
Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America, is pleased about the receipt of the draft term sheet: "We‘re extremely pleased with the proactive approach by the U.S. Department of Energy with regard to our Blythe projects, and we are excited to see the progress made in securing the loan guarantees." Schmidt is also optimistic about the further course of the approval process: "We are confident that the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as the other federal authorities involved in the loan guarantee program, will now act quickly to move the approved power plant projects forward. The solar power plants under development and construction are of central importance not only for reaching California's climate goals, but also for improving the region's economic future."
Solar Millennium believes the construction phase of Blythe will create more than 1,100 jobs as well as up to 200 permanent maintenance and operations positions once the two power plants are fully operational. With a potential capacity of 1,000 MW, Blythe will forge ahead of the dimension of nuclear power plants. The four power plants together are expected to produce enough electricity for more than 300,000 American households, thereby saving roughly one million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Power purchase agreements between Solar Millennium LLC and the American utility Southern California Edison (SCE) for the first two 250-MW solar power plants to be realized were approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in July of this year. The agreements regulate the purchase of electricity produced by SCE.PROTECTED BY FREEDOM EMPOWERING ACTION TOGETHER HELPING EVERYONE RECOVER SAFELY (FEATHERS)
Christ Statue and Spiritual Sanctuary MR. T.W. "TED" ARMAN, OWNER OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE, LTD., PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, CEO OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. OWNER OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE, IRON MOUNTAIN, THE COPPER MOUNTAIN MINING CO., MOUNTAIN COPPER CO., IRON MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT CO., THE ARMAN CONSOLIDATED MINES, THE ARMAN CONSOLIDATED MINING CLAIMS, THE ARMAN MINES EQUITABLE TRUSTS, THE ARMAN SOVEREIGN WAR ON POVERTY FUND, THE ARMAN MINES CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES FEDERATION, THE ARMAN LOST CONFIDENCE MINE, THE ARMAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, THE ARMAN MINES HAZARD AND REMEDIATION DIRECTORATE, THE ARMAN MINES DISCHARGE ASSISTANCE DIRECTORATE, AND THE ARMAN MINES HUMMINGBIRD INSTITUTE COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD CENTER FOR HEALTH INSTITUTE FOR LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE.
.IRON MOUNTAIN HAZARD ASSISTANCE REMEDIATION DIRECTOR TENANT-IN-CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
.Sub specie mali : The stream of thought flows on; but most of its segments fall into the bottomless abyss of oblivion. Of some, no memory survives the instant of their passage. Of others, it is confined to a few moments, hours or days. Others, again, leave vestiges which are indestructible, and by means of which they may be recalled as long as life endures. -William James
what is fear, saith Solomon, but a betraying of the succours that reason offereth
Deo, Patriae, Tibi.
