MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

Three-pollutant bill update
by dfvet＠aol.com 23 Jan '11

23 Jan '11

AIR POLLUTION: Three-pollutant bill seen as DOA in new Congress(01/20/2011) EMAIL THIS STORY PRINT THIS STORY READ FULL EDITION CUSTOMIZE EDITION Advertisement Gabriel Nelson, E&E reporter In the new political environment on Capitol Hill, the outlook is bleak for a deal on air pollution from power plants -- even if it doesn't address greenhouse gases, key players in the negotiations say. For about a decade now, a rotating congressional cast has been negotiating bills that would require reductions from the utility sector in sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and mercury. Some have suggested that a so-called three-pollutant bill could fare better this session now that cap and trade is off the agenda, but key staffers already appear to be writing it off for the next two years. Last Congress, the discussions centered on a bill from Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that would have effectively replaced U.S. EPA's upcoming limits on SO2, NOx and mercury. The negotiations included Carper, Alexander and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), as well as Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who retired at the end of his term last year. The talks hit a snag toward the end of last session. But if the goal is reducing emissions from power plants, Inhofe still believes that a three-pollutant bill is the "best way to go," said Michael Catanzaro, deputy staff director for Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans. But Catanzaro added that while negotiations are set to continue in the new Congress, the mounting criticism of federal regulations on Capitol Hill and the disdain for dense bills among the new House Republican leadership mean there is little room for the measure to advance in the next two years. "A big package isn't going to move in the House, so I don't have a lot of optimism at all about the energy pieces you're talking about," Catanzaro said at a Bipartisan Policy Center conference on regulations for the power sector. "With respect to 3-p, it's a very long process. It's not going to pass in this Congress, but you need to start laying the groundwork." The legislation has tentative support from both sides of the aisle. The negotiators on the Democratic side want to set stricter air pollution limits than the Clean Air Act requires, while Republicans want to lengthen the compliance deadlines for utilities and give them a set of rules that would be locked in place for 10 or 15 years. But last year, the discussions were tied up by disagreements on toxic pollution limits and the length of time that U.S. EPA would be barred from setting stricter rules for the power sector, Catanzaro said. And now that the balance of power has shifted toward Republicans, the legislation could also lose the backing of environmentalists -- a major constituency for the Democrats. Environmental and public health groups have had mixed feelings about the idea of a three-pollutant bill, worrying that it could be slower or less protective than rules issued by EPA under the Clean Air Act. David Hawkins, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he would be wary of an air pollution bill that would pass muster with the Republicans in the House. "The noises that are coming out of the new committee chairs and the noises that are coming out of the leadership do not indicate a desire to get this burden of pollution addressed quickly," he said. "It just doesn't seem to be a realistic prospect to say that the environmental community should support some effort to develop comprehensive legislation in that environment." Maryam Brown, chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said the new Republican leadership will be wary of omnibus bills and comprehensive legislation. The focus will be on reviewing and possibly blocking regulations from EPA and other agencies, she said. But a three-pollutant bill could be crafted in a way that would be popular with utilities, said Jeff Holmstead, who led EPA's air office under President George W. Bush. Compared to command-and-control regulations, it would achieve more reductions at a lower price, he said. "I think that opportunity is still out there, and, by the way, I think there are at least some people in the industry who would be happy enough to add CO2 if that would give them more regulatory certainty," Holmstead said. "There's a little more debate and discussion over that one, but there is, undoubtedly, a better way to regulate this industry."

1 0

FYI
by dfvet＠aol.com 21 Jan '11

21 Jan '11

AIR POLLUTION: Enviro group slams industry bid to block EPA cement rules (01/21/2011) EMAIL THIS STORY PRINT THIS STORY READ FULL EDITION CUSTOMIZE EDITION Advertisement Gabriel Nelson, E&E reporter As a handful of lawmakers on Capitol Hill seek to stop U.S. EPA's new air pollution rules, saying the limits on toxic emissions would devastate the domestic cement industry, their gloomy estimates are belied by the upbeat projections from the industry's main trade group, according to a new analysis by the advocacy group Earthjustice. The report responds to a resolution (H.J. Res. 9) introduced by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) that would reject EPA's new performance standards for cement plants. Under the Clean Air Act regulations, released in August, more than 15,000 American jobs could be lost to overseas competitors, Carter wrote in a "Dear Colleague" letter that asked fellow lawmakers to support the bill. The industry could lose 9 million tons of domestic cement production capacity, he said. "Now is not the time to impose new regulations that kill American jobs and ship them overseas," the letter said. Those estimates assume that U.S. demand for cement remains flat. But according to a high-priced analysis that was made available for purchase by the Skokie, Ill.-based Portland Cement Association last fall, after the release of EPA's final rules, the domestic cement industry will be booming for the next several years as it emerges from the dark days of the recession. The trade group predicts U.S. cement production will increase by about 25 percent through 2013 and by 50 percent through 2015. Five years from now, PCA estimates, domestic production will be slightly below 100 million metric tons per year -- roughly the same level as it was at the peak of the housing and construction boom in 2005. Between 2011 and 2015, the industry projections show, cement imports will total about 9.2 million metric tons per year -- the lowest level of any five-year period since 1996. From 2001 to 2005, for instance, the United States imported about 24.5 million metric tons of cement per year. But the Portland Cement Association provided different numbers today, saying imports would rise from 5.9 million metric tons last year to an estimated 36 million metric tons in 2015, 62 million metric tons by 2020 and 82 million metric tons by 2025. The contradiction between the figures on U.S. cement production and the numbers cited by Carter suggest that the trade group and its allies are talking out of both sides of their mouths, said James Pew, a staff attorney at Earthjustice who worked on the report. "The cement industry can't simultaneously be expanding and contracting," Pew said in an interview. "There's simply no basis to think there will be any contraction or there will be any jobs lost." Industry, Carter respond In a statement today, the Portland Cement Association said all EPA's regulations -- not just the toxic pollution standards -- could result in the loss of 3,000 to 4,000 jobs in the domestic cement industry. From 2002 to 2007, the sector employed an average of 16,283 workers, according to PCA figures that were cited in the Earthjustice report. "Regulations need to be based on science, preserve access to a strategic infrastructure asset and most importantly, protect the sanctity of U.S. jobs," the trade group said. "Without taking these elements into consideration, the administration is doing our nation a disservice." John Stone, a spokesman for Carter, described the new report as "malarkey." He said Earthjustice was incorrect when the group contended that the Congressional Review Act resolution would permanently bar EPA from regulating the industry's toxic pollution. "EPA needs to go back to the drawing board and draft reasonable new standards that reduce pollution in this industry," Stone said today. "These standards can be written and implemented in ways that do not unnecessarily cost jobs, and do not simply force production offshore to countries that do not have the environmental standards of the United States, effectively increasing global pollution." There are not any cement plants in the congressman's district, but the facilities are a major driver of the Texas economy. Southwest of Carter's home in Round Rock, Texas, there are five kilns in the Interstate 35 corridor between Austin and San Antonio. EPA's new rules would make these plants reduce their emissions of mercury, soot and other types of air pollution by more than 90 percent. These new controls, which would cost businesses an estimated $350 million to $377 million per year, are the reason critics have attacked EPA's new rules, Pew said. National environmental groups have pounced on Carter's bill as part of an effort to argue that the new Republican majority in the House is putting corporate profits ahead of public health. EPA estimates that the rules would provide between $6.7 billion and $18 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. "It has nothing to do with closing plants or losing jobs -- it's just about saving money," Pew said. "They're using a tried and true rationale for opposing regulations, which is slandering them as job-killers. It has no real substance, but that's not stopping them." The regulations have been challenged in court by more than a dozen cement companies, as well as by environmentalists, who are mad that the rules do not limit greenhouse gases as well as toxic pollutants. Both sets of lawsuits are still in the preliminary stages. Click here to read the Earthjustice analysis. Click here to read Carter's "Dear Colleague" letter.

1 0

Fw: NYTimes Jan 19: EPA posts frack rules
by Peggy Filios 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/19/19greenwire-epa-posts-frack-rules-w… Peggy

1 0

FW: Two FREE Particulate Matter and Patient Health Webinars: 2/15/11 noon-1 pm and 2/22/11 noon-1 pm - FREE CDC Continuing Education Credits Available
by Peggy Filios 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ATSDR/CDC) and the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) are sponsoring these two webinars. SAVE THE DATE! Are you interested in learning more about health effects from fine particulate air pollution? Perhaps you are a health professional short on free time and looking to earn some continuing education credits? Two upcoming, FREE lunch hour webinars in February 2011 might help! Each webinar will provide 1 hour of CME, CNE, CEU, and CPE credit (approval pending). You are welcome to attend either one or both of these events. February 15, 2011, noon-1:00 pm, Particulate Matter and Patient Health, Module 1 (see agenda below, 1 hour of continuing education credit--pending) February 22, 2011, noon-1:00 pm, Particulate Matter and Patient Health, Module 2 (see agenda below, 1 hour of continuing education credit--pending) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ATSDR/CDC) and the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) are sponsoring these two webinars. Participants are welcome to register for either or both of these events. All you will need is a connection to the Internet and a phone line to participate in these live events. During the live broadcasts on February 15 and 22, you will have the opportunity to ask questions of leading experts in this field. Afterwards, these webinars will be archived on the ACMT website (www.acmt.net). The first hour will focus on what is particulate matter, how it gets into the environment, trends in air quality, air quality regulations, where to find air quality information and how air quality affects the health status of a community. The second hour will focus on clinical impacts of particulate matter in the environment, sensitive populations and appropriate interventions. If you have any questions or you would like to let us know that you plan to attend, please contact Lora Siegmann Werner, ATSDR Region 3 at 215-814-3141, lkw9(a)cdc.gov or Tarah Somers, ATSDR Region 1 at 617--918-1493, tsomers(a)cdc.gov. Thank you! _______________________________________________________________________________ Particulate Matter and Public Health Module 1 - February 15, 2011 at 12pm (Eastern Time) Particulate Matter and Public Health Module 2 - February 22, 2011 at 12pm (Eastern Time) For the teleconference/audio connection on both days: Toll-Free Dial-in: (877) 675-8205 Passcode:9721450 For the Internet/presentation slides on 2/15: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/cdc/join?id=KP2WCR&role=attend&pw=rr%3Ft%3BF… For the Internet/presentation slides on 2/22: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/cdc/join?id=W8NWKC&role=attend&pw=mB%7D5nZdTq FIRST-TIME USERS To save time before the meeting, check your system to make sure it is ready to use Microsoft Office Live Meeting. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=90703 TROUBLESHOOTING Unable to join the meeting? Follow these steps: 1. Copy this address and paste it into your web browser: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/cdc/join 2. Copy and paste the required information: 2/15: Meeting ID: KP2WCR Entry Code: rr?t;Fx6k 2/22: Meeting ID: W8NWKC Entry Code: mB}5nZdTq Location: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/cdc If you still cannot enter the meeting, contact support: http://e-meetings.verizonbusiness.com/netconferencing/mslm/LM8support.php NOTICE Microsoft Office Live Meeting can be used to record meetings. By participating in this meeting, you agree that your communications may be monitored or recorded at any time during the meeting. Particulate Matter and Patient Health – Module 1 Patrick Breysse, MHS, PhD, CIH (25 minute presentation ) Objective: Describe sources of particulate matter (PM) and how it affects air quality --Types of pollutants that affect air quality -- Description of how PM settles in atmosphere and characteristics that determine location of deposition in airways --Importance of fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5) Ronald H. White, MST (20 minute presentation) Objective: Appraise air quality trends and interpret their relevance for exposures and health effects --Sources of PM and PM 2.5 (indoor and outdoor sources of PM) --Air quality trends --Testing for PM 2.5 in the environment --National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 and how they are set Patrick N Breysse, MHS, PhD, CIH (15 minute presentation) Objective: Identify available resources to investigate and manage particulate matter exposures --What do local medical practitioners need to know about local air quality data --The Air Quality Index --Where to find local air quality conditions Particulate Matter and Patient Health – Module 2 Andrew Stolbach, MD (20 minute presentation) Objective: Explain the clinical impact of fine particulate matter on health --Health effects of PM 2.5 (pulmonary, extrapulmonary, acute, and chronic) --Acute & chronic exposure evidence --Pathophysiology of PM 2.5 injury Ronald H. White, MST (15 minute presentation) Objective: Recognize populations particularly susceptible to particulate matter exposures --Special population considerations (elderly, pediatric) Andrew Stolbach, MD (25 minute presentation) Objective: Describe approaches to management and interventions regarding particulate matter exposures -- Reduction of PM 2.5 exposure at the level of the community and the individual patient --Management of exposure to PM 2.5 --Case studies – Intervention studies Information on Webinar Faculty: Dr. Patrick Breysse is currently the Director of the Division of Environmental Health Engineering and is the Director of the ABET accredited Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Academic Program at Johns Hopkins University. He is also the Director the Center for Childhood Asthma in the Urban Environment. His research focuses on the evaluation and control of chemical, biological, and physical factors that can impact health or well being. In this context, Dr. Breysse's research concentrates on risk/exposure assessment. Exposure assessment research includes pollutant source characterization, exposure measurement and interpretation, development and use of biomarkers of exposure/dose/effect, and evaluating relationships between sources, exposures, doses and disease. Dr. Breysse's research currently includes studies of indoor and outdoor air pollution and childhood asthma. He is also researching secondhand smoke exposure assessment methods using airborne and hair nicotine. Dr. Breysse previously collaborated on a large health effects study evaluating the health impact of the 1990 Gulf War on the citizens of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He has also collaborated on a follow-up study of World Trade Center clean-up workers. Dr. Breysse co-directed a medical screening program for former Department of Energy Workers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This program offers screening to former atomic bomb workers based on a historical assessment of exposure to a wide variety of agents including ionizing radiation, beryllium, solvents, asbestos, lead, and noise. He is currently working on a project to extend the former workers program to Sandia National Laboratory. Dr. Andrew Stolbach is Board Certified in Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology. He leads the Johns Hopkins University Toxicology training Curricula and works clinically at both Howard County and Johns Hopkins Hospital. He was a Magna cum laude graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a Bachelor’s of Science in Life Science along with a minor in history. He furthered his education at the University of Maryland, School of Medicine and received his Doctorate of Medicine Degree in 2002. Dr. Stolbach completed his Emergency Medicine Residency at St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City from 2002-2005 where he was Chief Resident. He completed his Fellowship in Medical Toxicology at Bellevue Medical Center and New York University School of Medicine. Ronald White Ronald H. White is Associate Scientist in the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, where he serves as Deputy Director of the Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute. He previously served as Assistant Executive Director, Education, Research, and Community Affairs at the National Osteoporosis Foundation and in several positions at the American Lung Association National Office, culminating in Assistant Vice President, National Policy. He earned his Master of Science in environmental studies from Antioch University, and his Batchelor of Science in environmental science from Clark University. Prior to joining the American Lung Association, he was senior transportation/air quality planner and then public participation coordinator for air quality planning at the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission in New York. Mr. White currently serves as a member of the External Science Advisory Committee for the National Environmental Respiratory Center, and has served as a member of the National Research Council Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter, and as a consultant to the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee for the Particulate Matter NAAQS review. He has also served as a member of the Integrated Human Exposure Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board, as well as on the EPA Blue Ribbon Panel to review the use of oxygenates in gasoline. He serves as project director for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contract with Johns Hopkins University to prepare a report “State of the Science: Low Dose-Response Extrapolation Approaches”. _______________________________________________________________________________ Lora Siegmann Werner, MPH Senior Regional Representative Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Region 3 Department of Health and Human Services 1650 Arch Street, 3HS00, Philadelphia, PA 19103 phone: 215-814-3141, fax: 215-814-3003 cell: 215-588-9778 email: lkw9(a)cdc.gov CDC.gov is Your Online Source for Credible Health Information. Visit www.cdc.gov.

1 0

Group Against Smog & Pollution activities
by Duane330＠aol.com 19 Jan '11

19 Jan '11

GASP Meet-n-Greet Learn more about regional air pollution and how you can get involved in advocating for cleaner air in southwestern PA. We are currently seeking board members, committee members, and volunteers. Join us to learn about GASP's current air quality campaigns and meet with the staff and board. There will be plenty of good food, drink, and lively conversation. Wednesday, February 2, 2011 6:30-8:00pm Wightman School Community Building 5604 Solway St., #204 Pittsburgh, 15217 Please RSVP to _gasp(a)gasp-pgh.org_ (mailto:gasp@gasp-pgh.org) or by calling 412-325-7382. Marcellus Monitoring The transition from Governor Rendell to Governor Corbett will bring many changes to the state. Questions about the safety of Marcellus Shale gas drilling, extraction, and transport refuse to die, regardless of the industry's rosy claims. If you're looking to learn more or get involved, consider attending the Marcellus Citizen Stewardship Project -- Visual Assessment Training. Thursday, January 27, 2011 6pm-9pm Location: _Room 114 of the Burnett Building at Washington and Jefferson College, Washington, PA_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104241164534&s=244&e=001jzDYbiv… VFaz0k_OAC--LUWNhCAejw9eWZvIOtBjWfmMNmwxG-PRj0A-EdPv6MwSYv3SkrSQ2eBi) Topics to be covered include permitting and regulations, air and water pollution, the use of the FracTracker data platform, filing a complaint, and safety. Once participants have completed this training there will be additional opportunities for air and water monitoring instruction. A copy of the 80-page Visual Assessment Manual is provided; this resource contains the protocol for logging and reporting information. RSVP's are not required; however, space is limited--- first come, first served. For more information please contact Veronica Coptis at _veronica(a)mtwatershed.com_ (mailto:veronica@mtwatershed.com) or 724-455-4200.

1 0

Fw: Marcellus Shale Symposium, UPitt School of Public Health
by Peggy Filios 10 Jan '11

10 Jan '11

Hi. I wasn't sure any on this distribution list was aware of this Symposium occurred? It was held in November. Presentations from the symposium are available (see links below) Peggy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health Effects of Shale Gas Extraction Focus of Symposium - November 19, 2010 The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health is convening a meeting today of experts from across the country meeting to explore what is known and not known about the health impacts of extracting, refining and delivering natural gas from shale deposits, including the Marcellus Shale. The conference will identify issues for which timely research studies can be used to support sound policy decisions. Presenters also will discuss the latest research findings on water management and economics related to gas extraction. Natural gas plays a key role in the nation's clean energy future and energy independence. Over the past few years, several key economic and energy policy developments have spurred increased gas extraction and the use of hydraulic fracturing to recover gas over diverse geographic regions and geologic formations. However, as with any technology that involves management of potentially toxic substances, questions have been raised about the impact of increased hydraulic fracturing and other gas extraction procedures on drinking water resources, air quality, public health and the environment in the vicinity of gas extraction facilities. "Given recent concerns voiced over gas extraction procedures such as those at the Marcellus Shale, it is essential and timely to bring together experts to share information and shape the focus of future research," said Dr. Conrad Dan Volz, director of The Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (GSPH) and assistant professor, GSPH's department of environmental and occupational health. The symposium, sponsored by the Heinz Endowments and the R. K. Mellon Foundation, will take place from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the University Club, 123 University Place, Oakland, CA. Presentations will be made available on the website after the conference. http://www.eoh.pitt.edu/marcellus.asp#presentations For more information, http://www.eoh.pitt.edu/marcellus.asp.

1 0

EPA reports .....
by Duane330＠aol.com 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

EPA DELIVERS REPORT ON 15 YEARS OF ACID RAIN REDUCTIONS EPA released a report showing the Acid Rain program's 15 years of success in dramatically reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, saving lives and ecosystems. An analysis in 2010 estimates annual public health benefits of the program at more than $120 billion, about 40 times the estimated cost. For some of the major accomplishments of the program, go to _http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARP09.html_ (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARP09.html)

1 0

EPA in Service to America
by Duane330＠aol.com 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

_EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation _ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/2010/12/20/epa-greenhouse-gas-regulation-won’t-caus…) Won’t Cause the Sky to Fall Posted on December 20, 2010 by _Victor Flatt_ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/author/victorflatt/) in _Climate_ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/category/climate/) , _Climate Change_ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/category/climate/climate-change/) , _Efficiency_ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/category/efficiency/) , _Electricity_ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/category/electricity/) , _Environment_ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/category/environment/) With the DC Circuit finding that those opposed to greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA have not shown irreparable harm if it goes forward, and with the withdrawal of Senator Rockefeller’s proposal to delay implementation, come Jan. 2, 2011, the EPA will officially begin regulation of greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Since every state has received authority to implement the Clean Air Act’s requirements within the state, this means that all fifty states need to be ready and able to begin permitting of major sources of greenhouse gases at this time. As of this time, the EPA estimates that all states (except Texas, which has refused) will be ready to implement the requirements by January 2 or shortly thereafter. Perhaps now that the actual limited regulation will begin, those who have been saying that the regulation will be incredibly complex and harm the economy and energy sources can finally stop crying wolf and move on to their jobs of securing permits for needed sources. Because the truth is that the permitting sources should be able to implement the program without much difficulty. First of all, the scope is limited. Initially, it only applies to large sources that would already undergo PSD permitting. Moreover, the EPA has been relatively clear through guidance about what kind of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) it expects from sources that must be permitted. More or less, the EPA is asking that any power generation boilers be ultra efficient, that the use of lower carbon impact fuels be employed where feasible, and that any technology that is necessary for the ultimate implementation of carbon capture be considered. Each of these decisions will be made in a one on one negotiation with the state that is permitting the source. Though the states have themselves been nervous about coming up to speed, the procedure is no different from the BACT requirements that they already impose. In fact, because of its limited scope, there won’t be very many permit applicants, meaning that these first few should not be that difficult to implement, if the sources themselves are reasonable and negotiate in good faith. If any attorneys want to continue to cry wolf and make this more difficult than it has to be, they can do so, but they do so at the risk of hurting their clients’ interests. You can continue objecting all you want and try to continue to paint the EPA as the bad guy, but in the next few months, you will be proven wrong. So my advice is to get down to business. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EPA LAUNCHES WEBSITE INFORMING THE PUBLIC ON EPA REGULATIONS EPA has launched Reg Stat, a new website that provides information on the number, type, and range of regulatory documents developed each year by the agency, and the important role the EPA regulatory system plays in addressing the nation's environmental problems. Based on EPA documents published in the Federal Register between 2005 and 2009, both summary graphics and searchable data tables can be downloaded and sorted based on categories of interest. Complex terminology is explained. For more information, go to Reg Stat _http://www.epa.gov/regstat_ (http://www.epa.gov/regstat) .

1 0

EPA Action Needed on Smog
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

Standards on Smog Letter to the Editor, The New York Times, Published: December 16, 2010 Re “_E.P.A. Delays Tougher Rules on Emissions_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/earth/10epa.html?scp=1&sq=emissio…) ” (front page, Dec. 10): It’s not surprising that the coal and oil industries are seeking to block clean air progress, but that is no excuse for the Obama administration’s delay of new lifesaving smog standards. By the Environmental Protection Agency’s own estimate, putting off this decision for another half year means that between 2,000 and 6,000 Americans will die because of air pollution. Further, even the most stringent ozone standard that the E.P.A. is considering would still have a net economic benefit of billions of dollars, as the savings in health care costs would outweigh the costs of pollution controls. It’s past time for the E.P.A. and the Obama administration to do the job that the Clean Air Act demands. This is a critical juncture for the Obama administration to decide whether to betray the promise the president was elected on and reach what amounts to a fatal compromise for thousands of Americans — or to move forward as promised with the much-needed standards that will both save lives and move us toward clean energy prosperity. Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club, San Francisco, December 10, 2010 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Submitted by: Duane Nichols, 330 Dream Catcher Circle, Morgantown, WV 26508

1 0

Outdoor buring generates CO
by Duane330＠aol.com 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

Outdoor burning generates CO The atmospheric trace gas, carbon monoxide, has important effects on methane and on ozone, and is important both in atmospheric chemistry and for its indirect influence on climate. Little is known about the abundance and sources of CO prior to the industrial age, or about the importance of anthropogenic activities on its budget. Wang et al. (p. _1663_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=6965.755875.654.4uN8ldid5) , published online 2 December; see the Perspective by _Prentice_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=6965.755874.654.4uN8ldid5) ) present a 650-year-long record of CO atmospheric concentration and isotopic composition, using samples from Antarctic ice cores, in order to begin to reconstruct past CO variability and its causes. The concentration of CO decreased by about ~ 25%, from the mid-1300s to the 1600s, and then recovered completely by the late 1800s. Large variations in the degree of biomass burning in the Southern Hemisphere are likely to have been primarily responsible for the observed changes. ____________________________________ Duane Nichols, MVCAC, 330 Dream Catcher Circle, Morgantown, WV 26508

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC