"The Billion Dollar Settlement" Cashout Advance, Iron Mountain Mine Superfund
Cashout Advances are funds received by EPA, a state, or PRP under the terms of a
settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified
Superfund site. Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are
placed in site-specific, interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used for
potential future work at such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Funds placed in special accounts may be disbursed to PRPs, to states that take responsibility
for the site, or to other Federal agencies to conduct or finance response actions in lieu of EPA
without further appropriation by Congress. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, cashout
advances are $572 million and $489 million as restated, respectively.



Shares of fertilizer producers soar

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE - HEMATITAN™ $1200/TON - $45/ 5 gal. plus shipping fax to 530-275-4559


At Chilean mine, joy and relief as tunnel reaches trapped men

Japan donates 7,000 MT fertilizers to Filipino farmers

The Largest Mining Boom Since The 1850s Gold Rush

Vincent Fernando, CFA | Oct. 12, 2010



Global Warming

Monday, Oct 11, 2010 15:34 ET How The World Works

Meat-pocalypse now

Bad weather, growing demand and flat corn harvest yields all add up to one thing: That steak is going to cost you

By Andrew Leonard

The 2010 U.S. corn harvest will be the third largest in history, behind only 2007 and 2009. But that's not big enough. When the United States Department of Agriculture announced last week that farmers would produce only 12.7 billion bushels of corn this year, down 4 percent from its September estimate, corn future prices exploded upward by the maximum allowable amount in one day, and meat prices are sure to head in the same direction. Bloomberg reports that retail prices for pork and beef are already at their highest point since the 1980s.

It's only going to get worse. It's very difficult to see how the fundamentals pushing agricultural prices up are going to change in any significant way. The consequences of surging global demand for meat, largely propelled by China -- where meat consumption has more than doubled in the last decade and a half -- combined with the diversion of as much of a third of the U.S. corn crop to ethanol, are inescapable.

From the Financial Times:

Abdolreza Abbassian, senior grain economist at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, says that "anything other than a record crop" is now a problem because of the need to meet rising food, livestock and ethanol fuel demand.

"We need a record crop every year. If not, we are in trouble," he says.


2 billion tons building stone to dam the Golden Gate

NEPA Blanket Purchase Agreement


The Contractor, as an Independent Contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall furnish the necessary personnel, services, facilities, equipment and materials, unless otherwise provided by the contract, to provide National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation to consist of a Project Management Plan, Environmental Assessments (EAs), and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) in accordance with the Statement of Work, and specific installation sites identified on applicable Orders.

A Multiple Award GSA Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) will be established against which Firm-Fixed Priced Orders may be placed. The Government intends to award THREE (3) BPAs from this solicitation. Resultant Firm-Fixed Price Orders shall be competed among all Contractors.

Please see  for more information on the NEPA Blanket Purchase Agreement Renewal.

This service is provided to you at no charge by US Army Environmental Command .

The rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law . The phrase has been used since the 17th century, but the concept can be traced to ancient Greece. Aristotle gave it as, "law should govern". In Roman Law , a sovereign is personally immune ( legibus solutus ), but people with grievances may sue the treasury. [ 2 ]

One way to be free from the rule of law is by denying that an enactment has the necessary attributes of law. The rule of law has therefore been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion" [ 3 ] giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings". [ 4 ] A dichotomy can be identified between two principal conceptions of the rule of law: a formalist or "thin" and a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. [ 5 ]

The rule of law also encompasses the idea that the law should consist of general principles and not make special exceptions of particular groups, individuals or residents of particular regions etc.

Obama Faltering on Pledge to Restore the Role of Science

One year after the White House was supposed to chart a new course for the role of scientists and the integrity of scientific information in government, federal employees and the public continue to await reform.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a memo instructing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop within 120 days recommendations for ensuring scientific integrity in the federal government. Obama's memo identified six principles OSTP was to follow in crafting the recommendations.

For a time, things appeared to be progressing swimmingly. OSTP invited public comment on the development of the recommendations, and even allowed people to comment on specific principles via the office's blog.

But then the 120-day mark, July 9, 2009, passed without an announcement. The months continued to pass by and still, no recommendations on scientific integrity, let alone a plan for implementing those recommendations.

Now, on the one-year anniversary of the due date, criticism of the White House is increasing. The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility says the scientific integrity recommendations are still very much needed and points to the Obama administration's handling of the BP oil disaster as evidence:

The muddled federal response to the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates a lack of scientific transparency and candor in agency decision-making. Key examples include –

Even amid such criticism, the White House remains silent. The White House's failure to, at the very least, provide the public with a status update on the scientific integrity principles is unacceptable – particularly when the issue involves restoring and maintaining integrity in government decisionmaking.

Update : Dan Froomkin at the Huffington Post points out that OSTP Director John Holdren discussed the scientific integrity recommendations on OSTP's blog June 18. Holdren wrote, “I am pleased to report here that the process, though slower than many (including myself) had hoped, has resulted in what I believe is a high-quality product that I anticipate finalizing and forwarding to the President in the next few weeks.”

AIG Asked Federal Judge To Deny Class-Action Status To Lawsuit Brought Against It By Other Insurance Companies

AIG asked a federal judge to deny class-action status to a lawsuit brought against it by other insurance companies, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
In documents that were filed in a federal district court in Illinois, lawyers for AIG accursed two insurers that are plaintiffs in the case of acting "at the behest" of Liberty Mutual Insurance.



Troubled Asset Relief Program Two Year Retrospective



Update on Mountaintop Removal: Gov. Manchin Sues EPA

October 6, 2010 tags: EPA , mountaintop removal mining , administrative law , coal mining by Rhead Enion

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin announced Tuesday that West Virginia is filing suit to, as the Governor put it, stop EPA's “attempts to destroy the coal-mining industry and our way of life.”  The Charleston Gazette has a good summary of the suit .  The suit seeks to invalidate EPA's recent review of Clean Water Act permits for mining and block EPA from implementing a stricter water quality standard.  Front and center will be the Spruce Mine mountaintop removal (MTR) permit, currently under EPA review (see my earlier blog post here ).

Taking a page from the environmentalists' playbook, West Virginia will focus on whether EPA met its procedural requirements—such as public comment—when considering stricter standard and reviewing the MTR permit.

Governor Manchin is running for the Senate seat formerly occupied by the late Senator Robert Byrd.  Polling to date shows a very close race , and Governor Manchin will certainly take advantage of what, at least in West Virginia, would be considered positive press.  (The Governor did claim that the suit has been in the works since before Senator Byrd's death.)

The law firm representing West Virginia in the suit, curiously enough, is Bailey and Glasser: the same firm that won an appeal about ten years ago after the late U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden basically shut down mountaintop removal by prohibiting mining waste in permanent and seasonal streams.  Judge Haden's ruling was a monumental, if short-lived, achievement for the environmental movement and is described in Coal River .


Thursday's top of the scroll: Army Corps new report, “Building Strong Collaborative Relationships for a Sustainable Water Resources Future”

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 7, 2010 at 8:50 am

You can download the full report by clicking here.

Building Strong Watersheds Together: A National Water Resources Investment Model, Colonel Alex C. Dornstauder, USACE



· Set policies and provide guidance for water resources management.

· Fully utilize existing Federal authorities to support effective partnerships for sustainable water

resources management.

· Support more reliable and comprehensive data and information collection, more rigorous and robust

analysis using GIS-based processes, risk-informed maps, and state-of-the-art science and technology.

· Provide technical assistance for comprehensive and systems-oriented water planning at state,

regional and even local levels that attempts to balance competing needs through integrated water

resources plans and adaptive management strategies.

· Pay attention to degraded and new infrastructure for water supply, wastewater treatment, flood

control, navigation, hydropower, etc.

· Provide funding to maintain programs, protect resources, promote innovation and promote good


· Assist in mediating conflicts and disputes.

· Set standards and ensure compliance with regulations.

· Provide oversight.


· Set policy about resource management on Native American reservations.

· Monitor and practice adaptive management to protect, conserve, and enhance resources and

resource situations.

· Develop and implement plans within Indian water rights.

· Participate in information sharing about water resources.

· Inform about unique needs and characteristics.


· Synthesize regional needs using a systems framework.

· Facilitate integrated basin planning and coordination.

· Build consensus and engage stakeholders.

· Foster understanding and consensus through education and advocacy.

· Unify member states of compacts and agreements through data sharing and advising.


· Provide technical support.

· Promote education and outreach for awareness and understanding.

· Develop and share models.

· Provide focus, communications and advocacy for action.

· Convene and facilitate meetings and collaborative efforts.

· Advocate for responsible stewardship of natural resources and ecosystem services.


· Identify and prioritize water resources needs and develop land, water, and emergency

management or hazard mitigation plans to meet these needs.

· Allocate water to meet critical water needs.

· Seek sustainable water supplies as a basic safety net for current and growing populations.

· Improve water quality for confidence about drinking it; bathing in it; swimming in it; fishing

in it; boating in it; allowing plants and species to survive in and by it; sustaining agricultural,

industrial and municipal livelihoods; and simply finding the joy in water and all it can do for us.

· Ensure consistent and persistent assessment and monitoring.

· Identify and prioritize water resources needs and develop land, water, and emergency

management or hazard mitigation plans to meet these needs.

· Allocate water to meet critical water needs.


· Create an information hub for access to more comprehensive and accurate

data and information, including GIS-based and risk-informed maps, in

support of water resources management. Share data and information more

widely and readily.

· Use comprehensive, holistic and systems-oriented planning processes for

integrated water resources management within a sustainability paradigm.

· Attend to water infrastructure by ensuring its operation and maintenance,

rehabilitation, removal or replacement with new infrastructure.

· Promote greater collaboration, coordination and communication among

water resources stakeholders to derive agreed-upon plans and management


· Seek to balance competing water uses and to avoid or resolve conflicts over

water use.

· Seek technical planning assistance and expertise to improve water resources

assessments, planning and management within a holistic systems

perspective that aims to balance objectives.

· Improve regulatory processes to streamline permitting and reduce

regulatory burdens.

· Practice and reinforce adaptive management in collecting and analyzing

water resources information to understand what is working or not working

and why, and to improve performance.

· Improve water quality in rivers, streams, tributaries, lakes, reservoirs, oceans

and other water bodies.

· Explore developing a unifying national water direction with guiding principles.



· Provide funding to maintain programs, protect resources, promote innovation and promote

good science.

· Assist in mediating conflicts and disputes.

· Set standards and ensure compliance with regulations.

· Provide oversight.

· Set policies and provide guidance for water resources management.

· Fully utilize existing Federal authorities to support effective partnerships for sustainable

water resources planning and management.

· Support more reliable and comprehensive data and information collection, more rigorous

and robust analysis using GIS-based processes, risk-informed maps, and state-of-the-art

science and technology.

· Seek sustainable water supplies as a basic safety net for current and growing populations.

· Provide technical assistance for comprehensive and systems-oriented water planning at

state, regional and even local levels that attempts to balance competing needs through

integrated water resources plans and management strategies.

· Attend to degraded and new infrastructure for water supply, wastewater treatment, flood

control, navigation, hydropower, etc.


· Implement water plans and decisions.

· Coordinate with state agency programs.

· Comply with Federal and state mandates and regulations.

· Scout and identify water needs at local watershed levels.

· Develop approaches and plans to conserve, protect, and enhance water and related land

resources for ecosystem viability.

· Coordinate with local groups for joint aims.

· Collect data; conduct ongoing monitoring of resource conditions, use and availability.



The results of the assessment conducted under the Corps

Collaborating for a Sustainable Water Future initiative highlighted

the states' needs for: more funding; better access to

more complete, current and comprehensive data and information

about water resources conditions, use, availability,

planning and management; and more integrated water

resources management to address and balance a myriad of

water and related land resources and their uses. The Federal

government can take the lead in helping the states meet these

needs through collaboration and a refocusing of some Federal

programs, respecting the states' primacy to lead their own

water resources planning and management.

Resource constraints may be the greatest handicap to moving

forward toward a sustainable water resources future, although

shortages provide the impetus for pooling resources through

partnerships. The recommendation most often cited throughout

the assessment was the need for funding to address water

resources challenges. The funding situation is complex and

complicated by legal mandates, authorities, precedents and

political realities. What is needed is to share information and to

identify the funds and mechanisms to create common data

portals to enable access to those who need the information for

their planning.

Contemporary needs—not the least of which are ways to cope

with portended deleterious climate change impacts—compel

the search for ways to combine resources, reduce needless

duplications and fill voids that must be addressed. Just as

Responding to National Water Resources Challenges


information is crucial, information is critical for good planning

and management. Information does not take care of itself; we

must take care of it with reliable tools and a commitment to

understand it and to expand it to promote deeper

understanding about what it means and how it can be used

better. The Federal government has a wealth of information

and insight to share; the states also have invaluable lessons

learned that merit sharing with counterparts across borders.

The means must be found to enable this mutual sharing and

cross-border learning. The states certainly have grown their

water resources competency and can and have put together

statewide water plans based on comprehensive and rigorous

data collection and analysis. Nonetheless, the states often call

for Federal assistance to advance their planning at local,

regional and statewide levels.

The complexity of today's world merits the attention of the

best and the brightest to develop and provide the tools and

assistance that join people and ideas together. One mechanism

is a holistic systems perspective that affords a means to link

ideas to stakeholders to results through an appreciation of how

they are all interconnected. Integrated water resources management

(IWRM) is an ideal toward which to strive in order to

manage multiple stakeholders intent on multiple water uses

through multiple objectives for (more) balanced benefits.

Robust concepts and models such as IWRM and adaptive management

hold the promise to manage the true complexity and

interdependencies that exist for water managed at a watershed

scale. Integration can bring economy of effort and save resources

to enable government at all levels to do more with

fewer resources. Sustainable water resources management is

more likely to emanate from processes and models that are

robust enough to address growing water uses and users as the

world becomes more complex. Integration will take clear policies,

roles, responsibilities, definitions, examples and feedback.

The Federal government seeks to improve its ability to provide

such assistance to help states develop comprehensive and

integrated plans at local, regional and statewide levels.

A Federal Support Toolbox of Federal authorities, technical

tools, and scientific and management information would

facilitate Federal agencies in supporting state water planning.

Increasingly, planners recognize that water quality and quantity

must be addressed together, that upstream and downstream

planning must be instituted comprehensively and regionally,

that surface and groundwater supplies must be planned for

holistically as part of a unified water system, that conjunctive

uses of water must strike a satisfactory balance for water

76 Responding to National Water Resources Challenges


supplies and environmental protection, that diverse water

purposes and objectives must be better balanced for use of

common water bodies, and that multiple stakeholders and

resources must be brought to the same planning table to

encourage their perspectives, interests, ideas and resources to


The Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, told the National Conference

attendees that “If we are going to lead the way, we must use all

our foresight and creativity.”

There are opportunities to begin collaborating; expressed

interest in a national water vision and unified policies requires

continued conversation. We can wrestle with governance

issues to clarify roles and responsibilities. We can probe and

share information to improve understanding and mitigation of

climate change impacts. We can better communicate implications

of risk and build risk factors into decision models. And we

can create vehicles by which to share information across levels

of government better and more readily. We need to start now

from where we are and leverage strategic alliances.

The Federal government, tribes, states, and interstate and

nongovernment organizations have important roles to play,

which can be made even more effective through collaboration

or joined roles. Participants in this assessment offered the

following role clarification:

Additional thought needs to be given to integration for water

planning and management. The Federal government has a

legitimate role to ensure consistency and equity across groups,

especially to protect the disadvantaged. It has access to resources

that can make a difference for research and development.

It can collect, manage and provide access to aggregated

databases about a wide spectrum of water and related land

resources information and analyses. Many participants extolled

the supporting role of the interstate entities as vanguards in

furthering integrated approaches and outcomes. Moving

forward is difficult because of the lack of an appropriate governance

mechanism at the Federal level for integration across

agencies and programs and the lack of funding, but we must


In his speech at the National Conference, Chairman Oberstar

noted that water is indispensable—the essence of life and a

basic human right—but we take it for granted. Our Nation was

founded on the water and by the water; yet, very little

Responding to National Water Resources Challenges 77


freshwater available on the planet is available for human use.

Unlike energy, water cannot be created; it can only be discovered.

Chairman Oberstar called for a continuing conversation

about water policy to address comprehensive Federal and state

water planning at a watershed level. There is no justification for

not acting, he said. “We must hand off a better planet to our

grandchildren as custodians of our land and waters,” he


The strategic direction of the Corps is consistent with the

themes raised in this report and meeting 21 st century needs

collaboratively is a pressing priority. In the spirit of promoting

transparency, collaboration and integrated water resources

across the Nation, the Corps will continue to facilitate dialogue

about the Nation's water challenges and ways to address them

holistically and collaboratively to move efforts for sustainability

forward through integrated water resources management. The

findings and recommendations resulting from this assessment

will be presented to decision makers within the Corps and the

Administration. Documentation from this assessment will be

posted on the Corps' website (www.building-collaboration-forwater.

org). The momentum exists to move forward as a

national team of strategic allies joined by shared aims for

important work that has begun and must continue to protect

and enhance our Nation's precious water resources.

This 2008/2009 Collaborating for a Sustainable Water Future

assessment is just a beginning. It is not the conclusion about

what should be done specifically by whom in particular ways.

Much important work remains for many to do. Many topics,

e.g., the energy-water-food nexus and coastal issues, need to

be explored further. Hard work must be initiated on recommendations

that go beyond this assessment. Water resources

stakeholders at all levels must be involved in developing, refining

and implementing recommendations for a stronger water

future. A full Federal team could and should be engaged to

continue the work. Collaboration will make the difference to

ensure that this initiative counts. Respecting the primacy of

states in identifying water resources needs and in allocating

water resources, the Corps and other Federal agencies desire to

provide leadership collaboratively on interstate and multistate

issues as part of a national team to address these needs.

It is imperative for all of us to lead together for a more secure

water future for the generations to come. Let's find ways to

gather at the same table to continue this important work. The

78 Responding to National Water Resources Challenges


first step toward success will be patience. The ultimate desired

outcomes—a thriving economy, a healthy environment and a

high quality of life in sustainable communities—cannot be

achieved overnight. With collaboration, hard work in a deliberate

and deliberative—not ad hoc—manner, patience and

funding, our work can continue and pay off for the Nation's benefit.




the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill , signed into law this July, requires extractive companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange to disclose payments to governments . The provision was supported by Publish What You Pay , an international civil society coalition promoting transparency for extractive industries. President Obama highlighted the law in his address to the United Nations on Sept. 23.

13. United States - State Relationship. The relationship between the United States
and the State regarding this Consent Decree and oversight and support of the Work by the Site
Operator shall be governed by the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding The Iron
22 1 Mountain Mine Superfund Site Between The United States Environmental Protection Agency
and The California Department Of Toxic Substances Control and The California Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board ("MOU"), attached hereto as Appendix H.
A. Oversight and Support Agencies. EPA shall serve as the Oversight
Agency, and the State plaintiffs shall designate the State agency(ies) that will serve as the

Support Agency unless and until EPA and the State plaintiffs modify this relationship as set
2 forth in the MOU.

AIG to Repay TARP; ‘Glimpsing Sunshine'

October 11th, 2010

Article by Meg Green

Copyright: A.M. Best Company, Inc.
Source: BestWire Services

American International Group Inc.'s top officer said the company is “glimpsing sunshine” as it announced plans to repay its debt to the federal government, plus said it would sell two Japanese life insurance companies to U.S.-based life insurer Prudential Financial Inc. for $4.8 billion.

“You'll recall that in early August, we said we could see the light at the end of the tunnel,” said Robert Benmosche, chief executive of AIG, in an audio statement on the company's website. “Today, we are glimpsing at a lot of sunlight — an awful lot of sunlight.”

He said the announcement marks a momentous step forward for AIG, “and a new beginning for all of us.”

AIG Star Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and AIG Edison Life Insurance Co. Ltd. will be sold to Prudential Financial (NYSE: PRU) for $4.2 billion in cash, and Prudential will assume $600 million in third-party debt under the agreement.

Under the plan to repay its government bailout, AIG would pay back $20 billion in senior secured debt under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Credit Facility through parent company resources and proceeds from the disposal of AIG assets, including the planned initial public offering in Hong Kong in late October of its Asian life insurance unit, AIA Group.

AIG said it expects AIA to generate at least $2 billion in operating profit for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2010, ahead of AIA's IPO. AIG has moved forward with its IPO plans for AIA after a proposed $35.5 billion sale to U.K.-based Prudential plc fell through in June (BestWire, Sept. 28, 2010).

AIG also said its pending $15.5 billion sale of American Life Insurance Co. to MetLife Inc. would help fund the repayment.

The insurance group will also seek to return the FRBNY's $26 billion holding of preferred interest in two AIG-related special-purpose vehicles through proceeds from future asset monetizations.

AIG said it would also convert the remaining $49.1 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program preferred shares outstanding into stock to be held by the U.S. Treasury. With that exchange, Treasury will own 92.1% of AIG's common stock. AIG said the conversion will not take place until after the FRBNY credit facility is repaid in full, and the U.S. Treasury is expected to sell its stake in AIG on the open market.

Industry watchers had warned that if the shares are sold too quickly, it could dilute the value of the company and its stock.

Although these actions will result in a streamlined and — through the reduction of debt — strengthened AIG balance sheet, the company's ratings have been heavily based on the U.S. government provision of support, including availability of significant liquidity, A.M. Best Co. commented. With the removal of this support, AIG will need to stand on its own, re-establish itself in the capital markets, restore shareholder confidence (particularly with institutional investors) and demonstrate its ability to maintain sufficient liquidity, which is no longer accessible through government sources, A.M. Best said.

Most AIG insurers have current Best's Financial Strength Ratings of A (Excellent). A.M. Best said AIG's issuer credit rating of bbb is unchanged following the announcement and that the rating outlook remains negative.

As of Sept. 20, AIG (NYSE: AIG) still owed the U.S. government about $128.2 billion in debt (BestWire, Sept. 20, 2010).

Japan is “a market we know well. A market where we've had great success and momentum over the last 30 years,” said John Strangfeld, chairman and CEO of Prudential Financial, in a conference call Sept. 30.

Strangfeld noted Japan is the third-largest economy in the world, and the second-largest life insurance market. The acquisition of the AIG companies will allow Pru to broaden its distribution and “significantly increase the scale of our operations in Japan.”

The AIG Star and AIG Edison transactions are expected to close in the first quarter of 2011, subject to regulatory approval and other closing conditions.

The transaction is expected to result in a $1.2 billion pretax goodwill impairment charge on AIG's third-quarter results.

Shares of AIG were trading at $37.93 the morning of Sept. 30, up 1.28% from the previous close.

Shares of Prudential were trading at $54.10, down 4.30%. Prudential Insurance Company of America currently has a Best's Financial Strength Rating of A+ (Superior).

(By Meg Green, senior associate editor, BestWeek: )

Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on September 30, 2010 by Meg Green.

A.M. Best Co . has commented that the issuer credit rating of "bbb" of American International Group, Inc . (AIG) (New York, NY) [NYSE: AIG] is unchanged following the announcement of actions to restructure the financial assistance provided to AIG by the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). The rating outlook remains negative. The ratings of all AIG subsidiaries are unchanged.

The announcement of a plan to repay the FRBNY Credit Facility and to convert the various ownership interests of the U.S. Government to common equity, which will ultimately be sold to public investors, marks the beginning of the final phase of the process begun in September 2008 to stabilize AIG. While the specific details of the plan are now being made public, it has been the expectation since the initiation of the government's involvement that such involvement would not be permanent. As such, the announcement of this final plan is not itself a trigger for rating action by A.M. Best.

Under the proposal, the line of credit extended to AIG by the FRBNY will be repaid before the end of the first quarter of 2011, primarily using proceeds from the initial public offering of AIA Group Limited (AIA) and the previously-announced sale of American Life Insurance Company (ALICO) to MetLife, Inc . In addition, most of the preferred interests in special purpose vehicles (SPVs) established to facilitate the sale of AIA and ALICO currently held by the FRBNY will be transferred to the U.S. Treasury Department in a series of transactions. These two actions will result in the repayment of the outstanding balance on the FRBNY Credit Facility of approximately $20 billion and termination of the Facility.

Following the transactions above, the $49 billion of Series E and F preferred shares held by the U.S. Treasury as well as the Series C preferred shares held by the AIG Credit Facility Trust will be converted into approximately 1.7 billion common shares, which the Treasury will sell over time as market conditions permit. The Treasury's preferred interest in the SPVs will be redeemed through future asset monetizations of designated assets, and these obligations are without recourse to AIG.

Concurrently, the FRBNY and U.S. Treasury have agreed to create a bridge finance facility of approximately $2 billion derived from the Series F preferred shares. These Series F shares will be converted to Series G mandatory convertible preferred stock, which will be available for AIG to draw upon until March 31, 2012, or until AIG completes its primary equity offering of no less than $2 billion, whichever occurs first. The Series G will automatically convert into AIG Common Stock on March 31, 2012, unless it is not drawn or is drawn and redeemed prior to that date.

Although these actions will result in a streamlined and—through the reduction of debt—strengthened AIG balance sheet, the company's ratings have been heavily based on the U.S. Government provision of support, including availability of significant liquidity. With the removal of this support, AIG will need to stand on its own, re-establish itself in the capital markets, restore shareholder confidence (particularly with institutional investors) and demonstrate its ability to maintain sufficient liquidity, which is no longer accessible through government sources. A.M. Best will continue to monitor the execution of the multi-faceted plan and will review the ratings as events emerge.

Ten-Year Swap means an agreement reached between the Company and the Scheduled
Contractor whereby the Scheduled Contractor is prepaid for the first ten years of Expected
Clean-Up Costs and the Company receives certain financial assurances as more fully described
in the Agreement for Insurance for and Work at the Iron Mountain Superfund Site.
oo. Termination Date means the earliest of the following:
1. The ending date of the period set forth in Item 3 of the Declarations; or
2. Cancellation of the Policy pursuant to Section VI, Paragraph F.
pp. Trust One means the Iron Mountain Mine Remediation Trust I, established pursuant to, and
governed by, the laws of the State of California, which shall hold certain rights, title, and other
interests with respect to certain plant and fixed equipment at the Site.
QQ. Trust Two means the Iron Mountain Mine Remediation Trust II established pursuant to,
and governed by, the laws of the State of California and established to qualify as a trust
established pursuant to Section 4688 of the United States Internal Revenue Code.

12. Financial Assurance
a) In the event the Company ceases to be at least "A rated" by A.M. Best, or an equal or better
rating by a leading industry rating agency, should A.M. Best not exist, the Company shall provide
prompt notice to the Named Insureds and financial assurance in one or more of the following
1. A

(f) Financial test and corporate guarantee for closure. (1) An owner or operator may satisfy the requirements of this section by demonstrating that he passes a financial test as specified in this paragraph. To pass this test the owner or operator must meet the criteria of either paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section:

(i) The owner or operator must have:

(A) Two of the following three ratios: a ratio of total liabilities to net worth less than 2.0; a ratio of the sum of net income plus depreciation, depletion, and amortization to total liabilities greater than 0.1; and a ratio of current assets to current liabilities greater than 1.5; and

(B) Net working capital and tangible net worth each at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates and the current plugging and abandonment cost estimates; and

(C) Tangible net worth of at least $10 million; and

(D) Assets located in the United States amounting to at least 90 percent of total assets or at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates and the current plugging and abandonment cost estimates.

(ii) The owner or operator must have:

(A) A current rating for his most recent bond issuance of AAA, AA, A, or BBB as issued by Standard and Poor's or Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa as issued by Moody's; and

(B) Tangible net worth at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates and the current plugging and abandonment cost estimates; and

(C) Tangible net worth of at least $10 million; and

(D) Assets located in the United States amounting to at least 90 percent of total assets or at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates and the current plugging and abandonment cost estimates.

(2) The phrase “current closure and post-closure cost estimates” as used in paragraph (f)(1) of this section refers to the cost estimates required to be shown in paragraphs 1–4 of the letter from the owner's or operator's chief financial officer (§264.151(f)). The phrase “current plugging and abandonment cost estimates” as used in paragraph (f)(1) of this section refers to the cost estimates required to be shown in paragraphs 1–4 of the letter from the owner's or operator's chief financial officer (§144.70(f) of this title).

(3) To demonstrate that he meets this test, the owner or operator must submit the following items to the Regional Administrator:

(i) A letter signed by the owner's or operator's chief financial officer and worded as specified in §264.151(f); and

(ii) A copy of the independent certified public accountant's report on examination of the owner's or operator's financial statements for the latest completed fiscal year; and

(iii) A special report from the owner's or operator's independent certified public accountant to the owner or operator stating that:

(A) He has compared the data which the letter from the chief financial officer specifies as having been derived from the independently audited, year-end financial statements for the latest fiscal year with the amounts in such financial statements; and

(B) In connection with that procedure, no matters came to his attention which caused him to believe that the specified data should be adjusted.

(4) An owner or operator of a new facility must submit the items specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section to the Regional Administrator at least 60 days before the date on which hazardous waste is first received for treatment, storage, or disposal.

(5) After the initial submission of items specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the owner or operator must send updated information to the Regional Administrator within 90 days after the close of each succeeding fiscal year. This information must consist of all three items specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.

(6) If the owner or operator no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, he must send notice to the Regional Administrator of intent to establish alternate financial assurance as specified in this section. The notice must be sent by certified mail within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year for which the year-end financial data show that the owner or operator no longer meets the requirements. The owner or operator must provide the alternate financial assurance within 120 days after the end of such fiscal year.

(7) The Regional Administrator may, based on a reasonable belief that the owner or operator may no longer meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, require reports of financial condition at any time from the owner or operator in addition to those specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If the Regional Administrator finds, on the basis of such reports or other information, that the owner or operator no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must provide alternate financial assurance as specified in this section within 30 days after notification of such a finding.

(8) The Regional Administrator may disallow use of this test on the basis of qualifications in the opinion expressed by the independent certified public accountant in his report on examination of the owner's or operator's financial statements (see paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section). An adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion will be cause for disallowance. The Regional Administrator will evaluate other qualifications on an individual basis. The owner or operator must provide alternate financial assurance as specified in this section within 30 days after notification of the disallowance.

(9) The owner or operator is no longer required to submit the items specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section when:

(i) An owner or operator substitutes alternate financial assurance as specified in this section; or

(ii) The Regional Administrator releases the owner or operator from the requirements of this section in accordance with §264.143(i).

(10) An owner or operator may meet the requirements of this section by obtaining a written guarantee. The guarantor must be the direct or higher-tier parent corporation of the owner or operator, a firm whose parent corporation is also the parent corporation of the owner or operator, or a firm with a “substantial business relationship” with the owner or operator. The guarantor must meet the requirements for owners or operators in paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section and must comply with the terms of the guarantee. The wording of the guarantee must be identical to the wording specified in §264.151(h). The certified copy of the guarantee must accompany the items sent to the Regional Administrator as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. One of these items must be the letter from the guarantor's chief financial officer. If the guarantor's parent corporation is also the parent corporation of the owner or operator, the letter must describe the value received in consideration of the guarantee. If the guarantor is a firm with a “substantial business relationship” with the owner or operator, this letter must describe this “substantial business relationship” and the value received in consideration of the guarantee. The terms of the guarantee must provide that:

(i) If the owner or operator fails to perform final closure of a facility covered by the corporate guarantee in accordance with the closure plan and other permit requirements whenever required to do so, the guarantor will do so or establish a trust fund as specified in §264.143(a) in the name of the owner or operator.

(ii) The corporate guarantee will remain in force unless the guarantor sends notice of cancellation by certified mail to the owner or operator and to the Regional Administrator. Cancellation may not occur, however, during the 120 days beginning on the date of receipt of the notice of cancellation by both the owner or operator and the Regional Administrator, as evidenced by the return receipts.

(iii) If the owner or operator fails to provide alternate financial assurance as specified in this section and obtain the written approval of such alternate assurance from the Regional Administrator within 90 days after receipt by both the owner or operator and the Regional Administrator of a notice of cancellation of the corporate guarantee from the guarantor, the guarantor will provide such alternative financial assurance in the name of the owner or operator.

demonstration that the Company satisfies the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 264.143(f)

for the Terminal Payment;
2. A guarantee to perform the obligations of the Company under the Terminal Payment by one
or more parent corporations or subsidiaries, or by one or more unrelated corporations that
have a substantial business relationship with the Company;
3. A surety bond guaranteeing the Terminal Payment;
4. One or more irrevocable letters of credit equaling the Terminal Payment; or
5. A trust fund.
b) If the Company seeks to provide financial assurance through a guarantee by a third party
pursuant to Paragraph a.2 above, the Company shall demonstrate that the guarantor satisfies the
requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 264.143(f). If the Company seeks to demonstrate its ability to
provide financial assurance by means of the financial test or the corporate guarantee pursuant to
paragraph a.2 it shall resubmit sworn statements conveying the information required by 40 C.F.R.
Part 264.143(f) annually, on the anniversary of the effective date of the Policy. In the event that
the Oversight Agency, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the Support
Agency, determines at any time that the financial assurances provided pursuant to this section
are inadequate, the Company shall, within 30 days of receipt of notice of the Oversight
Agency's determination, obtain and present to the Oversight Agency for approval one of the
other forms of financial assurance listed above. The Company's inability to demonstrate financial
ability to perform under the Policy shall not excuse performance of such activities.
c) The Company may change the form of financial assurance provided under this section at any
time, upon notice to and approval by the Oversight Agency, provided that the new form of
assurance meets the requirements of this section. In the event of a dispute, the Company may
change the form of the financial assurance only in accordance with the final administrative or
judicial decision resolving the dispute.

AIG currently has the equivalent of a single-A-minus credit rating from Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's, but that investment-grade rating is largely due to the financial support the U.S. government has provided.

Absent government support, AIG would have a noninvestment-grade, or "junk," credit rating. AIG chief executive Robert Benmosche has said the company is trying to get its "stand-alone" rating back to single-A, which would entail sharply lowering its debt, maintaining or improving the profitability of its insurance businesses, reducing risk and disposing of noncore units. Last week, AIG reached a deal to sell 80% of its debt-heavy and loss-making consumer-finance business, removing a key drag on its finances.

Over the past year, various banks and insurers that received funds from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program repaid what they owed the government after raising money from investors from stock and debt sales. "A necessary step for other institutions was accessing the capital markets on their own before they went to the government with a plan to repay TARP," said Robert Riegel, managing director of Moody's U.S. Insurance team. He notes, however, that AIG's situation is more complicated because of the size and scale of its bailout.

Much of what AIG owes the New York Fed is expected to be repaid with cash from asset sales, though a portion could come from new debt issues. The annual interest rate on AIG's loan from the New York Fed is currently about 3.35%.

The regional Fed bank is looking to recoup a separate $55 billion in equity holdings from sales of AIG's overseas life insurance businesses and from mortgage securities previously linked to the insurer. The Treasury Department separately has a $49 billion investment in AIG preferred shares, some of which are widely expected to be converted in the future into AIG common stock and sold to investors.

According to MarketWatch, following the latest news, Standard & Poor's Rating Services announced that it would maintain AIG's credit rating at A-, but plans to conduct a review in light of the plan, which it called “a positive credit development.” S&P is likely to raise its stand-alone credit rating for the firm from BB to BBB+, and possibly even higher by the end of 2010.


Determining AIG's Worth

The rules for push-down accounting, which the Securities and Exchange Commission's staff laid out in a 2001 memo , hinge on rigid numerical tests for determining if a company has become “substantially wholly owned” by another entity. The method is prohibited with less than 80 percent ownership, permitted if ownership is 80 percent or more but less than 95 percent, and required (with some exceptions) at 95 percent or more.

The process works like this. When a transaction or series of deals results in a company becoming substantially owned by another entity, the new owner allocates its purchase price among the assets and liabilities it acquired, using their newly assigned fair values. Those values then are pushed down to the acquired company, which can cause either positive or negative adjustments to the items on its balance sheet.

Real World Numbers

The effects of push-down accounting on AIG's books probably would be sizeable. As of June 30 , AIG said 54 percent of the $850.5 billion of assets on its balance sheet were measured at fair value on a recurring basis, meaning 46 percent weren't. Just 4 percent of its $745.9 billion of liabilities were.

One example of an asset carried at cost, rather than fair value, is a $29 billion line on AIG's books called deferred acquisition costs, which include sales commissions and other expenses related to acquiring and renewing customers' insurance policies. These deferred costs aren't saleable. It is money out the door. Their fair value wouldn't be anywhere close to $29 billion in the real world. Yet that figure represented 38 percent of AIG's shareholder equity as of June 30.

Other fair-value adjustments could result in increases to AIG's equity. For instance, AIG said the fair values for some liabilities were lower than what its balance sheet showed.

An AIG spokesman, Mark Herr , declined to comment for this column, as did a Treasury spokesman, Mark Paustenbach . My guess is that neither Treasury nor AIG wants to highlight that push- down accounting is back on the table as an option. If more investors knew that it was, they just might demand the additional transparency.

3 22. The Settling Parties shall comply with the access and institutional control
4 requirements contained in the Access Agreement attached to this Consent Decree as Appendix
5 M.
6 23. The Site Operator shall comply with the access and institutional control
7 requirements contained in the SOW.
8 24. If the Oversight Agency or the Support Agency determines that land/water use
9 restrictions in the form of state or local laws, regulations, ordinances or other governmental
10 controls are needed to implement the interim remedies selected in the RODs, ensure the
11 integrity and protectiveness thereof, or ensure non-interference therewith, the Site Operator
12 shall cooperate with the efforts of the Oversight Agency or Support Agency to secure such
13 governmental controls, in accordance with the SOW.
14 25. Subject only to the provisions of this Consent Decree governing the specific
15 rights and obligations of the Released Parties and the Site Operator, the United States and the
16 State retain all of their access authorities and rights, as well as all of their rights to require
17 land/water use restrictions, including enforcement authorities related thereto, under CERCLA,
18 RCRA and any other applicable federal or state law, statutes, or regulations.
20 26. The Site Operator shall comply with all reporting requirements as specified in
21 the SOW.


5.1 Decisions relating to remedy selection.
5.1.1 Decisions regarding selection of future remedial actions. The Parties to
this MOU agree that with respect to any future investigation and remedy
selection regarding the IMM Site, the Parties will follow the process and
procedures set forth in CERCLA and the NCP. The Parties further
understand and agree that nothing in the MOU limits the State's rights
under Section 114 of CERCLA or any other applicable law, or the rights
and responsibilities of any Party under Section 121 of CERCLA or any
other applicable law.
5.1.2 Decisions regarding amending prior remedial actions. The Parties to
this MOU agree that with respect to adopting an ESD or amending the

remedial actions in place at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree or
remedies implemented after the entry of the Consent Decree, EPA and the
State will follow the process and procedures set forth in CERCLA and the
NCP. The Parties further understand and agree that nothing in this MOU
limits the State's rights under Section 114 of CERCLA or any other
applicable law, or the rights and responsibilities of any Party under
Section 121 of CERCLA or any other applicable law.
5.1.3 Waiver of ARARs for existing and future RODs. The Parties to this
MOU agree to consider the appropriateness of a permanent waiver of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement ("ARAR") with respect
to the standard for receiving waters, including, but not limited to Spring
Creek, as to existing and future RODs for the IMM Site. If at some point
EPA determines that no further RODs will be issued for the IMM Site,
EPA will inform the State in writing at the earliest possible date and the
issue of the waiver of ARARs will be reviewed as soon as thereafter as
5.1.4 Changes to CERCLA. If in the future CERCLA changes in a material
manner so as to impact the expectation of the Parties with respect to the
process arid procedure for amending remedies at a federal Superfund site,
the Parties will agree to meet and formulate a process for future remedy
selection that is consistent with applicable state and federal laws in force at
that time.


Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Redding.

Read more:

28 USC 84 - Sec. 84. California

US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Read more:

With race against FEMA remapping in jeopardy, chair of Dallas' Trinity committee rails against the Corps of Engineers


October 5, 2010

EPA Awards $1.9 Million in Environmental Justice Grants


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


"the revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review.


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 )

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.”



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.

EPA Observes Children's Health Month

President proclaims Oct. 4 as Children Health Day

WASHINGTON - As President Obama proclaims today as Children Health Day, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working with its partners to expand the conversation on what all of us can do to protect children from environmental health hazards. Children are more affected by pollution because of their body weight when compared to adults and rely upon us to provide them with healthy communities where they live, play and learn.

"EPA is asking all Americans to join us this month and every month in making our communities across the country healthier places to live, learn and play for our children and future generations," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "As administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a mother, I know just how important it is that we act to protect our most vulnerable populations, and give them the clean, sustainable environment they need to thrive."

Under Administrator Jackson's leadership, EPA has taken steps that will help improve the health of children, including taking action on greenhouse gases, strengthening clean air act standards, reforming chemical safety, reducing the impact of coal on the environment and water and working for environmental justice.

The presidential proclamation calls upon families, child health professionals, faith-based and community organizations and governments to help ensure clean air, safe water and healthy communities for children.

Throughout October, there will be roundtable discussions and educational events taking place across the country. These are opportunities where parents, teachers and caregivers can learn about environmental issues affecting children, how they are being addressed more effectively at the local and national level, and the simple actions they can take to help keep children healthy.

Enesta Jones

October 4, 2010

Children's Health events:

Tips to protect children:$File/CHM_Calendar_English_2010_508_2.pdf?Open&preview

Tips, in Spanish:$File/CHM_Calendar_Spanish_2010_508.pdf?Open&preview

Dam Inspection By Owner



Ex rel. TWO MINERS & 360, 2744, 4400, 8000, 52,000, 103 million ACRES of LAND ... TW ARMAN
and IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC. et al, OWNER & OPERATOR, plaintiffs' ... CITIZENS and
STATESMEN in loco parentis, parens patriae, supersedeas, qui tam, intervention. v. ...
Related articles - View as HTML - All 4 versions

Explaining the AIG exit

Andrew Ross Sorkin's column today is entirely based on what he learned talking to Jim Millstein, the chief restructuring officer at Treasury, who seems to be very happy to talk now that he's officially announced Treasury's plan to exit its investment in AIG. I spoke to him for 70 minutes this afternoon, and now have a much clearer idea of how Treasury is thinking, how its math works, and why there's a disconnect between Treasury and critics like Kid Dynamite .

Millstein made a number of interrelated points.

First, the really big picture here is being missed. There's now an end in sight to a huge and enormously complex corporate restructuring, of an entity — AIG — which was too big to fail, too big to manage, and which had an enormous black hole at its heart known as AIG Financial Products. Today, AIG is set to emerge as a viable entity roughly half its former size, small enough to fail, with the black hole gone. That's not only a substantial achievement; it's also a good proof of concept when it comes to the FDIC's new resolution authority.

This involved a big strategic change of direction at AIG and Treasury. When Treasury installed Ed Liddy as AIG CEO in the immediate aftermath of the bailout, says Millstein, the idea was very much to sell off everything — essentially, to liquidate AIG entirely. But that's no longer the vision: instead, the idea is now to keep AIG going as a good-sized US insurance company, with a very strong property and casualty franchise and a solid life insurance franchise to boot. That company looks as though it's going to be worth something north of $60 billion, given its inherent profitability and general stock-market valuations of insurers.

But there's an enormous difference between an insurance company you're trying to liquidate, on the one hand, and an insurance company which you want to survive as a going concern, on the other: it's not just a difference of taking various assets off the auction block. Rather, it all comes down to credit ratings: in order to be viable as a going concern, any insurance company needs a solid investment-grade credit rating.

If AIG was just selling off its assets or putting its insurance operations into run-off mode, then its credit rating wouldn't matter so much — although the higher AIG's credit rating, the easier it becomes to unwind AIGFP's derivatives positions without facing enormous margin calls. But Treasury looked at the bids that AIG was receiving for its assets, and determined that they were being lowballed by the likes of MetLife, since potential buyers smelled a fire sale. As a result, Treasury needed to credibly be able to say that it didn't have to sell off all AIG's assets.

In order to do that, Treasury needed to take a large chunk of AIG's debt and convert it into some kind of equity. That's why Treasury ended up owning tens of billions of dollars in preferred stock: the ratings agencies don't consider preferred stock to be debt, and so they disregard it when assigning their ratings.

Now a lot of the arithmetic being done by the likes of Sorkin and KD is based on that preferred stock essentially being debt. After all, that's how AIG itself shows it on their website. But it's a very peculiar kind of debt: in fact, to a first approximation, it really is that nerdy joke, the zero-coupon perpetual bond. There's a dividend associated with the preferred stock, but AIG is under no obligation to pay it, and it's non-cumulative: if AIG doesn't pay the dividend then it doesn't remain on AIG's books as any kind of obligation. And there's no maturity date, either. So the obligation that AIG has to Treasury is essentially zero: it has to pay back $0 per year, in perpetuity.

The only real value to the preferred stock is that unless and until AIG starts paying the coupon, it can't make any dividend payments on its common stock. So the preferred stock is not entirely without value. But no one in their right mind would actually pay money for it.

So when Treasury swaps its preferred stock for common stock, it's swapping something with essentially zero secondary-market value for something much more liquid and marketable.

Of course, Treasury brought this on itself, back in February 2009, when it swapped cumulative preferred stock paying a 10 percent coupon for new non-cumulative preferred stock. Without that move, there would never have been any equity value in AIG at all — AIG would have been a loss-making entity in perpetuity. But of course Treasury owns most of the equity in AIG, so it essentially made the decision to swap debt in an insolvent AIG for equity in a solvent AIG. And the reasoning was that the liquidation value of an insolvent AIG was much lower than the market value of a solvent AIG which could operate as a going concern.

At some point, Treasury was always going to insist on converting its new zero-coupon perpetual bonds into something a bit more useful, like secured debt or unsecured debt or cumulative preferred stock or common stock. They were always a halfway house, a way of getting here from there. And in the end, Treasury decided that the easiest and most profitable thing to do would be to just convert them all into common stock.

I'm not sure I would have made the same decision. AIG is making about $8 billion a year at this point, which is more than enough to support a bit more in the way of debt without making too much of a dent in its credit rating. If Treasury had converted say $20 billion of its current preferred stock into new preferred stock paying a 5% coupon, that would pay Treasury $1 billion a year in perpetuity, and could probably be sold at or near par. Instead, that $1 billion a year is being valued on a p/e basis in the stock market, at between $8 billion and $12 billion. That's less than the $20 billion (ish) it would be worth if it looked more like debt.

But Treasury wants to exit its investment, and selling $20 billion of perpetual AIG preferred stock would be decidedly non-trivial. Selling AIG stock is a lot easier. So Treasury decided to simply convert everything to common stock, in an attempt to get out of the insurance business as quickly as possible.

Looked at this way, it's silly to assign hard dollar values to the Series E and Series F preferred stock and then complain when they're being swapped for equity worth less than that sum. Instead, the only number which matters is the total amount of money which Treasury ends up getting from selling off bits of AIG and, ultimately, AIG itself. And there's a secondary consideration, too: Treasury wants to do that sell-off as quickly as possible.

Treasury's exit strategy certainly maximizes the speed of the sell-off. And Millstein makes a credible case that at the end of the day, Treasury is going to get out of AIG more money than it put in — some $13 billion or so in profit. That sum is not nearly commensurate with the risk that Treasury took when it bailed out the insurer. But really, Treasury had no choice: when it was bailed out, AIG had a whopping $2.4 trillion in derivatives contracts, which would have caused major systemic consequences if they had been unwound in a Lehman-style forced liquidation. We would all be much poorer, today, if AIG had not been bailed out. Any profit on the bailout is just gravy.

So it's easy to get caught up in the weeds here. But rather than getting caught up with the relative valuations of Series C and Series F, the big picture is relatively simple: Treasury put about $47.5 billion into AIG, and the Fed added a bunch more. The Fed is soon going to get paid off in full, with interest. And Treasury is going to end up with an equity stake in AIG worth something north of $60 billion; it's optimistic that it'll be able to sell that stake in the market, much like it's selling off its Citigroup stake right now. That equity stake is a matter of choice; Treasury could have structured things many other ways, and probably could have ended up with something less liquid but more valuable if it had wanted to do so.

Millstein is a fan of common equity, and is looking forward to the day when he can start selling off the government's AIG stake in the secondary market. Then we'll be done with AIG, we won't have big losses to show for it, and we will have dealt with the AIGFP black hole in the interim. It's a pretty impressive achievement, all told. And the technical dynamics of exactly what the government is doing with its current slightly peculiar preferred stock are ultimately something of a distraction.

(A couple of footnotes, which don't fit into the broader narrative: right now, AIG has the right to borrow $22 billion more from Treasury, in the form of that Series F perpetual zero-coupon preferred stock, at any time. Under this exit plan, AIG has to use that whole credit line to pay off the Fed, and then needs to repay it with various asset sales, including the sale of the assets it's getting from the Fed. So the plan puts Treasury at less risk that suddenly it will have no choice but to send lots of money to a hungry AIG. And, AIG won't only be an insurance company: for the time being, it still owns an aircraft leasing company called ILFC. But it has said that ILFC is non-core, and it will be happy to sell it at the right price.)


Congress “Fixes” SEC Secrecy

Following last week's hearing in the House Financial Services Committee and action by the Senate Judiciary Committee on the broad and unnecessary Freedom of Information Act exemption for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Congress moved quickly to approve legislation that will fix the controversial provisions.

Despite the SEC's assurances that the exemptions are needed and will be applied narrowly, the legislative efforts to eliminate the language from the recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act have garnered surprisingly strong bi-partisan support. On Sept. 21, just four days after the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the legislative fix, S.3717, the full Senate voted unanimously to pass the bill. Yesterday, the House followed suit and passed the legislation on a voice vote.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who introduced S. 3717, said of the bill's passage, “This new law will ensure that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) remains an effective tool to provide public access to information about the stability of our financial markets.”

S. 3717 now travels to the White House where, hopefully, President Obama will quickly sign it and complete the process.

( Sean Moulton 09/24/10;

NORTH SANDWICH, NH, October 4, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- A federal judge in Athens, GA is about to rule on a lawsuit filed by a former EPA research scientist and two dairy farmers over fake data EPA and the University of Georgia published to support a controversial EPA regulation. The case, which has national implications, involves treated sewage sludge, called "biosolids," regulated under EPA's 503 Sludge Rule. Biosolids typically contain unknown levels of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, organic solvents and other industrial pollutants and is widely used to fertilize farms, lawns, and home gardens.

David Lewis, a 32-year veteran research microbiologist in EPA's Office of Research & Development, published research linking biosolids use to widespread illnesses and several deaths. One case he studied involved hundreds of dairy cows, owned by the families of Andy McElmurray and William Boyce, which died after ingesting forage grown with biosolids produced by the City of Augusta, GA.

EPA's Office of Water, which developed the 503 Rule, issued UGA a grant in 1999 to help EPA investigate the cattle deaths. Augusta's records of the quality and application rates of its biosolids filed with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources mysteriously disappeared. Augusta recreated these records and gave them to an EPA employee, Robert Brobst, who published them in the UGA study. They falsely indicated that the quality of Augusta's biosolids dramatically improved in 1993 when the 503 Rule passed, and that its biosolids were applied at much lower than actual rates.

EPA used the study, which concluded that Augusta's sludge did not pose a risk to animal health, to convince the National Academy of Sciences to disregard the Georgia cattle deaths and conclude that there's no documented evidence that EPA's 503 Rule has ever failed to protect public health. Experts hired by the dairy farmers discovered the fraud; and Lewis and the dairy farmers filed suit when UGA refused to retract the bogus data.

Andy McElmurray filed a separate lawsuit when the USDA refused to compensate him for his land being too polluted to grow crops. U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Alaimo ruled in his favor, stating there was a "broad consensus" that the data Brobst gathered from Augusta were "unreliable, incomplete, and in some cases fudged." "In January 1999, the City rehired [a manager] to create a record of sludge applications that did not exist previously.”

Julia Gaskin, lead author of the questionable study, testified she knew there were problems with the data; but Brobst assured her that they were not "totally fabricated." Disagreeing with how EPA used her study, she believed biosolids harmed the dairy farms.

Based on a technicality, Judge Clay Land of the U.S. Circuit Court in Athens, GA dismissed the lawsuit filed by Lewis and the dairy farmers. UGA continues to refuse to retract Augusta's fabricated data; and Plaintiffs have asked the Court to reconsider.

Caroline Snyder Ph.D.
Citizens for Sludge-Free Land


Public Discussion – September 2010 PERPETUAL TESTIMONY

Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food
Recovery Act
Civil Rights

Oversight Hearing to Examine the Impact of EPA Regulation on Agriculture

Click here to watch the re-broadcast of these proceedings

It is well established that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be expanded or contracted “by prior action or
consent of the parties.” Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18 (1951)


NCP, 40 CFR§300.435(f)(2), states, “A remedy becomes ‘operational and functional' either one year after construction is complete, or when the remedy is determined concurrently by EPA and the State to be functioning properly and is performing as designed, whichever is earlier.


Army Dam Inspection


The Engineer Research and Development Center's (ERDC) Dam Inspection Team uses a mix of in-house personnel, Corps of Engineers' District personnel, and civilian consultants to help the U.S. Army Directorates of Public Works maintain compliance with regulations regarding dam safety.

Federal agencies are required by Public Law 92-367, as amended by Public Law 104-303, to inspect dams under their jurisdiction and to biennially report the data to the National Inventory of Dams (NID).

The ERDC Dam Inspection Team assists the Army's Installation Management Command and individual Army installations in complying with the Army's policy, as stated in Army Regulation 420-1. Army policy also requires that each installation have a current Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for each of the high- and significant-hazard dams and an EAP Standard Operating Procedure for low-hazard dams.


Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 , 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, expanded federal jurisdiction over many large class-action lawsuits and mass actions taken in the United States.

The bill was the first major legislation in the second term of the second Bush Administration. Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action lawsuit abuse. [ 1 ] President George W. Bush had vowed to support this legislation.

The Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed.

Fiscal Commission to Produce Sensible Solutions to Debt/Deficit Dilemma Soon

Rainbows and Unicorns to Appear Shortly After

No, I'm just kidding. In fact, according to a Congressional Quarterly (subscription) article published yesterday, it looks like expected Republican congressional electoral gains this fall may completely gridlock what are already complicated negotiations within the commission over addressing our nation's problematic mid- to long-term fiscal issues.

Yesterday afternoon, shortly after the fiscal commission adjourned their last hearing before the November mid-term elections, co-chair Erskine Bowles urged those members of the commission who hold elected political office – which accounts for 12 of the 18 members – to "set some of those parochial interests aside" when voting for recommendations next month.

Commission members would be wise to heed Bowles' proposition if they hope to come up with any worthwhile proposals. For any recommendation to make it into the final report the commission puts out in December, 14 of the 18 members have to agree to it.

Republican gains in Congress could lessen the chances of that happening:

A Republican takeover of the House or Senate would likely embolden Republican members when the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility reconvenes in December, lawmakers and analysts concluded. The Republicans could conclude that they have increased leverage in shaping the panel's recommendations.


On the other hand, major gains in November could make Republicans on the commission less willing to cut bipartisan deals, some observers said. GOP leaders might discourage agreement, reasoning that any proposals to emerge from the commission would be considered during the post-election session of the 111th Congress with Democrats holding their current substantial House and Senate majorities.

Add that prognostication to what some panel members are describing as current Republican intransigence on any tax increases to raise revenue, and we'll likely have a final commission report that recommends trimming around the edges of fiscal problems rather than addressing the systemic issues within our federal budget.

Color me cynical, but at this point I'll just be happy if the commission doesn't produce any proposals that recommend cutting Social Security benefits for future generations.

Image by Flickr user johnsolid used under a Creative Commons license.

( Gary Therkildsen 09/30/10;


Interior Does About-face on Scientific Integrity

This week, the Interior Department released a new policy to protect scientific integrity in the department. OMB Watch joined other public interest groups in submitting comments on the department's draft policy in September. The new policy attempts to address concerns, raised in those comments and others, that the draft policy did not go far enough to prevent abuses of the department's scientific activities and decision making.

Seal of the U.S. Department of the Interior

The new policy, released as an order of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, drops many of the specifics of the draft policy. Instead, it establishes principles designed to be consistent with President Obama's 2009 scientific integrity memo . The particulars of the policy will be detailed in a future addition to the department's employee manual, as well as guidance and implementation plans developed by Interior bureaus and offices.

The new policy was praised by public interest groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility , who had criticized the earlier draft.

Interestingly, the new policy mentions that government-wide guidance on scientific integrity is "expected" in 2010 from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. That guidance, ordered in 2009 as part of the president's memo, is now more than a year overdue . Interior's statement suggests the guidance may finally be released before the end of this year.

( Gavin Baker 10/01/10;

Senate Could Vote on Food Safety Bill after Elections

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a cloture motion on the beleaguered FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, according to Food Safety News.

As anyone who has been following the bill knows, this is not an insignificant development. Reid has said on several occasions that he wanted to take up the bill by this or that date – most recently before the Senate recessed for elections – but has failed to schedule debate or a vote.

The bill has support from Democrats, Republicans, consumer advocates, and the food industry. However, Reid had to file cloture on the bill, because Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected to an attempt to bring the bill to a vote under unanimous consent. Because of Coburn – who lodged his grievances with the bill only recently even though it cleared the committee stage in 2009 – the Senate will have to debate the bill and hold a procedural vote before passing it, a more time-consuming process.

As Food Safety News points out, the bill will have to compete with other priorities when the Senate returns:

Now the languishing measure may be one of the first bills up for consideration in November when Congress reconvenes after the election, although it will compete with a variety of high profile issues, including a defense authorization bill and whether to extend the Bush tax cuts. 

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act isn't out of the woods yet, but this does provide some hope, and Reid was wise to make a move before the recess.

( Matthew Madia 10/01/10;



"EPA is attempting to address a problem which simply is not there." Rich Hillman, vice president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau.

"Farmers, ranchers, and foresters "are increasingly frustrated and bewildered by vague, overreaching, and unnecessarily burdensome EPA regulations,"

Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Blanche Lincoln

" You're hammering the little guy," Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns told EPA administrator Jackson.

Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, delivered a blunt message from his constituents:

"The Environmental Protection Agency has become Public Enemy Number One of our farmers and ranchers."

EPA Press Office

September 30, 2010

EPA Administrator Addresses Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee

Agency announces new committee members

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Environmental Protection Administration Administrator Lisa P. Jackson addressed the newly-appointed members of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) during their first official meeting since being appointed. The FRRCC is an independent committee, established by EPA in 2008, that advises the agency on a wide range of environmental issues of importance to agriculture and rural communities. EPA also announced the new committee members, who were appointed in May.

This morning's remarks highlighted Administrator Jackson's ongoing efforts to engage American farmers and highlight opportunities for cooperation between the environmental and agricultural communities. Her speech follows EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe's tour of Northern California farms last week, where he met with local farmers to see and discuss efforts from the agricultural sector to protect our nation's natural resources.

“EPA is working to ensure that American farmers, ranchers and rural communities are more environmentally sustainable and economically resilient than ever before,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “America's farmers have a broad impact on everything from daily food prices to widespread environmental impacts to emerging fuel technologies. We need them to be part of our decision making process, and this meeting is yet another step in our engagement with the agricultural community.”

The new FRRCC members include: Steven S. Balling, Ph.D. (Chair), Del Monte Foods; Michael W. Brubaker, Senate of Pennsylvania; Suzy Friedman, Environmental Defense Fund; Steve McNinch, Western Plains Energy; Bill Snapp, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; Peggy Beltrone, Cascade County Commission; Robert T. Burns, Ph.D., University of Tennessee; Omar J. Garza, Texas Mexico Border Coalition; Martha L. Noble, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; Alice Ann Sorenson, Ph.D., American Farmland Trust; George J. Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District; Gabriela Chavarria, Ph.D., Natural Resources Defense Council; Lee McDaniel, Harford Soil Conservation District; David D. Petty, Iowa River Ranch; G. Douglas Young (Deputy Chair), Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center; A. Richard Bonanno, Ph.D.; University of Massachusetts, Lawrence E. Clark, Farm Pilot Project Coordination; Tom McDonald, JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding; Jennie S. Hughes Popp, Ph.D., University of Arkansas; Ray E. Vester, E & M Farms Partnership; Daniel A. Botts, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; James W. Ford, Square “O” Consulting; Janis McFarland, Ph.D., Syngenta Crop Protection; Larry D. Sanders, Ph.D., Oklahoma State University; Lori A. Berger, Ph.D., California Specialty Crops Council; Robert L. Carlson, North Dakota Farmers Union; Archilus L. Hart, North Carolina Department of Agriculture; Bill Northey, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship; and Dennis H. Treacy, Smithfield Foods.

More information on the FRRCC:


Alert - September 28, 2010

Proposed Changes to ASTM Phase II Due Diligence Standard Would Dramatically Increase the Time and Cost for Completing Environmental Due Diligence

September 28, 2010

Amy L. Edwards - Washington

ASTM continues to move forward with planned changes to the standard for conducting Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) (ASTM E 1903). If approved, these changes would impose drastic new obligations on Users ( i.e. , the parties commissioning the reports) and likely increase the time and cost for completing environmental due diligence investigations. Parties involved in commercial real estate and M&A transactions need to be aware of, and involved in, these ongoing discussions.


The ASTM Standard Guide on the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process was first published in 1997 and reapproved in 2002. The current changes have been underway for a couple of years and are proceeding under the auspices of the ASTM E50.02 Task Group. The Task Group has stated that it hopes to make the Phase II process more transparent and consistent with scientifically sound methods, with the goal of making the process more “objective, representative, reproducible, and defensible” (Section 1.1). While all of this sounds good in theory, it will require dramatic changes in the way in which Phase II ESAs are conducted in order to achieve these lofty goals. The proposed changes will require the Phase II Assessor and the User to examine issues that go well beyond CERCLA liability, including looking for the mere presence (not releases) of substances (not just hazardous substances or petroleum products) on the property. The scope of the Phase II ESA will be directly related to the User's objectives and may require refinement as the investigation progresses. More than one round of sampling may be required to achieve the User's objectives. The Phase II process would also become much more prescriptive (in particular, see Sections 5, 6 and 7) than it is at the present time if the proposed changes are adopted.

Nature of the Proposed Changes

The proposed changes to ASTM E1903 would require, among other things, that the User and/or the Phase II Assessor do the following:

    1. to assess whether there has been a release of hazardous substances within the meaning of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), for purposes including the landowner liability protections under CERCLA
    2. to provide information relevant to identifying, defining and implementing “continuing obligations” for maintaining CERCLA landowner liability protections
    3. to develop threshold knowledge of the presence of substances on properties defined as brownfields sites as required for qualifying for brownfields remediation grants
    4. to provide information relevant to identifying property conditions associated with target analytes that may pose a risk to persons on the property
    5. to provide information relevant to evaluating and allocating business environmental risk in transactional and contractual contexts, and related due diligence
    6. to provide information to support disclosure of liabilities and contingent liabilities in financial statements and securities reporting

If all of the requirements of the Standard have been followed, the Phase II Assessor is required to put the following statement in the final report:

“We have performed a Phase II environmental site assessment at the property at [address] in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1903-xx and for the following objectives: [list “statement of objectives” developed pursuant to Section 5.1.]”

What Will These Changes Mean in Practice?

For the User, it will no longer be sufficient to simply request that a Phase II ESA be conducted. The User will need to confer with the Phase II Assessor to explain what it hopes to accomplish in the investigation and should share with the Assessor all of the existing environmental information in its possession. Here is an example:

The subject property previously had an auto repair facility on it and there were a number of suspect sources (dry cleaners, gas stations, heating oil tanks, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the site.

For the Phase II Assessor, he or she must confer with the User to determine the question to be answered and the User's objectives for the investigation. The Assessor will need to consider what to do if the User fails to cooperate in identifying the question to be answered or in formulating the objectives or in identifying any limitations on the scope because of schedule, cost or budget considerations. It is certainly not uncommon at the present time for the User to fail to provide information required under the ASTM Phase I ESA Standard (E 1527), whether it is title information, environmental liens, activity and use limitations, litigation, or purchase price. The following are some considerations:

The proposed changes would give the Phase II Assessor little discretion in these areas. See, e.g. , Sections 6.4.3 and 7.3. The proposed changes to the Phase II Standard also demand that the Assessor's sampling results be “accurate and reproducible.” What happens if another Assessor is unable to reproduce the Phase II Assessor's results?


The revised Phase II ESA standard is currently being balloted at the ASTM subcommittee level. An E50 main committee ballot will be required before the proposed changes can be finalized. Users are underrepresented on the E50.02 Task Group and need to make their views known on these important due diligence matters. If you are not already involved in the ASTM standard setting process, now is the time to get involved in the proposed changes to the ASTM Phase II ESA Standard.


100 Retired Generals and Admirals, Agriculture Secretary Urge Congress to Pass Child Nutrition Bill As Matter of National Security

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 " "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Title VI Regulations " "Executive Order 12,898, Environmental Justice" THE REGULATORY PROCESS "Administrative Procedure Act; Regulatory Flexibility Act " "Information Quality Act and OMB Guidelines " "Congressional Review Act " "Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 12,866" REGULATION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES "Toxic Substances Control Act " "Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act " "Safe Drinking Water Act " "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act " "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65)" WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION "Solid Waste Disposal Act (as Amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) " "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act " "Pollution Prevention Act" AIR POLLUTION CONTROL "Clean Air Act" WATER POLLUTION CONTROL "Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) " "Oil Pollution Act" LAND USE REGULATION "Coastal Zone Management Act" ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "National Environmental Policy Act " "NEPA Regulations" BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION "Endangered Species Act" PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT "Antiquities Act; Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act " "Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act " "Federal Land Policy and Management Act" CASE SUPPLEMENT "Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States " "United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. " "United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority " "Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. " "Massachusetts v. EPA " "Rapanos v. United States " "S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection " "Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. " "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker " "Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council " "Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council " "National Assn. of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife " "Summers v. Earth Island Institute"

E. Upon the Date of Final Approval of this Consent Decree, Atkemix
6 Thirty-Seven Inc. ("Atkemix Thirty-Seven") hereby grants to the United States, through the
7 United States Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), an option (the "Option") to acquire
8 Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest in certain parcels of land located in the area of Iron Mountain
9 under the authority and provisions of Section 107(f)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
10 Section 9607(f)(l), and Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
11 43 U.S.C. Section 1715, and 43 C.F.R. Part 11. The parcels subject to the Option (the
12 "Land") encompass approximately 1,250 acres of land. The Land is generally depicted as the
13 shaded areas on the map attached to this Consent Decree as Appendix L; however, the parcel
14 boundaries and other notations appearing on Appendix L are not meant to constitute
15 controlling legal descriptions. The terms of the Option, and of the United States' exercise
16 thereof, are as follows:
17 (1) Transfer from Atkemix Thirty-Seven to the United States of
18 Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest the Land, in its entirety or any parcel therein, shall be in
19 consideration of agreements contained in this Consent Decree and shall not require any further
20 consideration. Restoration efforts undertaken on any Land the United States acquires under
21 this Paragraph will be developed by the Natural Resource Trustees in accordance with Section
22 XXXIII of this Consent Decree and funded from allocations made pursuant to Paragraphs
23 6.A.(l)(a) and 7.D of this Consent Decree.
24 (2) The term of the Option (the "Option Term") shall be a period of
25 ; 24 months from the Date of Final Approval of this Consent Decree. The United States may
26 exercise its right to acquire Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest in the Land or any parcel therein

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


“This precedent set in Florida will affect the entire country, EPA has one chance to get it right” Senator Chambliss to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson

On April 15, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson brought together a diverse group of individuals to discuss and explore opportunities for reinvigorating EPA's approaches to achieving clean water in America . At this forum, The Coming Together for Clean Water , Administrator Jackson stated her desire “to see a huge leap forward in water quality as we saw in the 1970s after the passage of the Clean Water Act.” The forum was one of many drivers for this strategy which charts EPA's path to achieve that leap forward in our nation's water quality and outlines a sustainable approach to meet our economic needs and improve the quality of the nation's water for generations to come.

EPA's approach focuses around our two thematic lines: 1) healthy watersheds, and 2) sustainable communities – both critical Administration and EPA priorities. It relies on the concepts and ideas generated at the Coming Together for Clean Water forum and also incorporates the bold new approaches identified from the October 2009 Clean Water Action Plan, which initiated efforts to revamp the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance and enforcement program.


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.


Over the last 30 years National Water Quality Inventories have documented pathogens as a leading cause of river and stream impairments.



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.


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.



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.



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.

Corp Awards $125.9 Million Contract for Joint Federal Project at Folsom Dam

US Fed News
U.S. Army

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District awarded a $125.9 million contract Sept. 24 to Granite Construction Company of Watsonville, Calif., to build the control structure for the new auxiliary spillway at Folsom Dam.

The contract award, which came in more than $70 million below initial government estimates, marks the start of the third phase of the Joint Federal Project, a partnership between the Corps and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to improve the dam and reduce the Sacramento region's flood risk.

"Today's contract announcement is great news for the people of Sacramento," said U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento). "The Joint Federal Project has come a long way since 2005. This additional spillway next to Folsom Dam is a crucial project and will reduce the flood risk for much of Sacramento, providing a 200-year level of protection in a cost-effective manner. The project team has done a tremendous job; the region can be proud of their efforts. And I am committed to continue to work with the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to ensure this project gets done."

The Corps will oversee construction of the control structure, with work expected to begin in January 2011 and continue for 45 months, including nine months of additional excavation. The project's first two phases, completing most of the site excavation, were managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

"This award marks a very important step towards reducing flood risk along the entire lower American River," Corps project manager Jason Magness said. "We're excited to take the reins from the Bureau of Reclamation and continue to make progress."

Mining communities 'summit' postponed in Nevada

Associated Press - September 28, 2010 11:25 AM ET

ELKO, Nev. (AP) - Organizers say a fifth annual National Summit of Mining Communities that had been scheduled next week in Elko has been rescheduled for April 4-7.

The Elko Convention and Visitors Authority said Monday the conference will remain focused on economic diversification and sustainability for communities where mining plays a large economic role.

The Elko Daily Free Press says headline presenters David Beurle and Juliet Fox of Innovative Leadership Australia/USA are scheduled to lead participant workshops.

The conference began in 2006 as a grass roots gathering of small mining towns to discuss ways to mitigate or reduce the effects of boom and bust mining cycles.

Information from: Elko Daily Free Press,

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Funding Agency Sequencing Center Metadata Isolation Temperature Optimum pH Phenotype Disease Relevance Habitat
DOE Joint Genome Institute, Univ of California, Berkeley
Richmond mine at Iron Mountain California
Acidic, Metal tolerance, Pink biofilm
Biotechnological, Environmental
Acid mine, Biofilm, High metal concentration

Bins (of Scaffolds)

Method : tetra
        Thermoplasmatales archaeon Gpl  ( 410 )
        Leptospirillum sp. Group II  ( 70 )
        Leptospirillum sp. Group III  ( 474 )
        Ferroplasma acidarmanus Type I  ( 170 )
        Ferroplasma acidarmanus Type II  ( 59 )

Project Information




NCBI Project ID


Publication Journal

Nature (428, 37-43)

Isolation Country


Isolation Year


Geographic Location

Iron Mountain California

Project Location (Longitude)


Project Location (Latitude)


Project Geographical Map


Funding Agency


Sequencing Center

DOE Joint Genome Institute, Univ of California , Berkeley




Richmond mine at Iron Mountain California

Temperature Optimum





Acidic, Metal tolerance, Pink biofilm




Biotechnological, Environmental


Acid mine, Biofilm, High metal concentration

Union threatens labor charges in fishery law case

Associated Press
09/28/10 5:55 PM PDT

BOSTON — The union for federal attorneys accused of bias and squeezing high fines out of suspected fishery law violators warned the government to back off reforms, saying it can't legally enact them.

The National Weather Service Employees Organization said Tuesday changes announced last week by U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to fix problems with fishery enforcement must, by law, be negotiated with the union.

The changes include establishing a hot line to deal with fishermen's complaints about overzealous enforcement and reviews by a special master of 19 questionable penalties against Northeastern fishermen. Commerce department Inspector General Todd Zinser deemed the penalties "problematic" in his report last week on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's law enforcement office, which is under the commerce department.

Locke also said he would put further restrictions on how fines collected from fishermen are spent.

Union attorney Marguerite Matera said in a letter to NOAA's general counsel that if the changes weren't negotiated before they were implemented it would file an unfair labor practice charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Matera also called Zinser's allegations "spurious" and suggested the report was driven by lawmakers hoping to win favor with constituents during an election year.

"(The union) is keenly aware of the serious political trouble that Democratic officeholders are facing in their re-election efforts in Massachusetts," Matera wrote. "This desperation does not give the agency an excuse to engage in serious and blatant violations of federal labor law."

Department of Commerce spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Locke's "aggressive" action aimed to restore trust in the law enforcement agency after "a series of troubling issues cited in the inspector general's reports ranging from inappropriate conduct to misuse of taxpayer dollars."

New Bedford fisheries attorney Pamela Lafreniere, who has represented numerous fishermen accused of fishery law violations, said ensuring penalized fishermen were treated fairly is not a federal labor issue.

"Those agreements do need to be looked at, and it is well within the purview of the secretary of commerce to say so," she said.

Lafreniere added the union's attempts to discredit claims against the attorneys aren't credible, given Zinser's review and extensive testimony from fishing industry members.

"It means that hundreds, hundreds of people had to come in and lie under oath," she said. "I just don't think that that's just really plausible."

NOAA's law enforcement office ensures fishermen follow the myriad rules designed to protect fish, including various gear restrictions and closures of fishing areas.

Zinser's review began last year after persistent complaints from Northeast fishermen about retaliation and excessive fines. It found allegations of abusive behavior weren't widespread, but it said some attorneys seemed biased against fishermen and set excessively high fines to force fishermen to settle rather than risk losing a judgment in a system in which a violation can cost $140,000.

During the investigation, one of the law enforcement office's former directors was removed after he was accused of ordering dozens of documents shredded. Also, Zinser said a financial audit of the NOAA fund that held millions of dollars in fines collected from fishermen showed the money was misused on items such as a luxury undercover boat.

In her letter Tuesday, Matera said Locke had no right to restrict how fines collected from fishermen would be used — such as his restriction on worker benefits or awards — without negotiating with the union over the effect on its members.

In an interview, union general counsel Richard Hirn said Zinser's review wrongly made scapegoats out of attorneys who were simply enforcing the laws and penalties Congress put in place. He said they had been commended and received a combined $44,000 in performance bonuses for the work in question.

The idea of looking back at closed cases is "absolutely bizarre," Hirn said.

"Unless somebody is on death row and you found new DNA evidence, in the American legal system ... you don't go back and look at cases just because somebody says, 'I don't like the result,'" he said.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner:

Mine safety measures stall in Congress
Louisville Courier-Journal
By James R. Carroll • The Courier-Journal • October 2, 2010 Roughly six months after the worst coal mine accident in 40 years, legislation aimed at ...
See all stories on this topic »

New EPA rule draws protests

September 25, 2010 06:01:00 PM SARAH OWEN / News Herald Writer

PANAMA CITY — Imagine every creek, stream and river in the state flowing as free of farm runoff as if man had never existed.

Imagine extending that same pristine level to roadside drainage ditches and discharge from wastewater treatment plants.

And then imagine being the company or local government tasked with erasing man's footprint from those waterways.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will implement its new criteria for acceptable nutrient levels in freshwater bodies, which likely will include many stormwater runoff systems, on Oct. 15. Lawmakers across the Panhandle, where standards will be most stringent, and officials from the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are worried those rules not only will be impossible to meet, but also that they are based on flawed interpretations of data.

The DEP has been collecting information on safe levels of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, for at least a decade, said Jerry Brooks, director of the department's environmental assessment and restoration division.

The EPA borrowed that data to create a new rule that assigns acceptable numeric nutrient levels to waterways. Existing regulations operate with a narrative standard that simply states there cannot be an increase in nutrients that will cause an imbalance of flora and fauna within the water body, Brooks said.

The DEP has long thought there should be a numerical interpretation of that standard but couldn't figure out a way to do it.

“It's sort of like saying we think a cure for cancer is necessary,” Brooks said. “What makes this so challenging is that the actual biological response to nutrient enrichment is governed by a number of other environmental factors that vary from one stream to the next.”

In other words, all streams are different and will respond differently to the same amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen.

The best workaround the EPA could come up with — and Brooks concedes the DEP didn't have a better suggestion — was to play it safe by finding as-close-to-natural-as-possible waterways and setting the bar at that level.

“There's just no question in my mind, using this reference approach, you will be managing some waters at levels below what their capacity is, meaning you could increase nutrient levels without observing a negative response,” Brooks said. “There is a good deal of uncertainty as to whether or not the number they (EPA) are adopting is really necessary to ensure protection of that water body.”

That uncertainty, along with nightmares about the cost and feasibility of purifying wastewater and stormwater systems to the EPA's standards, have local governments crying foul.

“It's almost impossible to even consider doing it,” Bay County Assistant Manager Dan Shaw said. “The thought all along, given that it's impossible, is that the rule would fall under its own weight — but it hasn't.”

It would cost more than $60 million to upgrade just the county's wastewater facilities, he said, which would result in more than tripling residents' utility rates. Since the county doesn't know how many of its stormwater systems might be subject to the new rule, Shaw couldn't estimate how much stormwater upgrades might cost but, he said, it would be “way, way more than $60 million.”

And, because the Panhandle holds the most naturally low-nutrient waters in the state, the area will be held to the most stringent criteria, Brooks said.


County commissioners went on record last week opposing the rule. State legislators, too, have tried to postpone a federal mandate; local senators and state representatives have said a recently signed bill that governs, among other things, septic tank inspections was designed, at least in part, to keep the EPA at bay.

“During the final week of the 2010 Legislative Session, the Florida Senate and House of Representatives passed an omnibus water resources bill, Senate Bill 550, intended to protect Florida's vital water resources,” Sen. Durell Peaden and Rep. Greg Evers wrote in a letter to the governor. “The bill … was heralded as a way to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing sweeping environmental regulations, including regulations that could prohibit future development utilizing septic systems.”

Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City, also said he had hoped a bill he sponsored in the spring, which called for 10-year inspections of septic tanks, would demonstrate Florida's proactive attitude about maintaining healthy waterways. Patronis pulled the proposal after it received negative feedback from his constituents.

Although municipalities will face “a very significant financial and technological investment,” the DEP director said he thinks they will have time to get their waterways up to par.

“It's not going to be a process where, by Oct. 16, every wastewater facility in the state is going to be cited,” Brooks said. “What will happen is, all those facilities are operating under a permit, and those permits expire every five years. When they come in for permit renewal, there will now be a new standard they now have to comply with.”

Brooks expects facilities to be given five years, or the life of the permit, to come into compliance with the new regulations, but county officials are skeptical.

“There's nothing anywhere in the world that says they're going to wait until permit renewal times,” Shaw said. “It's inferred, but there's nothing in writing.”

One of the county's wasterwater permits is up in about a year, he added, and the other is good for about four more years.

Officials with the EPA have been “unresponsive” to the county's attempts to contact them, Shaw said. Representatives did not return numerous calls from the News Herald.

Representatives Tom McClintock and Wally Herger to Host Forum on Wastewater Management - Fines, Fees and Litigation to be Discussed at Forum

September 24, 2010 11:24 AM

Representatives Tom McClintock and Wally Herger will conduct a forum to discuss the adverse impact of excess wastewater regulation in terms of fines, fees, litigation and resulting financial harm to local communities. 

It is the responsibility of Congress to resolve these issues, and the first step is to hear from those impacted by the underlying regulatory burdens.

Representatives from federal and California state regulatory agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board), as well as Assemblyman Dan Logue and State Senator Sam Aanestad have confirmed their participation.

Forum to be held:

Wastewater Issues Congressional Forum
Monday, September 27th at10:00 AM
Placer County Board of Supervisors Chamber
175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn


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

Gold hits record as silver reaches 30-year peak

By: Reuters 24th September 2010
Updated 4 hours ago TEXT SIZE

Gold futures rose on Friday, hitting all-time highs above $1 300 an ounce as investors fretted over economic uncertainty after the Federal Reserve raised expectations to take new measures to spur growth.

Silver also surged to a 30-year high on strong investment buying, with holdings of the world's largest silver-backed exchange-traded fund rising to a record high.

Adam Klopfenstein, senior market strategist at MF Global unit Lind-Waldock, said renewed worries about inflation buoyed gold after U.S. durable goods data came in stronger than expected and grain prices rallied.

"Forward looking, on the inflation front, you are getting a lot of long-term investors coming into the gold market," Klopfenstein said.

U.S. gold futures for December delivery hit a record $1 301,60 an ounce, then retreated from session highs as Wall Street rallied, with the S&P 500 stock index up 2 percent.

The benchmark contract settled up $1.80 at $1 298,10 an ounce. Spot gold rose 0.3 percent to $1 297,30 an ounce at 3:28 p.m. EDT (1928 GMT). Bullion posted its biggest two-week gain since May.

Gold has risen more than 4 percent so far this month and hit record highs in six out of the last seven sessions.

New orders for a wide range of long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods rose in August and business spending plans rebounded strongly, while grain prices rose across the board on a weaker dollar.

Expectations of further dollar weakness underpinned gold, as the greenback fell against a basket of currencies to its lowest level since February.

The Fed said on Tuesday it stood ready to pump billions of dollars into the economy if needed, through purchases of government debt, a process known as quantitative easing. The prospect prompted investors to buy bullion as a hedge against the possibility of a double-dip recession or inflation.

"The U.S. Fed is obviously contemplating, and the market is expecting, some kind of statement on quantitative easing," said Deutsche Bank analyst Daniel Brebner. "The influx of new money in the system raises longer term expectations for inflationary forces."

In addition, a number of major countries have been moving to curb their currencies to bolster growth. This has boosted gold's appeal as an alternative investment.


Option dealers could keep selling gold options to bring in premiums from buyers, as price volatility petered out despite a rally of gold futures to all-time highs, COMEX floor traders said on Friday.

Since late July, gold's 30-day implied volatility, a common risk gauge, fell to 15,5, nearly 40 percent below this year's high at 25 in May.

Gold appeals to investors uncertain about inflation, deflation, the dollar and further Fed stimulus, said Evy Hambro, joint chief investment officer of BlackRock's Natural Resources team, which has more than $36 billion assets under management.

"I think gold is quite realistic where it is right now," he said.

Gold's rally to record highs generated strong investor interest in silver, which is also widely used as an industrial metal in the electronics and photography sectors.

Silver, tracking gains in gold, rose 1.5 percent to $21,45 an ounce. During the session, silver surged to its highest level since 1980 at $21,47 an ounce.

Holdings of the world's largest silver-backed exchange-traded fund, the iShares Silver Trust hit an all-time high of 9,582.59 tonnes on Thursday.

Platinum climbed 0.4 percent to $1 644,50 an ounce, while palladium rose 1,6 percent to $559,50 an ounce.

Resource Record Details

NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. 2009 Edition

Dear Colleague:

The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to announce that the 2009 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures , FEMA P-750 and FEMA P-750 CD, are now available, at no cost, from the Publications Warehouse and online from the FEMA Library.

One of the goals of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is to encourage design and construction practices that reduce the seismic risk to property and life. FEMA's publication of the 2009 NEHRP Provisions , which serve as a national resource for design professionals and the standards and codes development community, is a major ongoing commitment to achieving this goal.

In a series first published in 1985, the 2009 NEHRP Provisions marks the seventh update of this key resource document. This new edition adopts by reference the national load standard, ASCE/SEI 7-05, which allows the Provisions to resume its role as a research-to-practice resource for introducing new knowledge, innovative concepts, and design methods to improve the national seismic standards and codes.

The 2009 NEHRP Provisions is presented in a new one-volume format with three parts:

Part 1. Provisions
Consensus-approved technical modifications of the seismic requirements in the reference standard. The modifications include the adoption of new seismic design maps based on seismic hazard maps issued in 2008 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), along with some design-related adjustments.

Part 2. Commentary
Completely rewritten, up-to-date commentary for the reference standard.

Part 3. Resource Papers
Series of resource papers that focus on emerging seismic design concepts and methods for exposure to and trial use by the design community and on issues that have proven historically difficult or complex to adequately codify.

The accompanying CD (FEMA P-750 CD) contains the digital version of the Provisions , the USGS Seismic Design Maps, the Provisions -based design maps proposed to ASCE7-10 and 2012 I-codes, and other supporting materials.

To order your copy of FEMA P-750 with FEMA P-750 CD from the FEMA Publications Warehouse, call 1 (800) 480-2520 or fax your request to (240) 699-0525.

To view or download other NEHRP publications and products or to sign up for updates on earthquake risk mitigation publications, news, and events, visit Earthquake Publications and Tools .

This service is provided to you at no charge by FEMA .

Privacy Policy | GovDelivery is providing this information on behalf of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and may not use the information for any other purposes.

This email was sent to .

[California] IRON MOUNTAIN MINE (CAD980498612)

ARMAN, TED W 2010-0021996 RESCISSION 7/22/2010



Iron Mountain Mine

Redding , California

Region 9


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


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.

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


Published on Sunday, October 10, 2010 by Forbes/CNN

What a Scientist Didn't Tell the New York Times About His Study on Bee Deaths

by Katherine Eban

Few ecological disasters have been as confounding as the massive and devastating die-off of the world's honeybees. The phenomenon of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) -- in which disoriented honeybees die far from their hives -- has kept scientists, beekeepers, and regulators desperately seeking the cause. After all, the honeybee, nature's ultimate utility player, pollinates a third of all the food we eat and contributes an estimated $15 billion in annual agriculture revenue to the U.S. economy.

Jerry Bromenshenk, bee investigator The long list of possible suspects has included pests, viruses, fungi, and also pesticides, particularly so-called neonicotinoids, a class of neurotoxins that kills insects by attacking their nervous systems. For years, their leading manufacturer, Bayer Crop Science, a subsidiary of the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG, has tangled with regulators and fended off lawsuits from angry beekeepers who allege that the pesticides have disoriented and ultimately killed their bees. The company has countered that, when used correctly, the pesticides pose little risk.

A cheer must have gone up at Bayer on Thursday when a front-page New York Times article , under the headline "Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery," described how a newly released study pinpoints a different cause for the die-off: "a fungus tag-teaming with a virus." The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system. The Bayer pesticides, however, go unmentioned.

What the Times article did not explore -- nor did the study disclose -- was the relationship between the study's lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, and Bayer Crop Science. In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant.

Reporter: scientist "did not volunteer" funding sources

Bromenshenk's company, Bee Alert Technology, which is developing hand-held acoustic scanners that use sound to detect various bee ailments, will profit more from a finding that disease, and not pesticides, is harming bees. Two years ago Bromenshenk acknowledged as much to me when I was reporting on the possible neonicotinoid/CCD connection for Conde Nast Portfolio magazine, which folded before I completed my reporting.

Bromenshenk defends the study and emphasized that it did not examine the impact of pesticides. "It wasn't on the table because others are funded to do that," he says, noting that no Bayer funds were used on the new study. Bromenshenk vociferously denies that receiving funding from Bayer (to study bee pollination of onions) had anything to do with his decision to withdraw from the plaintiff's side in the litigation against Bayer. "We got no money from Bayer," he says. "We did no work for Bayer; Bayer was sending us warning letters by lawyers."

A Bayer publicist reached last night said she was not authorized to comment on the topic but was trying to reach an official company spokesperson.

The Times reporter who authored the recent article, Kirk Johnson, responded in an e-mail that Dr. Bromenshenk "did not volunteer his funding sources." Johnson's e-mail notes that he found the peer-reviewed scientific paper cautious and that he "tried to convey that caution in my story." Adds Johnson: The study "doesn't say pesticides aren't a cause of the underlying vulnerability that the virus-fungus combo then exploits...."

At least one scientist questions the new study. Dr. James Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State University, who is currently researching the sublethal impact of pesticides on bees, said that while Bromenshenk's study generated some useful data, Bromenshenk has a conflict of interest as CEO of a company developing scanners to diagnose bee diseases. "He could benefit financially from that if this thing gets popularized," Frazier says, "so it's a difficult situation to deal with." He adds that his own research has shown that pesticides affect bees "absolutely, in multiple ways."

Underlying cause of bee deaths still unclear

Dr. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the health group at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says that while the Bromenshenk/Army study is interesting, it fails to ask the underlying question "Why are colonies dying? Is it because they're getting weak? People who have HIV don't die of HIV. They die of other diseases they get because their immune systems are knocked off, making them more susceptible." In other words, pesticides could weaken the bees -- and then the virus/fungus combination finishes them off. That notion, however, is not explored in the new study.

In 2008 the NRDC sued the Environmental Protection Agency after it failed to release Bayer's underlying studies on the safety of its neonicotinoids. The federal agency has since changed course, and NRDC researchers are being allowed to sift through the Bayer studies, an NRDC spokesman says.

The EPA has based its approval of neonicotinoids on the fact that the amounts found in pollen and nectar were low enough to not be lethal to the bees -- the only metric they have to measure whether to approve a pesticide or not. But studies have shown that at low doses, the neonicotinoids have sublethal effects that impair bees' learning and memory. The USDA's chief researcher, Jeff Pettis, told me in 2008 that pesticides were definitely "on the list" as a primary stressor that could make bees more vulnerable to other factors, like pests and bacteria.

In 1999, France banned Imidacloprid after the death of a third of its honeybees. A subsequent report prepared for the French agricultural ministry found that even tiny sublethal amounts could disorient bees, diminish their foraging activities, and thus endanger the entire colony. Other countries, including Italy, have banned certain neonicotinoids.

Bayer v. beekeepers

As for the Bayer-Bromenshenk connection, in 2003 a group of 13 North Dakota beekeepers brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer, alleging that the company's neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid, which had been used in nearby fields, was responsible for the loss of more than 60% of their hives. "My bees were getting drunk," Chris Charles, a beekeeper in Carrington, N.D., and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, told me in 2008. "They couldn't walk a white line anymore -- they just hung around outside the hive. They couldn't work."

Charles and the other North Dakota beekeepers hired Bromenshenk as an expert witness. Bayer did not dispute that Imidacloprid was found among the bees and their hives. The company simply argued that the amount had not been enough to kill them.

As the North Dakota lawsuit moved forward, an expert witness for the beekeepers, Dr. Daniel Mayer, a now retired bee expert from Washington State University, traveled to 17 different bee yards in North Dakota and observed dead bees and bees in the throes of what looked like Imidacloprid poisoning, he told me in 2008. He theorized that after foraging in planted fields where the seeds had been treated with Imidacloprid, the bees then brought the pesticide back to the hive, where it built up in the wax combs.

The beekeepers tried to enlist more expert witnesses, but others declined, according to two of the beekeeper plaintiffs, in large part because they had taken research money from Bayer and did not want to testify against the company. One who agreed -- Bromenshenk -- subsequently backed out and got a research grant from Bayer. Bromenshenk insists the two actions were unrelated. "It was a personal decision," he says. "I, in good conscience, couldn't charge beekeepers for services when I couldn't help them." He adds, "Eventually, the lawyers stopped calling. I didn't quit. They just stopped calling."

In June 2008 a district court judge in Pennsylvania defanged the beekeepers' lawsuit by siding with Bayer to exclude Mayer's testimony and the initial test results from a laboratory in Jacksonville, Fla., that had found significant amounts of Imidacloprid in the honeybee samples.

That same year Bromenshenk brokered a meeting between Bayer and beekeepers. When I interviewed Bromenshenk that year, he said that increasing frustration with the accusations against Bayer, which he described as a "runaway train," led him to contact the company in an effort to create a dialogue between Bayer and the beekeepers. Because of his efforts, in November 2008, Bayer scientists sat down in Lake Tahoe, Nev., with a small group of American beekeepers to establish a dialogue. The issues discussed were "trust and transparency," Bromenshenk told me. "How did Bayer do its testing, and do we trust the results?" Generally beekeepers and scientists have been highly critical of the design of Bayer's studies and deeply suspicious over who is or isn't on Bayer's payroll.

After the meeting, Bayer tentatively agreed to appoint a beekeeper advisory board to help redesign studies so that beekeepers could trust the results. But many beekeepers see the advisory board and grant money as a ruse on Bayer's part to silence its enemies by holding them close. "They have the bee industry so un-united," says Jim Doan, once New York State's busiest beekeeper until CCD decimated his business. "Even the researchers are off working on anything but the pesticide issue."

Bromenshenk's study acknowledges that the research does not "clearly define" whether the concurrent virus and fungus, which were found in all the afflicted bee samples, is "a marker, a cause, or a consequence of CCD." It also notes uncertainty as to how, exactly, the combination kills the bees, and whether other factors like weather and bee digestion play a role. Scientists like Sass at NRDC believe the mystery is far from resolved: "We're even concerned that based on this, beekeepers will use more pesticides trying to treat these viruses," says Sass.

© 2010 Forbes/CNN

Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes and Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes;

Significant New Use Rules


§ 721.10155
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (generic).
(a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes (PMN P-08-177) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 filters), (a)(6)(i), and (c).
(ii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j) and (q).
(b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section.

[74 FR 29998, June 24, 2009]

Effective Date Note:
At 74 FR 29998, June 24, 2009, § 721.10155 was added, effective Aug. 24, 2009.

§ 721.10156
Single-walled carbon nanotubes (generic).
(a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as single-walled carbon nanotubes (PMN P-08-328) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 filters), (a)(6)(i), and (c).
(ii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j) and (q).
(b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.

Code of Federal Regulations /
Title 40 - Protection of Environment /
Vol. 30 / 2009-07-01533

(2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.
(3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to this section.

[74 FR 29998, June 24, 2009]

Effective Date Note:
At 74 FR 29998, June 24, 2009, § 721.10156 was added, effective Aug. 24, 2009.

(b) Special provisions. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this rule. (i) A person who intends to manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may ask EPA whether the use for which the person intends to manufacture, import, or process the substance is a significant new use under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. EPA will answer such an inquiry only if EPA determines that the person has a bona fide intent to manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance.

A Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 09/17/2010


EPA is issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for two chemical substances which were the subject of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs). The two chemical substances are identified generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) (PMN P-08-177) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (PMN P-08-328). This action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of these two chemical substances for a use that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA believes that this action is necessary because these chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the environment. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. Show citation box

Unified Agenda

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR); Chemical-Specific SNURs To Extend Provisions of Section 5(e) Orders


21 actions from June 6th, 1994 to December 2010


EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban

Release date: 08/27/2010

“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.

“EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead; however, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.

“As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA – as required by law – will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers.

“Those wishing to comment specifically on the fishing tackle issue can do so by visiting . EPA will consider comments that are submitted by September 15.”

The mayor of Pebbleton announces that, since the
colored flowers are so rare and valuable, they are
going to be used as money, with petals for change.
Is this a good idea? What qualities does a good
form of money have? Why? Which of these qualities
do flowers have and which do they lack? What
would happen to Pebbleton’s economy if someone
then discovered a new sunlit cavern with thousands
of flowers growing in it? Should someone control
the growth of those flowers? Who?

Stacy Kika

Cathy Milbourn

September 20, 2010

EPA Launches Green Power Community Challenge Nationwide

Local governments expand use of green power

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is kicking off its national “Green Power Community Challenge,” a year-long campaign to encourage cities, towns, villages, and Native American tribes to use renewable energy and fight climate change. Purchases of green power help to prevent greenhouse gas emissions and also help accelerate the development of new renewable energy capacity across the United States .

To participate in the challenge, a local government must join EPA's Green Power Partnership and use green power in amounts that meet the program's purchase requirements. The local government must also conduct a campaign to encourage local businesses and residents to collectively buy or produce green power on-site in amounts that meet EPA requirements.

More than 30 cities and towns in Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin have become green power communities, and are collectively buying more than 900 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually, equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from the electricity use of nearly 80,000 average American homes.

The campaign is designed to expand upon the successes of the program, aiming to double the total aggregate amount of green power used by EPA Green Power Communities. As part of the national campaign, communities will compete to see which one can use the most green power and which one can achieve the highest green power percentage of total electricity use. There will be a separate award for each category with national recognition and special attention from EPA. The winners will be announced in September 2011.

During the challenge, from Sept. 20, 2010, to Sept. 1, 2011, communities will be ranked for the two award categories on EPA's website on a quar­terly schedule; EPA will also provide technical assistance to help participants increase their green power usage.

Green power is generated from renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, and low-impact hydropower. Green power resources produce electricity with an environmental profile superior to conven­tional power technologies, and produce no net increase of greenhouse gas emissions.

More information on EPA's Green Power Community Challenge:

More information about EPA's Green Power Communities:


Due Process and the EPA's Enforcement of CERCLA: The Problem with Big Business Challenges to a Small Business Problem
Scott Corley
affiliation not provided to SSRN

April 15, 2010

In the past few years, a number of challenges have been mounted against the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Specifically a challenge mounted by the General Electric Company has asserted that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pattern and practice of enforcing CERCLA violates due process under the Ex Parte Young and Mathews v. Eldridge tests.

Using an assertion that constitutional challenges to CERCLA are only likely to succeed when (1) the property interest infringed by the government is not strictly monetary; (2) the statute calls for a complete lack of pre-deprivation procedures; and (3) the statute's purported delay of review actually results in the complete preclusion of review, this paper argues that the EPA's enforcement of CERCLA raises serious constitutional concerns when it is applied against small businesses, but not when it is enforced against large corporations. This is because large corporations like GE will be able to bear the decontamination costs associated with CERCLA and still mount judicial challenges at the end of the process while smaller businesses will lose financing due to potentially astronomical environmental cleanup costs and penalties that can escalate at a rate of nearly $1 million per month. The result is that the statute's purported delay of review actually completely precludes review for smaller businesses but not for large corporations.

For this reason, the strongest argument that can be made concerning the constitutionality of the EPA's enforcement of CERCLA arises when environmental liabilities are imposed on small businesses. Ultimately, this context provides the clearest evidence that certain provisions of CERCLA have been enforced in a way that has violated the due process rights of certain potentially responsible parties (PRPs).

Keywords: EPA, CERCLA, Pattern and Practice, Due Process, General Electric v. Jackson, PRPs, UAOs, Mathews v. Eldridge, Ex Parte Young

Working Paper Series

Roadside ditches — the next target for NPDES permitting?

An Oregon case involving logging roads has sounded an early warning bell about whether stormwater that collects in roadside ditches will need to be permitted under the Clean Water Act as a “point source” even if the only added “pollutant” is sediment.  Although this decision is likely to be appealed, it and a recent CERCLA case from the Western District of Washington, signal that yet another expansion to the scope of the CWA stormwater permitting program may be on the horizon.


Open PDF: Roadside ditches — the next target for NPDES permitting?

The Ninth Circuit case, Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown (NEDC) [ 1 ]  involved two Oregon logging roads where stormwater runoff was collected in a system of ditches, channels, and culverts that ultimately discharged into adjacent rivers, which were navigable waterways. Citing a long line of prior cases, the Ninth Circuit Court concluded that roadside ditches constitute “point sources” that may require a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) or state analogs if there has been addition of a pollutant.

The court found that the stormwater conveyance systems along these logging roads carried sediment that constitute pollutants “associated with an industrial activity,” because the sediment in the ditches was being mobilized in the stormwater runoff, at least in part, by the weight of large logging trucks grinding up gravel and dirt from unpaved roads.

Although this decision is likely to be appealed, it and a recent CERCLA case from the Western District of Washington, [ 2 ]  signal that yet another expansion to the scope of the CWA stormwater permitting program may be on the horizon.

Point versus non-point sources discharges

The NEDC decision emphasized the distinction between “point” and “non-point” water discharges with respect to NPDES permitting requirements. Section 502(14) of the CWA defines “point source” as:

[A]ny discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture. [ 3 ]

While there is no similar definition of “non-point source,” the Ninth Circuit in NEDC stated:

Although nonpoint source pollution is not statutorily defined, it is widely understood to be the type of pollution that arises from many dispersed activities over large areas, and is not traceable to any single discrete source. Because it arises in such a diffuse way, it is very difficult to regulate through individual permits. [ 4 ]

The court cited EPA's “Response to Comments” issued in conjunction with its 1976 amendment of the silvicultural (forestry) exemption from NPDES Permitting requirements:

Basically, nonpoint sources of water pollution are identified by three characteristics:

  1. The pollutants discharged are induced by natural processes, including precipitation, seepage, percolation, and runoff;
  2. The pollutants discharged are not traceable to any discrete or identifiable facility; and
  3. The pollutants discharged are better controlled through the utilization of best management practices, including process and planning techniques. [ 5 ]

However, the NEDC court went on to clarify that once non-point source pollution associated with an industrial activity is collected and conveyed within a point source, its subsequent discharge into a CWA-defined navigable water must be covered by an NPDES permit. Thus, the decision that the logging roads were associated with “industrial” activity hinged on the factual showing of incremental impact of truck traffic over gravel roads that received largely natural stormwater surface sheet flow.

As a result, the Ninth Circuit concluded that much of EPA's logging and silvicultural NPDES permitting regulatory exclusion [ 6 ] was contrary to the clear language of the CWA's NPDES permit requirements. [ 7

Potential implications of the decision

If the decision stands, EPA (and many states) will likely be forced to issue a general NPDES permit for stormwater runoff from logging roads that discharge to navigable waters via ditches, culverts, and channels.

Public roads through large and medium MS4s

The logic applied by the Ninth Circuit could, arguably, extend to stormwater conveyances constructed to manage stormwater runoff from roads in those areas of the country that are already required to be covered by the MS4 (municipal) stormwater general permits. Most stormwater runoff from areas within designated MS4s is required to be covered by an NPDES permit if it can convey pollutants. Roads potentially covered by this broad interpretation are generally those located in “incorporated” (i.e., city, town, township, or village) areas with populations of 100,000 or more. [ 8 ]

Has the Federal Government already conceded that vehicle use of roads leads to stormwater contamination?

Tipping the scale further towards a potential new interpretation that road-related stormwater conveyances need NPDES permits is another recent decision. Earlier this summer, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that a state agency that designed the highway drainage system and had control over highway stormwater runoff (i.e., had the ability to redirect, contain or treat contaminated runoff) could be liable under CERCLA as an “arranger” for disposal of hazardous substances.

In United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) [ 9 ]  the court denied WSDOT's motion for partial summary judgment on arranger liability, holding that WSDOT was an “arranger” because it designed, operated, and maintained the stormwater systems around several major highways that discharged to waterways that were part of a massive Superfund site. The court found that the designing of the highway stormwater system was “an action directed to a specific purpose” of discharging “the highway runoff into the environment.” The United States sought cost recovery and, argued, among other things, that:

[T]he highway runoff from [the highways at issue] contains hazardous substances, including phthalates, heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, zinc, and nickel, and petroleum hydrocarbons. [ 10 ]

As one of its defenses, the WSDOT claimed that:

[D]ischarges from the state highway stormwater collection systems are exempt from CERCLA liability because they are authorized by the Clean Water Act and are therefore federally permitted releases under 42 U.S.C. § 9601(10) and 42 U.S.C. §9607(j)…. [ 11 ]

The U.S. Government asserted that the mere existence of a permit did not immunize WSDOT from liability and noted that even if WSDOT met its burden of establishing that some of its post-permit releases were federally permitted, WSDOT could still be liable under CERCLA for any releases that were not expressly permitted, that exceeded the limitations of the permit, or that occurred when there was no permit. The WSDOT court determined factual issues remained regarding whether WSDOT complied with its CWA permit and exercised due care with respect to the issuance of permits and management of hazardous materials, and, as a result, denied the U.S. Government's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of WSDOT's arranger liability. [ 12

While most new road construction projects are covered by stormwater construction permits and, occasionally, by MS4 stormwater permits, the U.S. Government has now taken the position in litigation that at least some highway runoff is contaminated with hazardous substances directly related to vehicle transport by road. This may make it difficult for EPA to take the position that runoff from other roads does not contain road-related pollutants. The WSDOT decision also raises the prospect that the stormwater conveyance system for existing highways (at least) may need to be periodically re-evaluated and upgraded to ensure the system reduces pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” as required by MS4 stormwater permits.


Ditches and other discrete road-related stormwater conveyance systems that flow to navigable waters may soon be added to the ever-expanding categories of discharges that must be covered by NPDES permits. While both the NEDC and WSDOT decisions discussed in this Alert are likely to be appealed, they indicate that road-related stormwater discharged through a point source conveyance system may eventually follow the court-driven path to NPDES permitting that drove vessel-related discharges and pesticide applications to and near navigable waters to be subject to permits.

As the stormwater permitting requirements grow increasingly complicated, industry and municipalities will need to spend more time determining whether stormwater that may run across their property/municipality picks up pollutants and, if so, whether these pollutants are subsequently conveyed by a “point source” to a CWA-regulated navigable water.

  1. Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown , 2010 WL 3222105 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010).
    [ Back to reference ]
  2. United States v. Wash. DOT , 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58952 (W.D. Wash. June 7, 2010).
    [ Back to reference ]
  3. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
    [ Back to reference ]
  4. Id. at * 5.
    [ Back to reference ]
  5. Id. at * 22-23 (quoting 41 Fed. Reg. 24710 (June 18, 1976)).
    [ Back to reference ]
  6. 40 C.F.R. § 122.3, see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.27.
    [ Back to reference ]
  7. Id . at * 50-51.
    [ Back to reference ]
  8. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 9(a) and (b)(3),(4) and (7).
    [ Back to reference ]
  9. United States v. Wash. DOT, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58952 (W.D. Wash. June 7, 2010). 
    [ Back to reference ]
  10. Id. at *6.
    [ Back to reference ]
  11. Id. at *9.
    [ Back to reference ]
  12. Id. at *17-19.
    [ Back to reference ]

The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.


Date posted: September 14, 2010 ; Last revised: September 17, 2010

EPA Should Revise Outdated or Inconsistent EPA-State Clean Water Act Memoranda of Agreement
What We Found
NPDES MOAs between EPA and States do not ensure Agency management control and effective oversight over a national program administered by States that is capable of providing equal protection to all Americans. EPA Headquarters does not hold EPA regional or State offices accountable for updating their MOAs when necessary and relies on other planning and management mechanisms to exercise control over State programs. However, MOAs are critical because they are the common denominator for State-authorized programs and should represent a common baseline. Outdated MOAs or MOAs that are not adhered to reduce EPA’s ability to maintain a uniform program across States that meets the goals of CWA sections 101 and 402. An effective national program must maintain consistent management control and oversight of State programs.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA ensure that all NPDES MOAs contain essential elements for a nationally consistent enforcement program, including CWA, Code of Federal Regulations, and State Review Framework criteria. We recommend that EPA develop and provide a national template and/or guidance for a model MOA; direct EPA regions to revise outdated or inconsistent MOAs to meet the national template and standards; and establish a process for periodic review and revision of MOAs, including when the CWA or Code of Federal Regulations are revised or when State programs change. Finally, we recommend that EPA establish a national, public clearinghouse of all current MOAs so that EPA, States, and the public have access to these documents.
EPA generally agreed with our recommendations, saying it would coordinate assessment and revision of NPDES MOAs with implementation of the CWA Action Plan. Three recommendations are open and one recommendation is listed as undecided. In its final response to this report, EPA should provide estimated or actual completion dates for all recommendations.

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time and adding travel costs – is $660,519.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed-upon actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted on the OIG’s public Website, along with our comments on your response. Your response should be provided in an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. If your response contains data that you do not want to be released to the public, you should identify the data for redaction. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be available at
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Wade Najjum at (202) 566-0832 or, or Dan Engelberg at (202) 566-0830 or

EPA’s Enforcement Performance Has Been Questioned
In 2005, EPA initiated the State Review Framework, a formal process using standardized criteria, collaboratively developed by OECA, EPA regions, States, and the Environmental Council of the States, to gauge State performance in compliance assurance and enforcement. EPA wanted to increase its oversight inspections and other direct actions in the States. EPA reviewed State data, inspection and enforcement files, negotiated commitments, management discussions with the State, and other existing assessments. Through its reviews, EPA identified four programmatic deficiencies in State enforcement: data quality, identification of significant violations, the timeliness of enforcement actions, and penalties.
In October 2009, the EPA Administrator testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that EPA was falling short of expectations for effective and fair enforcement of the CWA:
Data available to EPA shows that, in many parts of the country, the level of significant non-compliance with permitting requirements is unacceptably high and the level of enforcement activity is unacceptably low. For example, one out of every four of the largest Clean Water Act dischargers had significant violations in 2008. Many of these violations were serious effluent violations or failure to comply with enforcement orders. The government’s enforcement response to these violations is uneven across the country. For example, a violation in one State results in the assessment of mandatory minimum penalties, while in another State, no enforcement action is taken for the same violation. This situation creates a competitive disadvantage for States that are enforcing the law. We need to change this. Strong and fair compliance and enforcement across the country is vital to establishing a level playing field for industrial facilities, preventing some regions from attempting to achieve an economic advantage over others.

Both GAO and the EPA OIG have frequently reported on problems with the EPA-State enforcement relationship, noting key issues such as data quality, identification of violations, issuing enforcement penalties and other enforcement actions in a timely and appropriate manner, and general oversight issues. See Appendix B for a list of reports on these issues.
In its October 2009 testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, GAO reported that longstanding issues impact EPA and State enforcement efforts.2 For example, findings from a GAO enforcement report in 2000 demonstrated that local variations among EPA’s regional offices led to inconsistencies in the actions they take to enforce environmental requirements.3 In 2004, the EPA OIG responded to a congressional request to review the Region 3 NPDES program.4 In part, the OIG found that the MOAs between the States and Region 3 were all more than 10 years old at the time and included outdated requirements. These MOAs had not been revised as of the date of this report.

1 Testimony of Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, October 15, 2009.

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.
EPA Could Establish a National Baseline for CWA Implementation with an MOA Template
EPA faces a significant challenge: to implement a nationally consistent enforcement program that offers equal protection from pollution to all Americans. By renegotiating outdated or inconsistent MOAs according to a national template, EPA can establish a current baseline for national consistency. A national template could also ease the MOA negotiation process. EPA should identify the key requirements that should be delineated in MOAs, including the other programmatic concerns disclosed through the CFR and issues uncovered during OECA’s State Review Framework, and incorporate them into a national template.
The officials of OECA, EPA regions, and State organizations we spoke with agree that MOAs are out of date and should be renegotiated, but OECA also pointed out that the process could face State resistance because it might require considerable resources. Enforcement managers and officials in two of the four regions we spoke with indicated that MOA renegotiation would be a low priority for them and would require them to remove resources from other enforcement activities. However, in our opinion, the management control benefit justifies the resource requirement. For example, as a result of renegotiating MOAs, Region 4 enforcement staff reported that they improved baseline management control over EPA-State enforcement relationships. In the face of a disagreement over responsibilities, regional staff said they show State program staff where an enhanced requirement is written in the updated MOA, and the State program staff then carry out the requirement.
Staff from each region we interviewed and other stakeholders agreed that an EPA Headquarters model MOA would be beneficial in determining MOA adequacy.

Region 4 developed a regional template for use in its MOA renegotiations. Regional enforcement officials reported that the template did not change much between the beginning and end of negotiations. A Region 10 enforcement program manager suggested that a model MOA that would serve as a foundational reference document could help to clarify the core oversight responsibilities. Region 10 staff stated that a model MOA could identify EPA and State expectations with respect to inspection, timely follow-up, data quality, transparency, and adequate response. In addition, the Environmental Council of the States said its member States would be interested in discussing a model MOA.
The current state of the MOAs means that EPA cannot assure it has effective management control over State programs that assures the public that CWA objectives are being achieved. EPA has not established a national template defining the key requirements necessary for current, robust MOAs. In addition, EPA has not developed a periodic review system to determine which MOAs remain adequate and which need to be revised to remain current with changing regulations. MOAs should establish the foundations for nationally consistent enforcement, defining the baseline roles and responsibilities for EPA and States. MOAs should also be the basis for assessing States’ ability and commitment to administer EPA’s NPDES program in accordance with the CWA. The CFR requires MOAs to outline the basic parameters of the EPA-State relationship and ensure CWA goals are being met through State-authorized programs. To ensure that MOAs fulfill their intended function, EPA must put in place a system that maintains and oversees consistent management controls over State programs. To ensure transparency and accountability, EPA should maintain a publicly available MOA repository, making these documents available to all States, EPA regions, and the public.
We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
2-1 Develop a national MOA template including essential requirements derived from the updated CWA, CFR requirements, and State Review Framework findings.
2-2 Develop a systematic approach to identify which States have outdated or inconsistent MOAs; renegotiate and update those MOAs using the MOA template; and secure the active involvement and final, documented concurrence of Headquarters to ensure national consistency.
2-3 Establish a process for reviewing MOAs on a regular basis, taking into account legislative and management changes that affect the adequacy of the MOA.
2-4 Maintain a publicly available repository of MOAs.
Agency Response and OIG Comment
EPA’s Deputy Administrator provided the Agency response, coordinating comments from OECA and OW. The Deputy Administrator generally agreed with these recommendations and provided an outline of corrective actions that he would take in response to the recommendations.
The Deputy Administrator agreed with recommendations 2-1, 2-3, and 2-4.
In response to recommendation 2-2, the Deputy Administrator stated that renegotiating MOAs with States can be time consuming and may not be always be the best use of EPA resources. Deficiencies in State enforcement programs may be better addressed through other solutions and approaches. The Deputy Administrator proposed that OECA and OW integrate MOA assessment into a coordinated State program review process to identify and correct MOAs that present the greatest barriers to State program performance.
The OIG responds by noting that the draft report and the final report both make mention of the other mechanisms EPA uses to manage programs, even noting that there is a layered system of management controls (see page 2, for example). However, the report emphasizes that while EPA uses other mechanisms, the only required mechanism is the authorization MOA. The way in which EPA regions and States use other mechanisms varies, but the MOA is the only document that each State must have. For this reason, it is important that authorization MOAs be up to date and compliant with the CFR.
While acknowledging EPA’s need to maintain flexibility, the OIG believes that MOAs are a critical building block of State enforcement programs. Depending on how it is constructed, a systematic State program review process that contains a strategy for updating outdated or inconsistent MOAs could address our recommendation. We will list the status of recommendation 2-2 as “undecided,” and list the other recommendations as “open.” We look forward to a detailed strategy and timeline for implementation in the Agency’s 90-day response to this final report.

List of CFR Criteria for MOA Assessment1
MOA executed by the State Director and the Regional Administrator and approved by Administrator
MOA meets all requirements of paragraph (b)
MOA has no provisions restricting EPA’s statutory oversight responsibility
Provisions for prompt transfer from EPA to the State of pending permit applications and any other relevant program operation information
MOA contain procedure for transfer of any existing permits for administration
MOA contain specific procedure for transfer of administration if a State lacks administration authority for permits issued by Federal government
MOA contain provisions specifying classes and categories of permit applications, draft permits, and proposed permits for Regional Administrator review
MOA contain provisions specifying the frequency and content of reports, documents and other information which the State is required to submit to EPA
MOA contain provisions allowing EPA to routinely review State records, reports, and files relevant to the administration and enforcement of the approved program
MOA contain provisions for coordination of compliance monitoring activities by the State and by EPA and EPA inspection of select facilities or activities within State
MOA contain procedures to assure coordination of enforcement activities
MOA contain provisions, when appropriate, for joint processing of permits by the State and EPA for facilities or activities which require permits from both EPA and the State under different programs per § 124.4
MOA contain provisions for modification of the MOA in accordance with this part
MOA, the annual program grant and the State/EPA Agreement should be consistent. If the State/EPA Agreement indicates that a change is needed in the Memorandum of Agreement, the Memorandum of Agreement may be amended through the procedures set forth in this part.
State/EPA Agreement cannot override MOA
MOA specify the extent to which EPA will waive its right to review, object to, or comment upon State-issued permits under section 402(d)(3), (e) or (f) of CWA
State programs shall have procedures for receipt, evaluation, retention and investigation for possible enforcement of all notices and reports required of permittees and other regulated persons (and for investigation for possible enforcement of failure to submit these notices and reports).
State programs shall have inspection and surveillance procedures to determine, independent of information supplied by regulated persons, compliance or noncompliance with applicable program requirements.
The State shall maintain a program which is capable of making comprehensive surveys of all facilities and activities subject to the State Director's authority to identify persons subject to regulation who have failed to comply with permit application or other program requirements. Any compilation, index or inventory of such facilities and activities shall be made available to the Regional Administrator upon request;
The State shall maintain a program for periodic inspections of the facilities and activities subject to regulation.
1 MOA assessment excludes the review of 123.24(b)(ii) and 123.27(e) as noted within the Scope and Methodology.
These inspections shall be conducted in a manner designed to: Determine compliance or noncompliance with issued permit conditions and other program requirements;
These inspections shall be conducted in a manner designed to: Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees and other regulated persons in reporting forms and other forms supplying monitoring data; and
These inspections shall be conducted in a manner designed to: Verify the adequacy of sampling, monitoring, and other methods used by permittees and other regulated persons to develop that information;
The State shall maintain a program for investigating information obtained regarding violations of applicable program and permit requirements; and
The State shall maintain procedures for receiving and ensuring proper consideration of information submitted by the Public about violations. Public effort in reporting violations shall be encouraged, and the State Director shall make available information on reporting procedures.
The State Director and State officers engaged in compliance evaluation shall have authority to enter any site or premises subject to regulation or in which records relevant to program operation are kept in order to copy any records, inspect, monitor or otherwise investigate compliance with the State program including compliance with permit conditions and other program requirements. States whose law requires a search warrant before entry conform with this requirement.
Investigatory inspections shall be conducted, samples shall be taken and other information shall be gathered in a manner (e.g., using proper “chain of custody” procedures) that will produce evidence admissible in an enforcement proceeding or in court.
Maintaining a comprehensive inventory of all sources covered by NPDES permits and a schedule of reports required to be submitted by permittees to the State agency;
Initial screening (i.e., pre-enforcement evaluation) of all permit or grant-related compliance information to identify violations and to establish priorities for further substantive technical evaluation;
When warranted, conducting a substantive technical evaluation following the initial screening of all permit or grant-related compliance information to determine the appropriate agency response;
Maintaining a management information system which supports the compliance evaluation activities of this part; and
Inspecting the facilities of all major dischargers at least annually.
To restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in State court from engaging in any unauthorized activity which is endangering or causing damage to public health or the environment;
Note: This paragraph (a)(1) requires that States have a mechanism (e.g., an administrative cease and desist order or the ability to seek a temporary restraining order) to stop any unauthorized activity endangering public health or the environment.
To sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program requirement, including permit conditions, without the necessity of a prior revocation of the permit;
To assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties and to seek criminal remedies, including fines, as follows:
Civil penalties shall be recoverable for the violation of any NPDES permit condition; any NPDES filing requirement; any duty to allow or carry out inspection, entry or monitoring activities; or, any regulation or orders issued by the State Director. These penalties shall be assessable in at least the amount of $5,000 a day for each violation.
Criminal fines shall be recoverable against any person who willfully or negligently violates any applicable standards or limitations; any NPDES permit condition; or any NPDES filing requirement. These fines shall be assessable in at least the amount of $10,000 a day for each violation.
Criminal fines shall be recoverable against any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation or certification in any NPDES form, in any notice or report required by an NPDES permit, or who knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained by the Director. These fines shall be recoverable in at least the amount of $5,000 for each instance of violation.
The maximum civil penalty or criminal fine (as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section) shall be assessable for each instance of violation and, if the violation is continuous, shall be assessable up to the maximum amount for each day of violation.
The burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent required under State law for establishing violations under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, shall be no greater than the burden of proof or degree of knowledge or intent EPA must provide when it brings an action under the appropriate Act;
A civil penalty assessed, sought, or agreed upon by the State Director under paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be appropriate to the violation.
Procedures for assessment by the State of the cost of investigations, inspections, or monitoring surveys which lead to the establishment of violations;
In addition to the requirements of this paragraph, the State may have other enforcement remedies. The following enforcement options, while not mandatory, are highly recommended:
Any State administering a program shall provide for public participation in the State enforcement process by providing either:
Authority which allows intervention as of right in any civil or administrative action to obtain remedies specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (2) or (3) of this section by any citizen having an interest which is or may be adversely affected; or (2) Assurance that the State agency or enforcement authority will: (i) Investigate and provide written responses to all citizen complaints submitted pursuant to the procedures specified in §123.26(b)(4); (ii) Not oppose intervention by any citizen when permissive intervention may be authorized by statute, rule, or regulation; and (iii) Publish notice of and provide at least 30 days for public comment on any proposed settlement of a State enforcement action.

Catalyst for Improving the Environment

Citations for: Withdrawal of Proposed Rules; Discontinuing Rulemaking Efforts Listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

Explore citations and references



Friday, September 24, 2010

U.S. appellate Court Unanimously Rules Against GE Regarding EPA's Use of Unilateral Orders

EPA has not as yet issued an unilateral order against General Electric to perform a particular cleanup action for the 40 mile stretch of the Hudson River north of Albany to reduce the risk of environmental degradation and/or human health. GE sued stating that the unilateral order provision of Superfund violated General Electric's due process rights under the constitution (possibly as a reaction to the many sites they have across the county). The appellate court unanimously disagreed, stating that Superfund upholds the due process requirements since a responsible party's action can force the EPA to sue in court. There are two commonly used venues to cleanup a site. One, EPA can issue unilateral orders stating you will do this. Two, do the necessary cleanup and sue the responsible Party(s) for reimbursement of the cleanup costs. This ruling lets all responsible parties around the country know that EPA has the ultimate authority on superfund cleanups.


Latisha Petteway




September 27, 2010

EPA Adds Seven Hazardous Waste Sites to Superfund's National Priorities List

Actions to help clean up and revitalize local communities


De Beers sells old S.Africa mine to black investors

Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:27pm EDT

* Concludes deal with consortium to empower blacks

* Diamond property produced some of world's best gems

By Shapi Shacinda

JOHANNESBURG, Sept 28 (Reuters) - De Beers, the world's largest diamond producer, said on Tuesday that it had sold its Jagersfontein diamond property to South Africa's Superkolong Consortium which comprises black investors.

De Beers, which controls around 40 percent of the rough diamond market, did not disclose the sale price for the tailings dump at the Jagersfontein diamond property.

The mine produced some of the world's largest gems before shutting down several decades ago.

"De Beers ... has concluded another transaction to introduce miners with empowerment credentials to opportunities which have the potential to deliver significant returns for many," De Beers acting CEO Barend Petersen said in a statement.

De Beers said a community Trust would hold 10 percent equity ownership in the holding company that has acquired its assets.

South Africa has been pressing mining companies to offer black investors shares in their operations, under broader plans to empower blacks and reverse imbalances caused by apartheid rule.

The Jagersfontein mine operated from 1870 to 1971 producing a tailing mineral resource of just over 13 million tonnes, the company said.

De Beers is 45 percent owned by mining group Anglo American ( AAL.L ) ( AGLJ.J ), 40 percent by South Africa's Oppenheimer family and 15 percent by the Botswana government.

De Beers' first-half rough diamond sales surged 84 percent to $2.6 billion and production more than doubled to 15.4 million carats. [ID:nLDE66L1CJ]

The company said output in the second half would be similar to that in the first, bringing full year production to 30-32 million carats, up from 24.6 million in 2009. (Reporting by Shapi Shacinda)


3 Questions DOE and Congress Must Answer About the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program

Bob Dinneen

Posted on: September 21, 2010 in Ethanol , Energy , Environment , Fuel , Renewable Fuels , U.S Dept. of Energy

Since its creation, the Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program (as established by the 2005 energy bill) has been defined by inaction and obstruction and is largely seen as a complete failure to date in terms of bringing next generation biofuel technologies to the marketplace.  Additionally, the loan guarantee program has been raided time and again to pay for other federal programs with little if anything to do with renewable energy.  Despite repeated promises to restore funding, money stolen from the program is still MIA.

With DOE officials set to testify this week before a Senate committee and defend their inaction, several questions for DOE and members of Congress need to be answered.

When do DOE officials anticipate making the necessary changes to the program to make it more accessible to next generation biofuel technologies?

As constructed by DOE, the loan guarantee program is unnecessarily discriminatory against biofuel companies, requiring operating data and purchasing agreements for example that are not part of the real world of liquid transportation fuel marketing.  Back in October 2009 , the Renewable Fuels Association sent a letter to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu listing all the concerns raised by RFA's cellulosic and next generation ethanol company members.  Among some these concerns are:

(It should be noted that in April 2010, the RFA met with DOE officials on all the issues raised in its October 2009 letter.  That meeting, and subsequent inaction from DOE, have been disappointing.  A letter to the head of the program following the meeting can be read here .)

How do DOE officials view the loan guarantee program?  Is it for power generation technologies only?  Or, should it apply to all renewable energy technologies including biofuels, as Congress intended?

The reason that is question is relevant is that no biofuel company has yet been awarded a loan guarantee from the program.  Moreover, no biofuel witness is being called at the hearing.  President Obama has strongly stated his priorities of bringing new biofuel technologies to the marketplace, yet, as RFA's repeated communications with DOE point out, the loan guarantee program being operated by his Department of Energy is skewed toward power generation and not liquid transportation fuels.  While wind, solar and other renewable power technologies are important, they will do scant little to reduce our reliance on petroleum.  We use oil for motor fuel, not to power lights and charge iPhones.  There is no shortage of biofuel technologies ready to turn a myriad of feedstocks currently viewed as wastes into renewable fuel.  The companies developing these technologies face one enormous and shared hurdle:  access to capital.  The DOE loan guarantee program, as put into law by Congress in the 2005 energy bill, is designed to help company's clear this financing hurdle and bring these technologies to the commercial market.  Until DOE makes the necessary changes the RFA has called for, these promising technologies continue to wither on the vine. 

For members of Congress, assuming DOE gets on track to dispense funds from this critical program, when will you act to restore funding raided for various programs unrelated to renewable energy infrastructure development?

The account supporting the loan guarantee program has been routinely raided by Congress to pay for pet programs and other initiatives that have nothing to do with developing domestic renewable energies.  Last year, the fund was raided to the tune of $2 billion to pay for the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  This year, $1.5 billion was stolen to cover budget shortfalls in the states.  That $3.5 billion, assuming that DOE had this program operating appropriately which it does not, would have financed up to a dozen commercial scale cellulosic and other next generation ethanol projects.  As it stands, those technologies remained stymied and their promise for economic and environmental benefits unrealized.  While DOE has failed to administer this program effectively to date, Congress must also realize that budget uncertainty creates apprehension about dispensing loans as well. 

America's biofuel industry faces no shortage of vital policy and regulatory decisions this fall.  Many of these are of immediate concern to the industry and the role of ethanol in the nation's energy mix.  But this issue is equally important from a long term and strategic energy perspective.  If we are to achieve the goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard and realize the promise of emerging biofuel technologies, we have to incubate and provide assistance to ensure they can get off the ground and compete with a well-heeled, established, and still subsidized oil industry.

Congress and the Obama Administration need to take an immediate, short term, and long term view of our energy situation.  We cannot afford to be reactive alone.  We must set and remain true to a proactive course that puts our energy future under our control, and not the whims of tyrannical regimes around the world. 

in accordance with certain approved projects. That work is already in progress. It would upset the progress of both pieces of work and injure them very seriously to abolish the Debris Commission or take away its present powers. The Army Engineer officers who constitute the commission are, by the terms of the act, forbidden from receiving any compensation whatever for their services, and they are simply detailed by the Government from other work.

[Memorandum for Representative Fitzgerald, chairman Committee on Appropriations, United States

House of Representatives.]

War Department,
Office Of The Chief Of Engineers,

Washington, April 8, 1912.

1. In the opinion of the office of the Chief of Engineers it is quite desirable to retain in existence the California Debris Commission, for reasons as below given.

2. This commission differs decidedly from the majority of commissions, in the special fact that it is composed solely of officers of the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, who are by law forbidden to receive for their services any compensation in excet<s of their regular pay and allowances as officers of the Corps of Engineers. (See see. 2, act of incorporation.)

3. This commission was created by act of March 1, 1893 (vol. 27, p. 506; chap. 183 as printed, pp. 659-665, vol. 2, Laws of the United States, improvement of rivers and harbors) and is practically only a board of Engineers under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers and direction of the Secretary of War, differing from such boards only in the requirement that the officers must be commissioned by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that it has authority and powers greatly in excess of those ordinarily given to the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers, because of the fact that the board is required to decide and execute work which concerns not only the interests of navigation, but also the interests of land protected by levees during floods, hydraulic mining operations, with their necessary impounding dams and reservoirs, drainage operations connected with the same, and any other matters relative thereto; all these latter operations being beyond the ordinary reach or jurisdiction of the I'orps of Engineers or even the War Department. The commission was created largely for the purpose of allowing cooperation between the United States and the State of California (see sec. 24, act of incorporation) in any hydraulic mining, reservoir construction, reclamation, land protection, drainage, and navigation improvements within State limits and for which the State has in the past contributed considerable money and expects in the future to contribute much more; all such work to be subject to the approval of the Chief of Engineers.

4. All the moneys contributed by the State of California or by individual parties or corporations under State laws, together with the Federal contributions for the above-named purposes, are (sec. 23 of act) to be spent by this commission, and the abolition of the commission might cause serious financial delays in the progress of existing work.

5. Under the river and horbar act of 1910 there was appropriated by the Federal Government $400,000 to be added to the $400,000 already contributed by the States to be expended in accordance with the project of June 30, 1910, approved by the Chief of Engineers. This work is still in progress, and should not be interfered with.

6. In House Document No. 81, Sixty-second Congress, first session (55 pages, plus many maps) there is given a report by the California Debris Commission under date of AugUBt 10, 1910, which has received favorable recommendation of the Chief of Engineers looking toward an appropriation of $22,000,000 to be contributed by the State of California in addition to $11,000,000 by the United States, for the continuation and expansion of this hydraulic mining, reservoir, bank and land protection, drainage, and flood-protecting levee work. The general features of this project are given on pages 30-33, and the details on pages 4 to 30 of the above-named House Document. Should the United States cooperate in any way with the State of California in this work the continuance of the commission is considered exceedingly desirable because of the great extent of such work beyond the ordinary functions of the Engineer Corps, and because of the special powers granted the California D6bris Commission under the act of March 1, 1893, all of which powers have been found very useful and practical, and which can not be transferred to the Engineer Corps except by another act practically duplicating the first.

7. The work of the California Debris Commission for 1911 is explained on pages 1068-1072, Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1911, from which it will be seen

33972— Pt 1—12 52

that the cost to the United States for the office and field work of the commission proper is $15,000, most of which goes into the pay rolls of the engineering and clerical forces, which would be just as necessary if the work were to be carried on by a board of engineers as it is on work carried on by the commission. In other words, the abolishment of the commission and the transfer of its duties to Engineer officers would result in no economy whatever as regards funds, while on the other hand it would complicate matters seriously for the next few years in delaying the progress of work already provided for, and in taking away from the present excellent organization the special powers, outside of those usual in the Corps of Engineers, necessary to an advantageous execution of the duties assigned to it.

\V. H. Bixby,

Chief nf Engineers, United States Army.

Mr. Sherley. Who are tho members of this commission ?

Col. Taylor. Lieut. Col. Rees, stationed in San Francisco; Maj. Cheney, stationed in San Francisco; and Lieut. Col. McKinstry, stationed in Los Angeles.

Mr. Sherley. What work are they doing at San Francisco and Los Angeles ? Is it in connection with river and harbor improvements ?

Col. Taylor. Each one has a river and harbor district; and in addition to that Col. Rees is the river and harbor division engineer. Maj. Cheney is the secretary and disbursing officer of the debris com mission, lie is the one who does the principal part of the office work of the commission.

Mr. Sherley. They would be stationed in San Francisco, irrespective of this work ?

Col. Taylor. Yes, sir: anyway. If the commission has any money left one year it is available for the next year.

Mr. Sherley. You consider this as a continuing appropriation ?

Col. Taylor. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. 1 think not. These are annual appropriations.

Gen. Bixby. The assistant engineer and clerk would have to be put into the river and harbor district office, probably, if the commis sion was abolished, because then the War Department would be called on to do this work by the detail of an engineer board. The board would be seriously hampered because it would not have the power legally that this commission has. A great deal of the property there, a great deal of work that has been done, and a great deal of money that the State of California has appropriated—they are appropriating large sums of money for this work—might, perhaps, bo invalidated legally by an abolishment of the commission, which has special powers given to it under both Federal and State laws.

Mr. Sherley. There is a great deal less mining now than in previous years ?

Col. Taylor. Yes,'sir; but there is just about as much expense to the work of this commission; because to go and examine a small dam costs just about as much as to oxamine a large dam. Very frequently people come in and say: "We have a location where we can impound so manv million yards of d6bris, and we wish to start a very large hydraulic-mining proposition.'' The officer goes up there to investigate and he finds that they have not tho necessary place to impound that d6bris, and a permit is issued for an amount of mining corresponding to the size of the reservoir for debris. The amount of mining is very small to-day compared to what it used to be, but it costs just as much to go up into the mountains and make the examination of a restraining dam which proves to have only a small capacity as it would if it had the actual capacity that the applicant thought it had.

Mr. Sherley. There is enough work stdl being done to make necessary the viewing of the place?

Col. Taylor. Yes, sir. If it were not for the examinations and inspections that are made by the officers of the debris commission, there is no question but what there would be a good deal of mining done, perhaps in each case on a small scale, but in the aggregate it would amount to a great deal, and it would be only a short time before they would got back to the same condition they had before the debris commission was established.


The Chairman. The next item is river and harbor improvements, beginning on page 195 of the bill. The estimates for the next fiscal year are $12,114,988.

Col. Taylor. These are the estimates as submitted on the 1st of July; that is, as they were submitted in the annual report of the Chief of Engineers.

The Chairman. Have you since revised the estimates?

Col. Taylor. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. What would be the total under the present estimate? When was this last estimate made?

Col. Taylor. It was up to about the 1st of March. I find two or three clerical errors in the statement I have here, and I am not sure that my totals are absolutely right. I have the estimates in two ways here, one for the fiscal year up to June 30, 1913, and one up to March 1, 1913, on the assumption that there will be another sundry civil bdl bv that time. If we take the estimates up to June 30, 1913, we now make a total of $12,509,488. I think that is correct, but, as I sav, I have just found some clerical errors in the statement. If we take it up to March 1, 1913, the total is $9,333,650. That is a difference of over $3,000,000, whether we figure up to June 30 or March 1.


Latisha Petteway




September 28, 2010

EPA Helps to Launch Science and Engineering Festival Tomorrow

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development, Paul Anastas, joins other science leaders to kick off the USA Science and Engineering Festival on September 29 in Washington , D.C. Dr. Anastas will conduct a chemistry experiment with students from Martin Luther King Middle School in Washington , D.C. Other demonstrations include:

· What makes the iPhone work

· How to configure a virtual reality city

· How to extract DNA from strawberries

· How algae can help fuel the future

· Upcoming adventures for the Meteorite Men

· A mobile lab showcasing renewable energy sources created through biotechnology

The purpose of the USA Science and Engineering Festival efforts is to reinvigorate the interest of the nation's youth in science, technology, engineering and math.

WHO: Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development

Other leading scientists from around the nation

WHAT: USA Science and Engineering Festival Kick Off Event

WHEN: Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.

WHERE: Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences

500 5th St., N.W.

Washington , D.C.

Inhofe Says EPA's New Boiler Rule Could Kill Nearly 800,000 Manufacturing Jobs


Congress punts tough vote until after November election

Yolo Congressman says Dems care only about themselves By The Associated Press and Democrat staff

WASHINGTON - A deeply unpopular Congress is bolting for the campaign trail without finishing its most basic job - approving a budget for the government year that begins on Friday. Lawmakers also are postponing a major fight over taxes, two embarrassing ethics cases and other political hot potatoes until after the Nov. 2 elections.

With their House and Senate majorities on the line, Democratic leaders called off votes and even debates on all controversial matters.

Northern California Congressman Wally Herger said "by deciding to adjourn Congress to begin their fall campaigns without stopping trillions of dollars in job killing tax hikes, it's clear that the only jobs House Democrats truly care about are their own."

Herger, who is a Repbublican representing the 1st Congressional District, stated "millions of small businesses, the backbone of American job creation, are faced with tax increases that will force them to shed more jobs to stay afloat."




FEMA 800-480-2520

External affairs 202-646-2781

Acquisitions 202-646-1275

"the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects." Madison wrote this before adoption of the 10th Amendment, which restates, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This restriction of powers was intended to be the single greatest bulwark of American liberty.

The following grant opportunity postings were made on the Find Opportunities service:

National Science Foundation
Catalysis and Biocatalysis
Modification 2

National Science Foundation
Environmental Implications of Emerging Technologies
Modification 4

National Science Foundation
Environmental Sustainability
Modification 4

National Science Foundation
Cooperative Studies Of The Earth's Deep Interior
Modification 2


Debate on Interior/EPA Spending Bill Indefinitely Postponed

September 16, 2010 by senatus

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — who “oversees the Appropriations panel's subcommittee overseeing Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency spending — said debate on the appropriations bill in the committee is indefinitely postponed, in part over concerns about efforts to delay EPA climate regulations,” The Hill reports.

“It's off the calendar,” Feinstein told reporters Thursday. “A decision will have to be made about whether it goes back on or out.”

EPA Stuns Industry with Plans to Kill Climate Leaders Program

May 19th 1980 Federal Register

Another $86 million on tap to clean up Hunters Point

San Francisco is in line to receive another $86 million in federal funds to further the cleanup of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, a Superfund site being converted into one of the largest development projects in the city's history.

The new funding is still subject to congressional approval, but Mayor Gavin Newsom and his administration are optimistic the money will come through once the federal budget is passed, possibly after the November election.

The latest tranche would bring to $800 million the total spent on cleanup at Hunters Point over the last 10 years. This year, $92 million in federal funds were allocated for the cleanup, with about $82 million the year before. Newsom largely credits House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein with securing the funds for their home city.

San Francisco officials estimate the federal cleanup efforts, being done in sections, are about 70 percent complete. A handful of local groups say the cleanup plans are inadequate, although officials note the land won't be turned over for development until federal, state and local authorities sign off on its safety.

The 702-acre project on a base closed in 1974 calls for 10,500 residential units, along with 320 acres of parks and open space. The plan calls for retail and entertainment facilities, a green technology campus and possibly an NFL football stadium if the 49ers decide to remain in San Francisco.


Another $86 million on tap to clean up Hunters Point San Francisco is in line to receive another $86 million in federal funds to further the cleanup of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, a Superfund site being converted into one of the largest...

newsom claims everything but oil spills and murders

Newsom also largely credits the sun for illuminating the day.

$800mm to clean up 702 acres, and the job's not yet done? Over a million dollars an acre and more is needed?? Nobody needs to ask anymore why our government and all its agencies are broke.

Considering the Hunter Point Shipyard's history, it's kind of surprising it can be cleaned up at any price. Remember this expensive lesson when crying about environmental regulations driving out business - it's pay now to keep the industrial sites clean in the first place - or pay massive amounts in the future (for further instruction see "Iron Mountain").

what's interesting about this article is what it doesnt say--what the cleanup is for and why its necessary. the HP naval shipyard area has the #1 and #2 EPA-designated Superfund sites in the country. the level of radiation is worse than Chernobyl. radioactive materials brought back from the Bikini Atoll a-bomb tests have been combined with other toxic waste and seeped into the ground, contaminating the soil and making it doubtful that it can ever be truly "cleaned up". more likely, contained and/or moved somewhere else. nevertheless, i wouldnt want to live somewhere with potential radiation poisoning issues, no matter how nice the view.


Itsmymoneytoo might look into why this cleanup is so expensive. The navy spent decades polluting Hunter's Point with just about every toxic industrial product known from asbestos to radioactive junk. One little peculiarity our military enjoys to this day is a sweeping exemption from environmental regulations. I.e. they aren't held responsible no matter how gross their messes may be. Sure, our military has essential work to do, but it could be done with far less collateral damage. Back when much of the mess at Hunter's Point was made, we really didn't know much better. Now we've learned.

The government took tax payer dollars and ruined this property while it was occupied and used by the government and now will take tax payer money to clean it up and Newsom claims all this a victory?????

and just wait until we find out how much of this money has been and contin ues to be wasted. OMG our government spending is so completly out of control while our elected officials continue to pat themselves on the back for spending OUR money. Over a million dollars and acre? OMG! Something smells with this 'black hole' project. Who is overseeing how our money is being spent here? Anybody?

Keep in mind the true purpose of this "development" project which is the largest in SF history......keeping the 49ers in SF. This is how this whole project originated. First it started with remodelling Candlestick, then it was proposed by Eddie Debartolo ( when he was still owner of the 49ers ) and Willie Brown, to build a new stadium and redevelop the entire area. The ballot measure passed but Eddie soon had to give up the team to his sister.....seems the Yorks are deadset on keeping the Niners in Santa Clara, but you never know....

Read more:

Fate of Spruce Fork Mine Permit
Updated Friday, September 24, 2010; 01:44 PM

Landowners oppose Oberstar, Clean Water Act

Sep, 25, 2010 11:17 AM - Bemidji Pioneer (MN)


Andreas / David Sadoff

415-836-7261 cc. head of environmental management

Ken Pisciotto , 212-770-1545

Wayne R. Kaufman

Vice President / Division Counsel

AIG Consultants, Inc.

AIG Business Protection

80 Pine Street , 22nd Floor

New York , NY 10005

212-770-1545 (P)

917-821-8101 (M)

212-742-1564 (F)

Judge Jerry Lawrence Irving ,

Of Counsel, United States District Court, 101 West Broadway, Suite 1700 , San Diego Ca. 92101

Butz, Dunn, DeSantis, and Bingham, professional corporation attorneys at law,

916-233-5474, fax 916-202-6093

Rick Sugarek , 415-972-3151

DOJ 650-876-9058

Fraud Section, Chief, 650-514-7023

Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Chief, 650-514-1263

Office of International Affairs, Director, 650-514-0000


Latisha Petteway




October 8, 2010

EPA Extends by One Year the Compliance Date on Spill Prevention Rule for Certain Facilities

Offshore drilling, production, workover, and certain onshore facilities are not eligible for extension

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the compliance date by one year for certain facilities subject to recent amendments to the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule. The agency is also announcing that some facilities will not be eligible for the one year extension and will have to comply by the current date of November 10, 2010.

Last year, EPA amended the SPCC rule to strengthen certain provisions. Regulated facilities are required to amend and implement these changes as part of their overall SPCC plans. The purpose of the SPCC rule, which was finalized in 1973, is to establish requirements for facilities to prevent a discharge of oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. EPA has no SPCC jurisdiction over drilling, production or workover facilities seaward of the coastline.

Types of facilities not eligible for the extension must comply by November 10, 2010:

Drilling, production or workover facilities that are offshore or that have an offshore component, or onshore facilities required to have and submit facility response plans (FRPs), due to the threats these facilities could pose of significant oil spills to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.

Types of facilities eligible for the one year extension:

Onshore oil production, farms, electric utility plants, petroleum refining and related industries, chemical manufacturing, food manufacturing, manufacturing facilities using and storing animal fats and vegetable oils, metal and other manufacturing, real estate rental and leasing, retail trade, contract construction, wholesale trade, other commercial, transportation, arts entertainment & recreation, other services (except public administration), petroleum bulk stations and terminals, education, hospitals & other health care, accommodation and food services, fuel oil dealers, gasoline stations, information finance and insurance, mining, warehousing and storage, religious organizations, military installations, and government facilities.

In summary, the rule would:

· Extend the date by which the owners or operators of certain facilities must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC plan by one year to November 10, 2011

· Delay the compliance date by which facilities must address milk and milk product containers that are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A sanitary standards, and subject to the current applicable grade “A” pasteurized milk ordinance (PMO) or a state dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO until one year after EPA finalizes a rule for these facilities.

· Maintain the current November 10, 2010 compliance date for drilling, production and workover facilities that are offshore or that have an offshore component, and for onshore facilities required to have and submit FRPs

· Reconcile the compliance dates for new production facilities

These amendments do not remove the regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before August 16, 2002, to maintain and continue implementing an SPCC plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations then in effect.

More information on the rule:


Jurisdiction found under alter ego theory 

Posted: 11:25 am Fri, September 24, 2010
By Barbara L. Jones

Wisconsin parent co. had Minn. subsidiary The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently expanded the reach of Minnesota courts to hale before them a nonresident parent company whose subsidiary owned real estate in Minnesota but went broke and couldn't pay subcontractors. In a case of first impression, the court said that the nonresident company treated its Minnesota resident ...

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. , Sept. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- A federal judge ruled against an attempt by the federal government's U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to summarily extend and expand their federal powers under the Clean Water Act (CWA).


  Business Entity Information



File Date: 



 Domestic Corporation

Entity Number:  


Qualifying State:  


List of Officers Due:  


Managed By:  


Expiration Date:  


NV Business ID:  


Business License Exp:  



  Registered Agent Information



Address 1: 


Address 2: 






Zip Code: 






Mailing Address 1: 


Mailing Address 2: 


Mailing City : 


Mailing State : 


Mailing Zip Code: 




Agent Type: 

 Commercial Registered Agent - Corporation





View all business entities under this registered agent


  Financial Information

No Par Share Count:  


Capital Amount:  

 $ 25,000.00

Par Share Count:  


Par Share Value:  

 $ 0.001


Include Inactive Officers 

 President - T W ARMAN



Essential Solutions, Inc. plans facility upgrade to better serve future demand.

Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 4527
Bryan, TX.

Tel: (979) 361-2361
Fax: (979) 691-8713


Below you will find contact information for our most requested departments. If you still don't see what you're looking for, please contact our webmaster .

Sales Locations:

Phone: (979) 361-2361

Investor Information:


Ag-Gel is a naturally occurring micronutrient plant fertilizer concentrated into a soluble silicate gel. Produced from naturally occurring micronutrient mineral sources, Ag-Gel is a semi-permeable gel membrane that absorbs and holds over 700% its dry weight in water. When applied to the soil it creates a nutrient rich moisture barrier which helps reduce evaporation from the soil while providing plants essential nutrients they need to thrive.

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate offers growers these performance benefits in agricultural applications:

Ag-Gel micronutrient with silicate reduces the stress from diseases including powdery mildew, pythium root rot, and rice blast. It resists or prevents toxicity from phosphorous, manganese, aluminum, and iron, and increases plant tolerance to salt.

Application of Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate improves leaf erectness, reduces susceptibility to lodging in grasses, and improves photosynthesis efficiency.

Crops that have demonstrated benificial responses to Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate application include rice, wheat, barley, sugar cane, tomatoes, beans, cucurbits, strawberries, grapes, roses, apples, grass, and ornamental plants.

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate can increase growth and yield by providing micronutrients and by reducing susceptibility to diseases and pests.

© 2004 Essential Solutions, Inc :: P.O. Box 4527 :: Bryan, TX. 77805-4527



Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. For instance, zoning restrictions prevent site land uses, like residential uses, that are not consistent with the level of cleanup.

Often, ICs are a critical component of the cleanup process and are used by the site manager to ensure both the short- and long-term protection of human health and the environment. For this reason it is important to understand what constitutes an IC. Specifically for EPA, ICs:

. are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use;
. are generally to be used in conjunction with, rather than in lieu of, engineering measures such as waste treatment or containment;
. can be used during all stages of the cleanup process to accomplish various cleanup-related objectives; and,
. should be “layered” (i.e., use multiple ICs) or implemented in a series to provide overlapping assurances of protection from contamination.

ICs are vital elements of response alternatives because they simultaneously influence and supplement the physical component of the remedy to be implemented. On the one hand, the right mix of ICs can help ensure the protectiveness of the remedy; on the other, limitations in ICs may lead to reevaluation and adjustment of the remedy components, including the proposed ICs. At some sites, remedy contingencies may protect against uncertainties in the ability of the ICs to provide the required long-term protectiveness. These points illustrate how important it is for site managers to evaluate ICs as thoroughly as the other remedy components in the Feasibility Study (FS) or Corrective Measures Study (CMS), when looking for the best ICs for addressing site-specific circumstances. Adding ICs on as an afterthought without carefully thinking about their objectives, how the ICs fit into the overall remedy, and whether the ICs can be realistically implemented in a reliable and enforceable manner, could jeopardize the effectiveness of the entire remedy.

Often ICs are more effective if they are layered or implemented in series. Layering means using different types of ICs at the same time to enhance the protectiveness of the remedy. For example, to restrict land use, the site manager may issue an enforcement tool [e.g., Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO)]; obtain an easement; initiate discussions with local governments about a potential zoning change; and enhance future awareness of the restrictions by recording them in a deed notice and in a state registry of contaminated sites. Also, the effectiveness of a remedy may be enhanced when ICs are used in conjunction with physical barriers, such as fences, to limit access to contaminated areas.
ICs may also be applied in series to ensure both the short- and long-term effectiveness of the remedy. For example, the site manager may use an enforcement tool to require the land owner to obtain an easement from an adjacent property owner in order to conduct ground water sampling or implement a portion of the active remedy. This easement may not be needed for the long-term effectiveness of the remedy and is terminated when the construction is complete. At another site, the site manager may use an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) or permit condition to prohibit the land owner from developing the site during the investigation. Later, the site manager may add a provision to the Consent Decree (CD) or the permit requiring the land owner to notify EPA if the property is to be sold and to work with the local government to implement zoning restrictions on the property.

CERCLA as amended by SARA, the NCP and RCRA support the use of ICs in remediation of a site:
CERCLA—Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii)(III) refers to the use of enforceable measures (e.g., ICs) as part of the remedial alternative at sites. EPA can enforce the implementation of ICs, but not necessarily their long term maintenance. For example, the local government with zoning jurisdiction may agree to change the zoning of the site to prohibit residential land uses as part of the remedy, but the local government retains the authority to change the zoning designation in the future. EPA is authorized, under CERCLA section 104(j), to acquire (by purchase, lease or otherwise) real property interests, such as easements, needed to conduct a remedial action provided that the state in which the interest is to be acquired is willing to accept transfer of the interest following the remedial action. Transfers of contaminated Federal property are subject to special deed requirements under CERCLA sections 120(h)(3)(A)(iii) and 120(h)(3)(C)(ii)(I) and (II).
NCP—the NCP provides EPA’s expectations for developing appropriate remedial alternatives, including ICs under CERCLA. In particular, it states that EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by sites; engineering controls for wastes that pose relatively low risk or where treatment is impracticable; and a combination of the two to protect human health and the environment [40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A), (B), and (C)]. In appropriate situations, a combination of treatment, containment, and ICs may be necessary. The NCP also emphasizes the use of ICs to supplement engineering controls during all phases of cleanup and as a component of the completed remedy, but cautions against their use as the sole remedy unless active response measures are determined to be impracticable [40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(D)]. In the case where ICs are the entire remedy, the response to comments section of the preamble to the NCP states that special precautions must be made to ensure the controls are reliable (55 Federal Register, March 8, 1990, page 8706). Recognizing that EPA may not have the authority to implement such controls, the NCP requires that (for fund financed sites) the state assure that the ICs implemented as part of the remedial action are in place, reliable, and will remain in place after the initiation of operation and maintenance [40 CFR 300.510(c)(1)]. Lastly, for Superfund financed and private sites, the NCP also requires the state to hold any interest in property that is acquired (once the site goes into O&M) to ensure the reliability of ICs [40 CFR 300.510(f)].
RCRA—RCRA requirements are imposed through legal mechanisms different from those used under CERCLA. In RCRA, authorized states are the primary decision makers, this results in a wide variety of state-specific mechanisms being available. This fact sheet does not attempt to list all of the state and local IC mechanisms, but to identify key principles for the use of ICs. If the IC is being imposed through a RCRA permit, steps should be taken to ensure that long-term enforcement is not lost through property transfer or permit expiration. Cleanups under RCRA are conducted in connection with the closure of regulated units and facility-wide corrective action either under a permit [RCRA sections 3004(u) and (v)], interim status order [RCRA section 3008(h)] or imminent hazard order [RCRA section 7003] or other authorities. It should also be noted that landfill closure requirements under 40 CFR 264.119 require deed notices that the land has been used to manage hazardous waste, although the notice itself does not restrict future use. EPA expects to use a combination of methods (e.g., treatment, engineering, and institutional controls) under RCRA, as appropriate, to achieve protection of human health and the environment. EPA also expects to use ICs, such as water and land use restrictions, primarily to supplement engineering controls, as appropriate, for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous wastes and constituents. ICs are not generally expected to be the sole remedial action.

Proprietary Controls—These controls, such as easements and covenants, have their basis in real property law and are unique in that they generally create legal property interests. In other words, proprietary controls involve legal instruments placed in the chain of title of the site or property. The instrument may include the conveyance of a property interest from the owner (grantor) to a second party (grantee) for the purpose of restricting land or resource use. An example of this type of control is an easement that provides access rights to a property so the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), facility owner/operator, or regulatory agency may inspect and monitor a groundwater pump-and-treat system or cover system. The benefit of these types of controls is that they can be binding on subsequent purchasers of the property (successors in title) and transferable, which may make them more reliable in the long-term than other types of ICs.
However, proprietary controls also have their drawbacks. Property law can be complicated because a property owner has many individual rights with respect to his or her property. To illustrate this point, property rights can be thought of as a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a single right (e.g., the right to collect rents). The terminology, enforceability, and effect of each of these rights is largely dependent upon real property common law and the state where the site is located. A property owner can convey certain rights to other entities (either voluntarily or involuntarily through condemnation) and keep other rights. For example, if it is determined that a long-term easement is required to ensure remedy protectiveness, this “right” would need to be transferred by the property owner to another entity. For the easement to bind subsequent purchasers, some states require that the entity be an adjacent property owner. This may complicate long-term monitoring and enforcement since the party receiving the right (the grantee) is often not an adjacent property owner. To eliminate this problem, a proprietary control may be established “in gross.” This means that the holder of the control (the grantee) does not need to be the owner of the adjacent property. However, it should be noted that easements in gross may not be enforceable under the laws of some states. State property laws governing easements should therefore be researched before this type of IC is selected in order to determine its enforceability in that jurisdiction.
A distinction at Federal sites being transferred to the private sector is that CERCLA sections 120(h)(3)(A)(iii) and 120(h)(3)(c)(ii) and (iii) require that property interests be retained by the Federal government. At active Federal sites, proprietary controls may not be an option because a deed does not exist or the landholding Federal agency lacks the authority to encumber the property. However, the landholding Agency may be willing to enter a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA and/or state regulators providing for specific IC implementation plans, periodic inspections and other activities which it will undertake (in lieu of deed restrictions) to assure that ICs for the active site will remain effective.
Enforcement and Permit Tools with IC Components—Under sections 104 and 106(a) of CERCLA, UAOs and AOCs can be issued or negotiated to compel the land owner (usually a PRP) to limit certain site activities at both Federal and private sites; CDS can also be negotiated at private sites under 122(d). Similarly, EPA can enforce permits, conditions and/or issue orders under RCRA sections 3004(a), 3004(u) and (v), 3008(h), or 7003. These tools are frequently used by site managers, but may also have significant shortcomings that should be thoroughly evaluated. For example, most enforcement agreements are only binding on the signatories, and the property restrictions are not transferred through a property transaction. For example, if a PRP under CERCLA signs a CD or receives a UAO and then sells his or her property, many types of ICs would not be enforceable against the next owner. This could jeopardize the protectiveness of the remedy. One possible solution to this problem is to ensure that the enforcement tool contains provisions requiring EPA or state notification and/or approval prior to a property transfer. In this instance, EPA could negotiate an agreement with the new owner. Another solution is to require signatories of an enforcement document to implement additional long-term institutional controls such as information devices or proprietary controls (i.e., layering).
Informational Devices—Informational tools provide information or notification that residual or capped contamination may remain on site. Common examples include state registries of contaminated properties, deed notices, and advisories. Due to the nature of some informational devices (e.g., deed or hazard notices) and their potential non-enforceability, it is important to carefully consider the objective of this category of ICs. Informational devices are most likely to be used as a secondary “layer” to help ensure the overall reliability of other ICs.

ICs at Federal Facilities
Because of Federal ownership, there are significant differences in the way ICs are applied at Federal facilities. Some proprietary or governmental controls cannot be applied on active Federal facilities. However, for properties being transferred as part of a base closure, the Department of Defense does have the authority to restrict property by retaining a property interest (i.e., an easement intended to assure the protectiveness of the remedy). For active bases, ICs are commonly addressed through remedy selection documents, base master plans, and separate MOUs. More detailed information on ICs and Federal facilities is contained in “Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual (Workgroup Draft - March 1998)” and in the FFRRO IC guidance ("Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real Property under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A), (B), or (C)," January, 2000).
Legal Mechanisms for Imposing ICs Under CERCLA and RCRA
CERCLA and RCRA employ the same types of ICs to reduce exposure to residual contamination. However, as explained below, EPA’s legal authority to establish, monitor and enforce ICs varies significantly between the two programs. As a result, officials involved in cleanups need to appreciate the range of options available under each program before determining whether, and to what extent, ICs should be incorporated into a remedial decision.
At CERCLA sites, EPA often imposes ICs via enforcement tools (e.g., UAOs, AOCs, and CDs). Since these enforcement tools only bind the parties named in the enforcement document, it may be necessary to require the parties to implement ICs that “run with the land” (i.e., applied to the property itself) in order to bind subsequent land owners. For Fund-lead CERCLA sites, the lead agency has the responsibility for ensuring ICs are implemented. Legal mechanisms such as UAOs, AOCs and CDS should also require reporting to EPA and/or the state of any sale of the property.
Under RCRA, ICs are typically imposed through permit conditions or by orders issued under section 3008(h). In certain circumstances cleanup may also be required under the imminent hazard order authority of section 7003. In the case where an IC is meant to continue beyond the expiration of a permit, an order may be required to ensure the IC remains in effect for the long term RCRA permit writers should incorporate ICs as specific permit conditions, where appropriate. By doing so, such conditions would be enforceable through the permit. At the same time, permit writers should consider whether additional ICs are available (e.g., governmental and/or proprietary controls) to ensure that subsequent property owners will be aware of, and bound by, the same types of restrictions. Similar factors should be considered when preparing RCRA corrective action orders to ensure that both the current facility owner/operator and any subsequent property owners are subject to effective and enforceable ICs that will minimize exposure to any residual contamination.
One significant difference between RCRA and CERCLA is that RCRA generally does not authorize EPA to acquire any interests in property. Therefore, many proprietary controls (such as easements) will require the involvement of third parties (e.g., states or local governments) under RCRA.
ICs and Future Land Use
Land use and ICs are usually linked. As a site moves through the Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) or RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS), site managers should develop assumptions about reasonably anticipated future land uses and consider whether ICs will be needed to maintain these uses over time. EPA’s land use guidance (Land Use in CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04, May 25, 1995) states that the site manager should discuss reasonably anticipated future uses of the site with local land use planning authorities, local officials, and the public, as appropriate, as early as possible during the scoping phase of the RI/FS or RFI/CMS. Where there is a possibility that the land will not be cleaned up to a level that supports unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the site manager should also discuss potential ICs that may be appropriate, including legal implementation issues, jurisdictional questions, the impact of layering ICs and reliability and enforceability concerns. It is also important for the site manager to recognize that, in addition to land uses, ICs can be used to affect specific activities at sites (e.g., fishing prohibitions).
Screening ICs
The need for ICs can be driven by both the need to guard against potential exposure and to protect a remedy. If any remedial options being evaluated in the FS or CMS leave waste in place that would not result in unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, ICs should be considered to ensure that unacceptable exposure from residual contamination does not occur. However, ICs may not be necessary if the waste that is left at the site allows for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Remedy options that typically leave residual wastes on site and necessitate ICs include capping waste in place, construction of containment facilities, natural attenuation and long-term pumping-and-treatment of groundwater.
ICs should be evaluated in the same level of detail as other remedy components. ICs are considered response actions under CERCLA and RCRA. ICs must meet all statutory requirements, and are subject to the nine evaluation criteria outlined in the NCP (40 CFR 300.430 (e)(9)(i)) for CERCLA cleanups. The balancing criteria recommended for corrective actions should generally be used in evaluating ICs under RCRA. However, before applying these criteria, the site manager should first make several determinations: *&%#@^$_jf FASCISTS AND COMMUNISTS!

Determining the Role of Local Governments
CERCLA, RCRA, and the NCP do not specify a role for local governments in implementing the selected remedy. However, a local government is often the only entity that has the legal authority to implement, monitor and enforce certain types of ICs (e.g., zoning changes). While EPA and the states take the lead on CERCLA and RCRA response activities, local governments have an important role to play in at least three areas: (1) determining future land use; (2) helping engage the public and assisting in public involvement activities; and (3) implementation and long-term monitoring and enforcement of ICs. Therefore, it is critical that the site manager and his or her state counterpart involve the appropriate local government agency in discussions on the types of controls that are being considered. The capability and willingness of the local government to implement and ensure the short- or long-term effectiveness of the proposed ICs should be considered during the RI/FS or RFI/CMS. In certain cases, cooperative agreements may be considered to assist local governments in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of required ICs.

ICs in CERCLA Removal Actions
ICs will rarely be a component of true emergencies where a time critical action serves as the only response at a site. It is more likely that a site manager will choose ICs as a component of a non-time critical removal action or during a follow-up remedial action. A post-removal site control agreement must be completed before commencing a fund-financed removal action where ICs are included in post-removal site control (OSWER Directive No. 9360.22-02). As in the remedial process, begin considering ICs when conducting an analysis of land use assumptions during the removal decision-making process. Where a final, site-wide, non-time critical removal remedy decision will be made, ICs should be thoroughly and rigorously evaluated with all other response actions in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). In short, because ICs are considered to be actions, apply the full criteria required by
the NCP for EE/CA evaluations. It is anticipated that ICs would not be chosen as the sole action for a removal.

It is fundamental that a remedy under RCRA or CERCLA that includes ICs meet the following threshold criteria:
• protect human health and the environment; and • for CERCLA sites, comply with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
The site manager for RCRA facilities should also consider whether remedies that include ICs:
• attain media cleanup standards or comply with applicable standards for waste management; and
• control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the extent practicable, further releases of hazardous waste that might cause threats to human health and the environment.
Balancing Criteria
The site manager evaluates the individual, layered or series of ICs to determine their respective strengths and weaknesses. ICs are also evaluated in combination with engineered controls to identify the key tradeoffs that should be balanced for the site. Following are balancing criteria required by CERCLA and the NCP and recommended by the RCRA program in guidance.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence (CERCLA) or reliability (RCRA)—Under both CERCLA and RCRA, this factor assesses the permanence/reliability and effectiveness of ICs that may be used to manage treatment residuals or untreated wastes that remain at the site over time. When evaluating whether an IC will be effective over the long-term, the site manager should consider factors such as: whether the property is a government-owned site or a privately-owned site that is likely to change hands; the applicability of ICs to multiple property owners; the size of the area to be managed; the number of parcels; the contaminated media to be addressed; the persistence of the contamination; whether site contamination is well-defined; and whether local governments or other governing bodies are willing and able to monitor and enforce long-term ICs. The site manager should also consider the contaminated media to be addressed by the ICs. Different ICs may be required for different media.
Where ICs must be effective for a long period, either proprietary or governmental controls should be considered because they generally run with the land and are enforceable. However, both proprietary and governmental controls have weaknesses in terms of long-term reliability. For example, with proprietary controls, common law doctrines may restrict enforcement by parties who do not own adjoining land. This can render proprietary controls ineffective if EPA or another party capable of enforcing the control is not the owner of the adjacent property. To eliminate this problem, proprietary controls may be established "in gross," signifying that the holder of the control does not need to be the owner of the adjacent property. However, some courts do not recognize in gross proprietary controls.
At some sites, governmental controls may be preferable to proprietary controls. For example, the site manager might work with a local government to pass an ordinance to restrict construction or invasive digging that might disturb or cause exposure to covered residual lead contamination in a large residential area. The implementation of government controls might be considered a beneficial addition to information tools that may be forgotten over the long term or an enforcement action that would be binding only on certain parties.
Proprietary controls would likely be deemed impractical at such a site due to the complex and uncertain task of obtaining easements from multiple property owners.
Like proprietary controls, the use of governmental controls may not be effective over the long term. Of primary concern are the political and fiscal constraints that may affect the ability of a state or local government to enforce the controls. Similarly, governmental controls may be problematic when the local or state government is or may become the site owner or operator because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. Regardless of the control selected, its viability over the long term needs to be closely evaluated.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment—
This CERCLA and RCRA criterion does not apply since ICs are not treatment measures.
Short-term Effectiveness—Short-term effectiveness of ICs at CERCLA and RCRA sites should be evaluated with respect to potential effects on human health and the environment during construction and implementation of the remedy. In order to satisfy this criterion, the remedy might entail the use of an IC through an enforcement order to compel the PRP to restrict certain uses of the groundwater at or down gradient from the site during remediation.

After remediation is complete, other ICs might be implemented if residual contamination remains on site (i.e., implementing ICs in series).
Implementability—This CERCLA and RCRA criterion evaluates the administrative feasibility of an action and/or the activities that need to be coordinated with other offices and agencies. Implementation factors that generally should be considered for ICs include whether the entity responsible for implementation possesses the jurisdiction, authority, willingness and capability to establish, monitor and enforce
ICs. A proper analysis of implementability can be complex, considering such diverse factors as the extent to which land being restricted is owned by liable parties and the willingness and capability
of the local government or other authority responsible for establishing controls for land or resource use.
Cost—This CERCLA and RCRA criterion includes estimated capital and O&M costs. In CERCLA, estimated costs for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing ICs should be developed. For example, cost estimates for ICs might include legal fees associated with obtaining easements restricting land use, the costs of purchasing property rights (e.g.., groundwater rights, easements), or the wages of the state or local government personnel that will regularly monitor the IC to ensure that it has not been violated. It is interesting to note that once the total life-cycle costs of implementing, monitoring and enforcing an IC – which may exceed 30 years – are fully calculated, it may actually be less costly in the long term to implement a remedy that requires treatment of the waste. For more information on estimating response costs, see “A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study,” EPA 540-R-00-002, OSWER 9355.0-
075. In RCRA, costs historically have played a less prominent role in remediation selection. Typically cost estimates are expected to be developed at the discretion of the owner/operator, although implementors should take into account sites where ICs are inappropriately costly.

Modifying Criteria
Typically the site manager presents the proposed remedy, including ICs to the state, local government, and community for comment prior to implementation. The issues and concerns of these stakeholders may result in modifications to the remedy and are addressed by the site manager in the remedy decision document. Following is a discussion of these modifying criteria (note: these criteria are only recommended in RCRA guidance).
State Acceptance—The site manager should make the appropriate state authorities aware of the basis and scope of the ICs to be implemented under CERCLA or RCRA, and what role, if any, the state is expected to play to make ICs an effective part of the remedy. The state can formally express its concerns about the use of ICs, in general, and its role, in particular, or indicate its willingness to take on the responsibility for implementing and enforcing the proposed ICs. If the state’s position is uncertain at the time the remedy is selected (e.g., for CERCLA sites, when the ROD is signed or, for RCRA facilities, when the permit/order is issued or modified), it may be necessary to outline contingent remedial approaches in the decision documents. Specifically, remedies that require long-term ICs to remain protective may require alternative actions (e.g., additional soil removal) if the ICs are later determined to be unenforceable or cannot meet the
remedial objectives. Alternatively, at a RCRA site, it may be necessary to leave a facility under a permit or other mechanism enforceable by the regulating agency. If the state’s willingness or ability to implement or enforce an IC changes after remedy selection, the protectiveness of the remedy should generally be re-evaluated and, when necessary, remedial decisions revised. Under CERCLA, this may require an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), or even a ROD amendment. Under RCRA, a permit modification or change to a corrective action order may
be necessary. It is important to note that under no circumstances can a Fund-financed CERCLA remedial action be initiated without receiving state assurances on ICs and property transfer.
Local Government and Community Acceptance—Involving the community and local government early during the remedy decision process will enable the site manager to more fully evaluate IC options. Discussions with the local government and community give the site manager the opportunity to:
• gather local government and community input on the proposed ICs;
• identify whether a particular stakeholder group may be harmed as a result of a proposed IC (for example, will a ban on fishing cause an economic hardship in the community);
• receive comment on the impacts of the potential ICs on religious or cultural customs and beliefs (e.g., preventing access to property which grows the plants that are used in a tribal ceremony); and
• determine if the community has special needs in regards to the IC (for example, will it be necessary to publish informational devices in multiple languages).
In addition, the local government and community’s response to certain types of ICs and the willingness and capability of the local government to monitor ICs will help the site manager determine whether the ICs will be effective overall. This is especially important if nearby property owners will need to agree to implement proprietary controls or if other governmental ICs (e.g., zoning changes) will have an impact on the community. Early involvement will also enable the community to work with the local government to develop innovative approaches to using ICs, especially in light of any future land use plans.
As with other aspects of the proposed remedy, the community should have the opportunity to comment on the proposed IC component of the remedy during the public comment period. It may be necessary to educate the community about ICs so that its members understand how the different ICs may impact their property and activities. Under CERCLA, it may also be possible, as long as all appropriate requirements are met, to provide a Technical Assistance Grant to the community so they can hire a technical expert to assist them in evaluating ICs and the overall remedy.
In some cases, it may be appropriate not to identify the exact IC required at the time of the remedy decision. In these instances the critical evaluation of the available ICs should still be conducted and the specific objective(s) of the ICs should be clearly stated in the ROD or other decision document. Examples of when this flexibility may be appropriate are contingent remedies based on pilot studies or if a remedy would not be implemented for several years and the state is developing enabling language for Conservation Easements authority.

The ICs outlined in this fact sheet can be important elements of environmental cleanups. ICs play an important role in limiting risk and are often needed to ensure that engineered remedies are not affected by future site activities. When selecting ICs, the site manager needs to evaluate the situation at the site, define the needs that ICs are intended to address, identify the kinds of legal and other tools available to meet these needs, and ensure the ICs are implemented effectively. All of this requires up-front planning and working closely with the Regional office attorneys, the state, community, and PRPs or facility owner/operators. Key concepts to keep in mind when implementing ICs are provided in the text box below.
If you have questions regarding the material covered in this fact sheet, consult the draft document, “Institutional Controls: A Reference Manual” or contact your Regional Coordinator in the OERR Technical Regional Response Center. For information on model language for enforcement or legal documents used to implement ICs, consult your Regional Counsel, OSRE or the Office of General Counsel.


Posted by David Chapman, Esq. in CERCLA , Environmental Litigation on September 24, 2010

In United States, et al. v. Aerojet General Corp, et al. (606 F.3d 1142; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11131), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that non-settling Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”)(referred to by the court as “Applicants”) have a right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and § 113(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)(42 U.S.C.S. § 9613(i)) in a lawsuit brought by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for the purpose of obtaining court approval of the lawsuit's settlement.     

In October 2007, the EPA filed a suit in the Central District of California seeking approval of a proposed consent decree incorporating two prior agreements regarding remediation of a reservoir, in part to protect settling PRPs named in the consent decree from contribution claims by non-settling PRPs.  Prior to seeking intervention, Applicants objected to the proposed consent decree, complaining that: (1) the EPA failed to provide sufficient information regarding the proposed consent decree's allocation of cleanup costs; and (2) they were unaware whether the EPA had prepared a Non-Binding Preliminary Allocation of Responsibility.  If approved, the consent decree would bar contribution claims against the settling PRPs under § 113(f) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C.S. § 9613(f)(2)).  In March 2008, Applicants moved to intervene as of right in the EPA's suit under Rule 24(a)(2) and § 113(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(i).  The district court denied intervention and entered the consent decree the next day.  The Applicants timely appealed, contending that the district court erred in denying their motion to intervene.

In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit discussed its requirement that applicants for intervention as of right satisfy a four-part test: (1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a “significantly protectable” interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action.  The court noted that Rule 24(a)(2) differs from §113(i) of CERCLA only in providing a different burden of proof for the fourth part of the test.  Under Rule 24(a)(2), the burden of showing inadequate representation is on the applicant; under § 113(i), to avoid intervention, the government must show that the applicant's interests are adequately represented.  The court concluded that under either standard, in the matter before it, the interests of the Applicants were not adequately represented by the government or the settling PRPs.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit joined the Eighth and Tenth Circuits in holding that non-settling PRPs have a significant protectable interest in litigation between the government and would-be settling PRPs.  The court acknowledged that the non-settling PRPs are potentially liable for response costs under § 107(a) of CERCLA, and under CERCLA § 113(f)(2), consent decree approval cuts off their contribution rights against settling PRPs under § 113(f)(1).  The existing parties would not adequately represent the applicants' interests because the interests of the settling PRP's were directly opposed to the applicants' interests.  The court recognized that the proposed consent decree threatened to directly affect Applicants' interest in maintaining their right to contribution, and further reasoned that because non-settling PRPs may be held liable for the entire amount of response costs minus the amount paid in a settlement, Applicants have an obvious interest in the amount of any judicially-approved settlement.  The larger the settlement amount, the smaller the remaining amount for which the non-settling PRPs may be liable.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit held that the applicants were entitled to intervene as a matter of right to protect their interests in contribution and to ensure that the consent decree embodied a fair and reasonable allocation of liability.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed with other courts that relied on the existence of CERCLA's notice and comment procedure to justify a conclusion that intervention as of right is not available in these circumstances. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision denying intervention and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claims.

EPA's Actions Will Limit Future Growth and Productivity of U.S. Agriculture  

(WASHINGTON,D.C.)  U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, today heard testimony during a full committee hearing to examine the impact of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on the agriculture sector.  Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, was among several witnesses to testify before the committee.  During Sen. Chambliss' opening remarks, he said the hearing is an opportunity to stress how serious the concerns with the EPA really are to rural America.  

“According to a recent report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. agriculture sector is improving and exports are growing,” said Sen.Chambliss.  “The question we then ask is what impact EPA's regulatory plans will have on future opportunities for growth.  Given the regulatory issues before us, I believe the EPA's plans will hinder growth in agriculture and rural America.”   

Sen. Chambliss highlighted examples of the more than 20 different efforts underway at EPA that affect agriculture.  He cited the EPA's suite of regulations that will drive up costs for all energy users, bring large and small agribusinesses into a permitting program and within a few years require large farms to obtain air permits.  Additionally, Sen. Chambliss discussed the EPA's plans to impose an unnecessary paperwork burden on pesticide users. Earlier this summer, he introduced a bipartisan bill with Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) to clarify that additional permits are not required for pesticide application in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the world will need to produce 70 percent more food to feed an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050,” said Sen.Chambliss.  “I seriously question whether anyone has made the connection between the central role that America must play to solve this challenge and the regulations that EPA has put forth for agriculture – the very industry that will be responsible for the solution.  No one disputes the need or desire for clean air and water, bountiful habitat and healthy landscapes.  But at some point, which I believe we are getting dangerously close to, regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers will hinder rather than help them become better stewards of the land and more bountiful producers of food, fiber and fuel.”

Washington — U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, today called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) to provide America's farmers and ranchers certainty and stability, not additional burdensome and costly environmental regulations. Lincoln's comments came during a Senate Agriculture Committee oversight hearing to examine the impacts of EPA regulation on agriculture. The Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Rich Hillman, of Carlisle, Ark., were among those who testified.

“At a time when every American feels anxious about his or her own economic future, our farmers, ranchers, and foresters are facing at least ten new regulatory requirements that will drive up their costs and make it more difficult to compete in the global marketplace. These regulations rely on dubious rationales and, as a consequence, will be of questionable benefit to the goal of conservation and environmental protection,” Lincoln said. “Farmers face so many unknowns – the last thing they need is regulatory uncertainty.  Our farmers, ranchers and foresters need clear, straightforward, and predictable rules to live by that are not burdensome, duplicative, costly, unnecessary, or in some cases just plain bizarre.”     

Lincoln pointed toward EPA's Clean Water Act permit requirements for pesticide applications as one example of an expensive and duplicative process that is creating unnecessary hurdles for farmers. She noted that farmers are not only struggling to meet these requirements, but are often left guessing on which requirements to meet.  

“The Clean Water Act requirements for pesticide applications have created incredible uncertainty and concern for rice producers in Arkansas,” Lincoln said. “Growers are suddenly forced to make a choice between either seeking an expensive permit that requires onerous record-keeping and other obligations that FIFRA already regulates, or spraying without a permit and being potentially subject to Clean Water Act citizen suits and enormous civil penalties. This is simply a choice that Arkansas's farmers and foresters shouldn't have to make.” 

Lincoln also voiced concerns that EPA would soon begin inspecting poultry farms in Northwest Arkansas for compliance with the Clean Water Act.  EPA has identified the Illinois River Watershed in Arkansas as a “priority watershed” and announced the proposed inspections last week at a public meeting in Fayetteville.

“I have heard from many Arkansas producers voicing their concerns about EPA coming onto their farms to inspect their poultry operations. I am extremely disappointed at the lack of consultation provided by EPA before moving forward with their inspections.  It is the responsibility of the EPA to clearly define the goal post and give farmers time to comply before moving forward.  I can't emphasize this enough – Arkansas's farmers work hard every day on razor thin margins and this type of potential action threatens to place increased costs and bureaucratic red tape to an already strapped bottom line.” 

“I appreciate Chairman Lincoln for holding this hearing to point out the number of regulatory issues that negatively impacts our farmers and ranchers. Today's hearing gives farmers and ranchers that depend on the legislative process an opportunity to make sure their positions are represented and protected before EPA implements regulations. I'm hopeful that the EPA will clarify specific guidelines as it relates to the CAFO permitting process, among other numerous permits,” said Rich Hillman, Arkansas Farm Bureau Vice President.

Others who testified at the hearing today include Jay Vroom, President and Chief Executive Officer of Croplife America in Washington, DC, and Jere White, Executive Director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association in Barnett, Kansas.

Lincoln also reiterated her opposition to EPA overseeing the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, noting the extraordinary burden it would place on farmers across the nation.

“I flat out disagree with EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases,” Lincoln said. “I fear that federal courts will order EPA to regulate small sources of greenhouse gases. This could mean unnecessary regulation for thousands of farms all around the country. We cannot allow this to happen.  And as I have said time and again, it should be Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, who should be writing the laws to regulate greenhouse gases.”

Lincoln, who hails from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family, became the first woman and the first Arkansan to serve as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee on September 9, 2009. She has served on the Committee since first joining the Senate in 1999.

Lincoln's opening statement from today's hearing can be viewed on the Committee's website at .


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)


  Business Entity Information



File Date: 



 Domestic Corporation

Entity Number:  


Qualifying State:  


List of Officers Due:  


Managed By:  


Expiration Date:  


NV Business ID:  


Business License Exp:  



  Registered Agent Information



Address 1: 


Address 2: 






Zip Code: 






Mailing Address 1: 


Mailing Address 2: 


Mailing City : 


Mailing State : 


Mailing Zip Code: 




Agent Type: 

 Commercial Registered Agent - Corporation





View all business entities under this registered agent


  Financial Information

No Par Share Count:  


Capital Amount:  

 $ 25,000.00

Par Share Count:  


Par Share Value:  

 $ 0.001


Include Inactive Officers 

 President - T W ARMAN



Essential Solutions, Inc. plans facility upgrade to better serve future demand.

Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 4527
Bryan, TX.

Tel: (979) 361-2361
Fax: (979) 691-8713


Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

September 28, 2010


Filed under: Houston Criminal Lawyer — Tags: actual innocence , death penalty , DNA , DNA exonerations , Habeas Corpus , Wrongful Conviction — johntfloyd @ 3:30 am

Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions Recommends Expanded Post-Conviction DNA Testing, Habeas Corpus Based on Changing Science

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

U.S. District Court Judge William T. Moore, Jr., who presides in the Southern District of Georgia, recently observed in the death penalty case of Troy Davis ( here and here ) that only one state of the 35 states that have the death penalty does not have any post-conviction avenue for inmates to either secure or offer evidence of innocence. That lone state is Oklahoma. Altogether, 47 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes which provide varying degrees of access to remedies to establish innocence in a post-conviction setting. Massachusetts, Alaska, and Oklahoma are the only three hold-out states which have elected not to enact reform legislation in the critical area of establishing “actual innocence” despite the ever-increasing number of DNA exonerations.

Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides inmates claiming actual innocence with an avenue to procure DNA testing. Article 64.01 permits an inmate to motion for DNA testing of evidence containing biological material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit outlining the facts supporting the motion. The motion can secure DNA testing only of evidence that was in possession of the state during the trial of the offense for which he was convicted, provided the following conditions are met: 1) the evidence was not subjected to DNA testing because such testing was not available; 2) DNA testing was available but was not technologically capable of producing probative results; or 3) DNA technology has improved with newer testing techniques which provide more accurate results.

Recently the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions (“ Panel ”) pointed out that Texas inmates who make claims of being wrongfully convicted not related to DNA evidence—such as improper ballistics analysis, faulty arson forensic evidence, or staged dog scent evidence—must petition the courts through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant Art. 1107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in non-capital cases and Art. 11.071 in death penalty cases.

The burden facing a defendant in a habeas proceeding trying to establish “actual innocence” has been historically high because the U.S. Supreme Court has never definitively recognized what is called a “freestanding” actual innocence claim in habeas proceedings. Just last year the Court in case of District Attorney's Office of the Third Judicial District v. Osborne held that the “actual innocence claim” issue was an “open question.” Yet just two months later the Court ordered a hearing in the case of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis on the issue of “actual innocence,” saying it would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to execute an innocent man as Davis has claimed to be. Against this conflicting constitutional backdrop, Judge Moore conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing and in August issued a comprehensive ruling that Davis had failed to establish his “actual innocence” test by “clear and convincing evidence”—the standard of evidence the federal judge said should be applied in such claims.

The month before Judge Moore rendered his opinion Dallas attorney Gary A. Udashen presented an excellent paper titled “ Freeing the Innocent : Actual Innocence and the Writ of Habeas Corpus ” to the Annual Advanced Law Course sponsored by the State Bar of Texas in San Antonio. In his piece, Udashen distinguished the difference between two leading “actual innocence” decisions handed down by the Supreme Court:  Herrera v. Collins (decided in 1993) and Schlup v. Delo (decided in 1995). Udashen informs us that a Herrera -type claim “involves a substantive claim in which the applicant asserts a bare claim of innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence” while a Schlup -type claim “is a procedural claim in which the applicant's claim of innocence does not alone provide a basis for relief but is tied to a showing of a constitutional error at trial.”

Udashen stated that Herrera “serves as sound precedent for recognition of habeas relief when an actual innocence claim alone is raised.” Judge Moore, however, was not so embracing of Herrera as a “sound precedent” vehicle. The judge pointed out that Herrera was “decided [solely] on the merits” (no factual basis for the actual innocence claim) without the court firmly deciding “the cognizability of the freestanding claim of actual innocence.” Judge Moore said that because the court “simply assumed that freestanding claims of actual innocence were cognizable” in habeas proceedings, it did not feel compelled to “state a concrete position on the issue.”

These two divergent interpretations (Udashen and Moore) of Herrera illustrate the enormous difficulty actual innocence claims face at either the state or federal level. In fact, as noted by Judge Moore, the Supreme Court Justices themselves were sharply divided on the extent of cognizability of an actual innocence claim in habeas proceedings: “four Justices provided only suggestive dicta on either side of the question,” “two Justices expressly stated the Constitution does not recognize the claim,” and the remaining three Justices “explicitly recognized the claim.” Although it had the opportunity in Schlup, the Court did not clear up the muddied water on the actual innocence issue because, as Judge Moore pointed out, “Herrera was discussed, but only to contrast its hypothetical freestanding claim of actual innocence to the long-recognized exception to procedural default for a miscarriage of justice.” And thirteen years later in House v. Bell the Justices persisted with the ostrich-like “head in the sand approach” to the issue by “briefly touching on the freestanding claims of actual innocence” but refusing to delve any further because the defendant had failed to state a claim sufficient to “require consideration of the claim.”

Osborne and Davis did little to purify the constitutional waters on the issue. In fact, Justices Scalia and Thomas in Davis actually concluded that the U.S. Constitution, either under its due process or cruel and unusual punishment provisions, does not prohibit “the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a … court that he is ‘actually innocent' …” And this brings us to the case of Texas death row inmate Hank Skinner ( here and here ) whose case will be heard by the Court this Term. The Skinner case raises the narrow issue of whether a death row inmate can pursue a request for DNA testing under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 rather than through habeas proceedings as part of a death penalty appeal. The gnawing uncertainty in Skinner is whether the Court will venture beyond the Sec. 1983 issue and actually tackle the “actual innocence claim” issue head-on, and if so, whether will it confine its ultimate ruling strictly to capital cases as indicated by the Davis decision; or, worse yet, will the court simply restrict its review in Skinner to the sole issue of whether DNA requests by death row inmates can be pursued through Sec. 1983 actions leaving the actual innocence issue as “open question.”

In the end, Judge Moore elected to follow his own judicial instincts and concluded that “the objective indicia of societal standards indicates a consensus that the execution of innocent convicts should be prohibited, whether innocence is proved before or after trial. Indeed, the national consensus among the state appears nearly unanimous on this score.” Having drawn this conclusion (executing innocent people is indeed cruel and unusual), Judge Moore rejected Herrera's “extraordinarily high” burden of proof to establish a claim of actual innocence and refused to embrace Schlup's somewhat lesser restrictive standard of reasonable probability (viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the offense). Instead the judge chose to adopt the “clear and convincing evidence” standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Sawyer v. Whitley in 1992 which falls somewhere between the Herrera/Schlup standards.

But even against this convoluted constitutional backdrop, Udashen compiled 18 cases in which Texas appeals court have granted habeas relief based on claims of actual innocence, another five cases in which new trials were ordered, and 17 cases in which DNA evidence established the “actual innocence” of the inmates. Udashen also listed 22 inmates, including Timothy Cole, who have been pardoned on the basis of DNA exoneration. Beyond disturbing, these cases offer compelling evidence why the Texas Legislature should embrace the Panel's two following recommendations which would expand the state's post-conviction DNA testing and the availability of habeas corpus based on changing science:

The Panel pointed out that there have been 41 DNA exonerations in this state—more than any other state in the nation. Two bills were introduced in the 2009 legislative session that would have implemented the recommendations proposed by the Panel, but they failed to gain enough political traction to become law after being opposed by the Harris County and Lubbock County District Attorneys' offices. Why is that not surprising?  Harris County is second only to Dallas County in the number of DNA exonerations and the Lubbock County District Attorney's office wrongfully convicted Timothy Cole and fought his undeniable exoneration to the bitter end.

The time has long passed for the U.S. Supreme Court to get its act together on “actual innocence claim” issue and the time has arrived for the Texas Legislature to upgrade the state's post-conviction remedies to make “actual innocence” claims more accessible to the courts. Beyond the 258 DNA exonerations in this country, there have been 135 people released since 1973 from death rows in twenty-six states after their actual innocence was determined. Eleven of those inmates were on Texas' death row. According to the Death Penalty Information Center , there has been an average of five DNA exonerations per year between 2000 and 2007. We cannot continue to execute people or confine them with life sentences without the possibility of parole with a system that refuses to do everything possible to protect the innocent with open and honest avenues to pursue the truth.

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Texas Leads Resistance to EPA Climate Action

State Agencies > Attorney General's Office > It's Getting Hot in Here by Kate Galbraith

Come January, the Environmental Protection Agency will — in theory — begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions around the country for the first time. Large polluters planning expansions must include carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change on their permit applications, with broader regulations coming into force over time.

But not if Texas can help it. Attorney General Greg Abbott last week lodged legal challenges in a federal court against EPA actions on multiple fronts, including a reiteration of the state's long-standing argument against the EPA's scientific foundation for determining the dangers of greenhouse gas pollution. EPA regulation, Abbott's document said, "is the most draconian of its kind of any advanced economy in the world" and would damage the Texas economy.

Whether the flurry of legal activity can derail the EPA remains to be seen. The lawsuits — not just from Texas but also from coal and other business groups around the country, which are joining together to sue — are awaiting a response from a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., which will make a ruling about whether to stay the EPA's hand. Moreover, Texas plans to resist the EPA regulations even if the state loses its court battle.  Abbott and Bryan Shaw, the chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality , or TCEQ, told the EPA in a  letter  last month that Texas would openly defy the regulations and refuse to ensure that companies comply.  "We write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse-gas emissions," the letter said. 

The greenhouse gas challenges should not be confused with Texas's separate but equally acrimonious battle against the EPA air-pollution permitting efforts in Texas. Federal regulators have rejected the state's system of permitting big plants — for a variety of toxic pollutants, from benzene to sulfur dioxide — as inadequate because it gives only an overall measure of a plant's pollution rather than more detailed data from individual smokestacks. Here again, Texas charges that the EPA rules will hurt Texas companies; the EPA counters that Texas is defying measures designed to protect the public. Abbott is challenging the EPA on this matter in federal court in New Orleans, and the 130 or so big plants caught up in the crossfire are trying to figure out what to do. The EPA offered one partial solution this week, allowing companies to undergo a voluntary audit but not triggering severe penalties if their past activities with the old permits fall short of EPA guidelines.

On climate change issues, Texas has emerged as one of the country's most vocal opponents of federal regulation — to the disgust, if not the surprise, of environmentalists.  "Texas is aligned in this litigation with the biggest polluters in America," says Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

In fact, Texas is the biggest polluter in America. Due to its size and heavy concentration of factories, such as oil refineries and chemical plants, the state tops the list of greenhouse gas emitters . That underpins the arguments from Abbott — who did not respond to requests for comment — that the regulations hurt the Texas economy. (In an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle this spring, Abbott said his action against the EPA reflected on the agency's flawed methodologies, but he avoided the question of whether global warming was happening or not.)  Gov. Rick Perry has also publicly decried the regulatory interference and its drag on business. 

The long campaign

The state's campaign against EPA climate initiatives began in February, when the attorney general fired off his first petition challenging the scientific basis for the EPA's climate-regulation proposals. Two months earlier, the agency had taken an essential step toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions by asserting the gases posed a danger to human health and welfare. Known as the "endangerment finding," the ruling triggered a clause in the Clean Air Act calling for regulation. Restrictions on  greenhouse gases had been considered under the Bush administration but remained stalled until the Obama administration took the matter up. A critical 2007 Supreme Court ruling, much-resented by conservatives, found that the EPA had the authority to regulate the gases. The Texas petition in February asked the EPA to recant its endangerment finding, and a court filing signaled the state's intent to mount a legal challenge.

Texas' filings last week, to the D.C. Circuit court, read in part like a traditional lawsuit but also ran through whole gamut of political arguments against climate regulation. Abbott challenges the EPA on four fronts. In blasting the the science behind the EPA's endangerment finding, he charges that the EPA relied excessively on the findings of " unaccountable volunteer scientists spread across the globe and unchecked by the American electorate." In other words, the EPA should have performed its own analysis of the dangers of climate change rather than using information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body whose work has stirred controversy. The panel's critics point to its premature forecast of Himalayan glaciers melting  and the 2009 release of thousands of hacked e-mails and documents, dubbed " Climategate ," that reflected poorly on climate researchers' conduct.

Abbott also takes aim at three other rules designed to implement the findings: one that would regulate tailpipe emissions from cars and effectively increase fuel economy, another that would establish greenhouse gas requirements for plants that are already must apply for a permit for other types of emissions, and a third called the "tailoring rule," which would exempt small polluters but rope in big ones. On a political level, Texas would seem to cheer the exemption of small companies — the less regulation, the better. But acting pragmatically on the legal front, the state argues the federal government can't legally exempt certain companies from regulation it applies to others and still be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Texas' challenge to the endangerment finding likely will fail, says the David Adelman, a professor specialized in environmental law at the University of Texas School of Law, because the courts generally defer to agencies on such technical scientific issues. However, he says, the outcome of the "tailoring rule" challenge would "be the harder one to predict."

The politics of resistance

Whatever the result of the court fight, another battle remains over Texas' plan to defy or ignore the regulations.

"TCEQ is not making any preparations for the greenhouse gas regulations," said Terry Clawson, a TCEQ spokesman, in an e-mail. For states like Texas that resist, the EPA can issue the permits on its own, directly to companies — but only after a lag time, up to 12 months in this case, to allow the state a chance to act, Clawson said. The result, he said, would be "uncertainty" for companies potentially subject to EPA regulation, a situation similar to that in the ongoing Texas-Washington fight over permitting of polluters. Some companies could even be subject to a construction ban come January, Clawson said, if the EPA pushes forward.

Abbott, in his filing last week, expressed concern not only about the EPA's rapid timeline but also about the cost to TCEQ of implementing the provisions. TCEQ, he wrote, would have to add 91 full-time employees to deal with climate regulation, at a cost of $4.1 million. The attorney general's office says it has spent $15,608.93 on the lawsuits so far — a figure that includes filing fees, man hours and copying costs — with the endangerment finding being the most expensive.

In the D.C. Circuit court, Texas has consolidated its challenges with those of many other entities, among them the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Coal Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, which all are bringing similar complaints. No one knows what the court will do or when. It could stay EPA action, preventing the agency from enforcing rules starting in January, or it could decide against a stay. Either way, the decision will be the first step in a process that will involve more in-depth hearings and filings on whether the EPA can ultimately proceed.

Texas' motivations are as much political as legal, says Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund, who points to the rabble-rousing language in the filings. "A big part of what is going on here," she says, "is that some of the forces that oppose EPA's effort to carry out the law in the science-based way are trying to engender support in Congress to politically countermand EPA's efforts."

Some in Congress are indeed trying to stop the EPA. Having beaten back controversial cap-and-trade legislation — a proposed alternative to EPA regulation — some lawmakers are now seeking to halt the regulation of climate-changing emissions under the Clean Air Act, too. An effort led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a coal-state Democrat, would  delay regulation by two years . These efforts have the support of both Republican senators from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn .

Environmentalists, for their part, say that Texas, the nation's leader in wind power, should be embracing limits on greenhouse gases rather than standing in the way.  "Texas could be very well-positioned to be a major contributor to a clean-energy economy," Patton says, "and instead it's pouring precious public dollars into delay, deny, obstruct."

Factbox: Key provisions of House currency bill

Water Utilities Object to EPA's Proposed Approval of Nanoscale Silver Preservative


Removal actions discussed at mine presentation

aquaculture grants available

Summary posted by Meridian on 9/24/2010
Source: The Bureau of National Affairs' Daily Environment Report
Author: Pat Rizzuto

Water utilities in the United States are expressing concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the growing use of nanosilver. The utilities say that the EPA should not conditionally approve the use of nanoscale silver as a preservative in textile products as it does not have the scientific basis to conclude the use would not cause harm. The EPA proposed, in August, to conditionally approve a form of nanoscale silver as a pesticide to treat textiles. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), in comments on the approval, said "[T]here are no current data that can be used to support a conclusion of 'no unreasonable adverse effects' for the unique properties of nanosilver." According to Ben Horenstein, chairman of Tri-TAC, a technical advisory committee representing the League of California Cities, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and California Water Environment Association, "EPA's primary reason for the conditional approval appears to be its concerns over market fairness and the fact that other competing products are already on the market. EPA should instead focus its efforts on the existing products to ensure it has sufficient information on their potential impacts. From a wastewater treatment perspective, the conditional approval of another nanosilver product is very discouraging. Wastewater utilities have been working diligently to reduce the input of silver in their wastestream in order to limit its presence in biosolids and wastewater effluent." The NACWA disagreed with EPA's reliance on a "Down-the-Drain" model that assumed wastewater treatment would remove 88 percent of the silver, as the model is not designed to assess removal of nanosized materials. "Therefore, such a high rate of removal cannot be assumed. The wastewater treatment process is typically far more effective at removing larger particles than smaller ones, and so it is quite likely that there will be considerable pass through of small materials such as silver nanoparticles,"


Senators to Introduce Bill to Fund Pigford Settlement
USAgNet - 09/24/2010

U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Senator Kay R. Hagan of North Carolina and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana announced Thursday that they will introduce a bill to fund the $1.15 billion settlement that black farmers reached with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack in February.

"The time is long overdue to fund the discrimination settlement for African American farmers who have experienced decades of injustice," said Chairman Lincoln. "All farmers should receive equal access and treatment in the delivery of USDA's programs and services and we must finally close this chapter of discrimination within USDA. While funding this settlement will not erase the anxiety and frustrations so many hard-working farmers experienced, it will help compensate their financial losses and finally begin laying the foundation in restoring their faith in the United States government."

Lincoln, Hagan, and Landrieu announced that they plan to introduce the bill today. The legislation will ensure that African American farmers who were unfairly discriminated against when applying for loans, credit and other forms of financial help will receive the settlement to which they are entitled.

The bill will also extend the statute of limitations on certain outstanding discrimination complaints at USDA. Lincoln and Hagan joined John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association, at a press conference earlier today to highlight the need to fund the settlement.


Office of Inspector General's Report on NOAA Fisheries Enforcement

EPA OIG issued two prior reports on environmental justice:

EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies, and Activities (Report No. 2006-P-00034, September 18, 2006,

EPA Needs to Consistently Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on
Environmental Justice (Report No. 2004-P-00007, March 1, 2004,

In the 2006 report, the OIG found that EPA senior management had not sufficiently directed program and regional offices to conduct environmental justice reviews in accordance with Executive Order 12898.

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The Executive Order states that it is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, nor does it create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. Consequently there are no enforcement provisions for environmental justice guidelines.

Today's Schedule

Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.. Inspector General, Office of Inspector General

3:30-4:30 PM Courtesy Meeting with Senator Collins, Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Washington, DC
Closed Press

The Commerce Office of Inspector General initiated and is continuing a nationwide review of the policies and practices of NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation (GCEL).

Any comments or concerns can be submitted directly to the following email address: .

2010 2009 2008 2003 1998


Public Comment Process



Improving waste management and cleanup.

Report Title


EPA Should Improve Oversight of Long-Term Monitoring at PAB Oil and Chemical Services, Inc., Superfund Site in Louisiana , Report No. 10-P-0229, [ Report PDF - 27pp, 314KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 38KB ]

September 21, 2010

Independent Ground Water Sampling Generally Confirms EPA's Data at Wheeler Pit Superfund Site in Wisconsin , Report No. 10-P-0218, [ Report PDF - 13pp, 1581KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 46KB ]

September 8, 2010

EPA Should Improve Oversight of Long-term Monitoring at Bruin Lagoon Superfund Site in Pennsylvania , Report No. 10-P-0217 [ Report PDF - 22pp, 254KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 33KB ]

September 8, 2010

EPA's Office of Research and Development Performance Measures Need Improvement, Report No. 10-P-0176, [ Report PDF - 47pp, 261KBB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 42KB ]

August 4, 2010

EPA Should Improve Its Oversight of Federal Agency Superfund Reviews, Report No. 10-P-0133 [ Report PDF - 39pp, 213KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 38KB ]

June 2, 2010

EPA Activities Provide Limited Assurance of the Extent of Contamination and Risk at a North Carolina Hazardous Waste Site, Report No. 10-P-0130 [ Report PDF - 45pp, 399KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 46KB ]

May 17, 2010

EPA Should Improve Its Contractor Performance Evaluation Process for Contractors Receiving Recovery Act Funds, Report No. 10-R-0113 [ Report PDF - 22pp, 189KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 41KB ]

April 26, 2010

EPA's BioWatch Role Reduced, Report No. 10-P-0106 [ Report PDF - 8pp, 176KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 34KB ]

April 20, 2010

Region 6 Needs to Improve Oversight Practices, Report No. 10-P-0100, [ Report PDF - 28pp, 162KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 33KB ] [ Appendix B PDF - 31pp, 1.5MB ] [ Related Correspondence - PDF 10pp, 478KB ]

April 14, 2010

EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reduce Federal Advances and Federal Special Accounts, Report No. 10-P-0093, [ Report PDF - 15pp, 118KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 34KB ]

March 31, 2010

EPA Can Improve Its Preparation and Use of Independent Government Cost Estimates for Superfund Contracts, Report No. 10-P-0065 [ Report PDF - 25pp, 159KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 40KB ]

February 16, 2010

Changes in Conditions at Wildcat Landfill Superfund Site in Delaware Call for Increased EPA Oversight, Report No. 10-P-0055, [ Report PDF - 36pp, 793KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 94KB ]

January 27 , 2010

Lack of Final Guidance on Vapor Intrusion Impedes Efforts to Address Indoor Air Risks, Report No. 10-P-0042, [ Report PDF - 23pp, 169KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 40KB ]

December 14 , 2009

Congressionally Requested Inquiry into EPA's Response to a Report of a Leaking Well in North Carolina and the National Response Center Hotline , Report No. 10-P-0027, [ Report PDF - 15pp, 124KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 40KB ]

November 10 , 2009

Independent Sampling Generally Confirms EPA's Data at the Jones Sanitation Superfund Site in New York , Report No. 09-P-0243, [ Report PDF - 17pp, 387KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 51KB ]

September 23, 2009

EPA Has Improved Efforts to Reduce Unliquidated Obligations in Superfund Cooperative Agreements, But a Uniform Policy Is Needed, Report No. 09-P-0241, [ Report PDF - 14pp, 150KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 47KB ]

September 22, 2009

Regional Public Liaison Program Needs Greater Focus on Results and Customer Awareness, Report No. 09-P-0176, [ Report PDF - 20pp, 172KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 40KB ]

June 24, 2009

Contaminated Soil Waste Repository at East Mission Flats, Idaho , Report No. 09-P-0162 [ Report PDF - 32pp, 437KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 45KB ]

June 8, 2009

EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls to Increase Cost Recovery, Report No. 09-P-0144 [ Report PDF - 34pp, 325KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 48KB ]

April 27, 2009

Results of Hotline Complaint Review for California Superfund Site, Report No. 09-P-0131 [ Report PDF - 25pp, 284KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 40KB ]

March 31, 2009

Improved Management of Superfund Special Accounts Will Make More Funds Available for Clean-ups, Report No. 09-P-0119 [ Report PDF - 61pp, 525KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 48KB ]

March 18, 2009

Results of Independent Groundwater Sampling at Neal's Dump Superfund Site, Report No. 09-P-0110 [ Report PDF - 9pp, 284KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 45KB ]

March 4, 2009

EPA's Safety Determination for Delatte Metals Superfund Site Was Unsupported, Report No. 09-P-0029 [ Report PDF - 60pp, 1.1MB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 56KB ]

November 19, 2008

A Region 5 Penalty Reduction Was Unjustified and Undocumented, Report No. 08-P-0291 [ Report PDF - 30pp, 243KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 47KB ]

September 29, 2008

EPA Has Initiated Strategic Planning for Priority Enforcement Areas, but Key Elements Still Needed, Report No. 08-P-0278 [ Report PDF - 40pp, 403KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 55KB ]

September 25, 2008

EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reduce Unliquidated Obligations in Brownfields Pilot Grants, Report No. 08-P-0265 [ Report PDF - 18pp, 311KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 101KB ]

September 16, 2008

Corrective Actions Were Generally Implemented at Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund Site, Tarpon Springs , Florida , Report No. 08-P-0264 [ Report PDF - 17pp, 262KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 99KB ]

September 16, 2008

Follow-up on Audit of Undistributed Site Costs Finds Corrective Actions Not Complete, Report No. 08-P-0236 [ Report PDF - 30pp, 448KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 141KB ]

August 25, 2008

EPA Decisions to Delete Superfund Sites Should Undergo Quality Assurance Review, Report No. 08-P-0235 [ Report PDF - 59pp, 419KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 47KB ]

August 20 , 2008

Follow-up Review on Progress at Escambia Treating Company Superfund Site, Pensacola , Florida , Report No. 08-P-0200 [ Report PDF - 18pp, 566KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 264KB ]

July 14, 2008

Making Better Use of Stringfellow Superfund Special Accounts, Report No. 08-P-0196 [ Report PDF - 14pp, 547KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 282KB ]

July 9, 2008

Improved Controls Would Reduce Superfund Backlogs, Report No. 08-P-0169 [ Report PDF - 40pp, 583KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 213KB ]

June 2, 2008

EPA Needs to Track Compliance with Superfund Cleanup Requirements, Report No. 08-P-0141 [ Report PDF - 26pp, 531KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 270KB ]

April 28, 2008

EPA Can Recover More Federal Superfund Money, Report No. 08-P-0116 [ Report PDF - 28pp, 256KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 47KB ]

March 26, 2008

Making Better Use of Superfund Special Accounts in Region 8, Report No. 08-P-0102 [ Report PDF - 9pp, 120KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 50KB ]

March 17, 2008

Followup on Information Concerning Superfund Cooperative Agreements with New York and New Jersey , Report No. 08-2-0099 [ Report PDF - 6pp, 404KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 209KB ]

March 4, 2008

EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency Response Planning, Report No. 08-P-0055 [ Report PDF - 27pp, 303KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 50KB ]

January 9, 2008

Limited Investigation Led to Missed Contamination at Ringwood Superfund Site, Report No. 2007-P-00039 [ Report PDF - 23pp, 429KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 52KB ]

September 25, 2007

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Outlays Reported Under Five EPA Assistance Agreements, Report No. 2007-4-00078 [ Report PDF - 50pp, 703KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 62KB ]

September 24, 2007

Complete Assessment Needed to Ensure Rural Texas Community Has Safe Drinking Water Report No. 2007-P-00034 [ Report PDF - 23pp, 498KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 51KB ]

September 11, 2007

Making Better Use of Superfund Special Account Funds for Thermo Chem, Report No. 2007-S-00002 [ Report PDF - 6pp, 164KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 104KB ]

August 20, 2007

Superfund's Board of Directors Needs to Evaluate Actions to Improve the Superfund Program, Report No. 2007-P-00029 [ Report PDF - 19pp, 263KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 115KB ]

August 1, 2007

EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups, Report No. 2007-P-00026 [ Report PDF - 45pp, 490KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 82KB ]

June 6, 2007

EPA Can Improve Its Managing of Superfund Interagency Agreements with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report No. 2007-P-00021 [ Report PDF - 34pp, 806KB ] [ At a Glance - 59KB ]

April 30, 2007

Environmental Justice Concerns and Communication Problems Complicated Cleaning Up Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site, Report 2007-P-00016 [ Report PDF - 32pp, 451KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 60KB ]

April 2, 2007

EPA Has Improved Five-Year Review Process for Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps Needed, Report No. 2007-P-00006 [ Report PDF - 50pp, KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - KB ]

Dec. 5, 2006

EPA Needs to Plan and Complete a Toxicity Assessment for the Libby Asbestos Cleanup, Report No. 2007-P-00002 [ Report PDF - 12pp, 133KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 62KB ]

Dec. 5, 2006

EPA's Management of Interim Status Permitting Needs Improvement to Ensure Continued Progress, Report No. 2007-P-00005 [ Report PDF - 29pp, 494KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 60KB ]

Dec. 4, 2006

Lessons Learned: EPA's Response to Hurricane Katrina, Report No. 2006-P-00033, [ Report PDF - 29pp, 289KB ] [ At a Glance PDF - 55KB ]

Sept. 14, 2006

EPA Could Improve Its Redistribution of Superfund Payments to Specific Sites, Report No. 2006-P-00027 , [ Report - PDF 26pp, 387KB ] [ At a Glance - PDF, 51KB ]

July 31, 2006

EPA Provided Quality and Timely Information on Hurricane Katrina Hazardous Material Releases and Debris Management, Report No. 2006-P-00023 [ Report - 1MB PDF, 28pp ] [ At a Glance - 76KB PDF ]

May 2, 2006

EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments Report No. 2006-P-00016 [ Report - 1686KB PDF, 44pp ] [ At a Glance - 43KB PDF ]

March 15, 2006

EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources Report No. 2006-P-00013 [ Report - 449KB PDF,42pp ] [ At a Glance - 49KB PDF ]

Februrary 28, 2006

Office of Underground Storage Tanks Has Improved Contract Administration, But Further Action Needed Report No. 2006-P-00012 [ Report - 134KB PDF,10pp ] [ At a Glance - 51KB PDF ]

February 28, 2006

Rulemaking on Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Report No. 2006-P-00001 [ Report - 266KB PDF, 31pp ] [ At a Glance - 60KB PDF ]

October 4, 2005

Continued EPA Leadership Will Support State Needs for Information and Guidance on RCRA Financial Assurance Report No. 2005-P-00026 [ Report - 349KB PDF, 26pp ] [ At a Glance - 51KB PDF ]

September 26, 2005

EPA Practices for Identifying and Inventorying Hazardous Sites Could Assist Similar Department of the Interior Efforts [ Report - 1MB PDF, 42pp ] [ At a Glance - 61KB PDF ]

Aug. 22, 2005

EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative Resources - Report No. 2005-P-00017 [ Report - 477KB, 48pp, PDF ] [ At a Glance - 44KB, 1pp, PDF ]

June 7, 2005

Brownfields Competition Process for Awarding Grants Complied With Act, Report No. 2005-P-00009 [ Report - 115KB PDF ] [ At a Glance - 39KB PDF ]

March 7, 2005

Tribal Superfund Program Needs Clear Direction and Actions to Improve Effectiveness, Report No. 2004-P-00035 [ 668KB PDF ]

September 30, 2004

Ombudsman Report: Review of Actions at Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site, Uniontown , Ohio Report 2004-P-00031 [ 12MB PDF ]

September 29, 2004

OIG Response to Congressional Request on Superfund Administrative Costs Briefing, Report No. 2004-S-00004 [ 193KB PDF ]

September 15, 2004

Multiple Actions Taken to Address Electronic Waste, But EPA Needs to Provide Clear National Direction, Report No. 2004-P-00028 [ 1.57MB PDF ]

September 1, 2004

Some States Cannot Address Assessment Needs and Face Limitations in Meeting Future Superfund Cleanup Requirements, Report No. 2004-P-00027 [ 259KB PDF ]

September 1, 2004

Substantial Progress Made, But Further Actions Needed in Implementing Brownfields Program, Report 2004-P-0020 [ 1267KB PDF ]

June 21, 2004

Review of Actions at Stauffer Chemical Company Superfund Site, Tarpon Springs , Florida , Report 2004-P-00018 [ 1,795KB PDF ]

June 3, 2004

Idaho Superfund Credit Claim Under EPA Support Agency Cooperative Agreement No. V990431-01 Report No. 2004-4-00016 [ 206KB PDF ]

June 2, 2004

The Office of Underground Storage Tanks: Contract Administration and Performance Measures Concerns Report No. 2004-P-00014 [ 445KB PDF ]

March 31, 2004

Nationwide Identification of Hardrock Mining Sites [ 1.83MB PDF ]

March 31, 2004

Audit Report: New Mexico Environment Department Costs Claimed Under Cooperative Agreement No. V986338-01 Report No. 2004-4-00015 [ 92KB PDF ]

March 31, 2004

Review of EPA's Response to Petition Seeking Withdrawal of Authorization for Idaho 's Hazardous Waste Program [126KB PDF]

February 5, 2004

Immediate Action Needed to Address Weaknesses in EPA Efforts to Identify Hazardous Waste Sites in Indian Country [ 481KB PDF ]

January 30, 2004

Congressional Request on Funding Needs for Non-Federal Superfund Sites [ 362KB PDF ]

January 7, 2004

Pollution Prevention: Effectiveness of EPA's Efforts to Encourage Purchase of Recycled Goods Has Not Been Demonstrated [ 166KB PDF ]

September 22, 2003

Implementation, Information, and Statutory Obstacles Impede Achievement of Environmental Results from EPA's National Hardrock Mining Framework [ 2.99MB PDF ]

August 7, 2003

Improving Nationwide Effectiveness of Pump-and-Treat Remedies Requires Sustained and Focused Action to Realize Benefits [ 181KB PDF ]

March 27, 2003

EPA Region 10 Needs to Improve Oversight of Remediation Activities at the Hanford Superfund 100K-Area [ 1.04MB PDF ]

November 4, 2002

EPA Response to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Funds Needs for Superfund Sites [ 185KB PDF ]

October 25, 2002

EPA Review of Contaminants and Increased Funding Levels Needed to Ensure Continued Compliance with Superfund at Oak Ridge [ 433KB PDF ]

September 26, 2002

Nikki L. Tinsley's June 24, 2002 letter to Congressman Dingell (includes attachments) [ 2.3MB PDF ]

June 24, 2002

Land Application of Biosolids, Report No. 2002-S-000004 [ 485KB PDF ]

March 28, 2002

Evaluation of Superfund Environmental Indicators [ 162KB PDF ]

December 27, 2001

EPA Region III's Management of Tranguch Gasoline Site, Hazleton , Pennsylvania - (2001-P-00015) [ PDF - 440 Kb ]

August 29, 2001

Superfund Interagency Agreements - (2001-P-00011) [ PDF - 230 Kb ]

June 22, 2001

Superfund - Remedial Project Manager Turnover at Superfund Sites - (2001-M-000015) [ PDF - 78 Kb ]

June 15, 2001

EPA's Actions Concerning Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite in Libby , Montana - (2001-S-7) [ 2,074KB PDF ]

March 31, 2001

RCRA Financial Assurance for Closure and Post-Closure - (2001-P-007) [ 253KB PDF ]

March 30, 2001

Appropriate Violator Classifications and Timely Initial Enforcement Actions Would Strengthen Montana 's RCRA Enforcement Program - (000762-2001-P-00004) [ 686KB PDF ]

March 28, 2001

RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION - RCRA Corrective Action Focuses on Interim Priorities -- Better Integration with Final Goals Needed - (2000-P-0028) [ PDF - 1388Kb ]

September 29, 2000

SUPERFUND - Update on Brownfields Initiative to Revitalize Urban Areas - (2000-P-00027) [ PDF - 173Kb ]

September 29, 2000

Resources Management Division Superfund Division - Audit of Superfund Consolidated Cooperative Agreement Awarded to Ohio Environmental Protection Agency - (2000-P-00020) [ PDF - 319Kb ]

September 15, 2000

Memorandum of Review on EPA's Management of the Abex Superfund Site - (2000-S-00006) [ PDF - 56Kb ]

August 31, 2000

Report on the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Program for the Hanford Federal Facility (2000-P-00012) [ PDF - 489Kb ]

March 30, 2000

Office of Research and Development - Audit of Extramural and Property Management at the Atlantic Ecology Division (2000-P-00015) [ PDF - 1,361Kb ]

March 29, 2000

Biosolids Management and Enforcement (2000-P-10) [ PDF - 326Kb ]

March 20, 2000

Superfund: Backlog of Five-Year Review Reports Increased Nearly Threefold (99P-218) [ PDF - 95Kb ]

September 30, 1999

Administration of Superfund Special Accounts Needs Improvement (99P-214) [ PDF - 326Kb ]

September 28, 1999

Identification and Enforcement of RCRA Significant Non-Compliers by EPA Region III and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (99P-215) [ PDF - 172Kb ]

September 20, 1999

Region 2's Enforcement of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (9910224) [ PDF - 312Kb ], [ Exec Summary ]

July 21, 1999

Superfund Sites Deferred to RCRA (9100116) [ PDF - 165Kb ]

March 31, 1999

EPA Controls Over RCRA Permit Renewals (9100115) [ PDF - 24Kb ]

March 30, 1999

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Significant Non- Complier Enforcement (9100110) [ PDF - 257Kb ]

March 23,1999

RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification and Enforcement By The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management [ PDF - 1,566Kb ]

January 21, 1999

EPA Had Not Effectively Implemented Its Superfund Quality Assurance Program - September 30, 1998 (8100240) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF - 308Kb ]

September 30, 1998

Region 9's Controls Over Superfund Oversight Cost Billing - September 30, 1998 (8100259) [ PDF - 39Kb ]

September 30, 1998

Region 1's Implementation of Superfund Administrative Reforms - September 29, 1998 (8100254) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF-88Kb ]

September 29, 1998

EPA's Management of the State Deferral Program - September 10, 1998 (8100234) [ PDF - 98Kb ]

September 10, 1998

Environmental Data Quality at Superfund Removal Actions in Region 9 - September 4, 1998 (8100223) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF - 1,145Kb ]

September 4, 1998

Region 5 Oversight of PRP-lead Remedial Design and Remedial Action - August 17, 1998 (8100208) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF - 84Kb ]

August 17, 1998

Region 2's Billing of Superfund Oversight Costs - August 13, 1998 (8100206) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF - 101Kb ]

August 13, 1998

Replacement Housing at the Austin Avenue Radiation Site - March 30, 1998 (8100090) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF - 2,604Kb ]

March 30, 1998

Brownfields: Potential for Urban Revitalization - March, 27, 1998 (8100091) [ Executive Summary ], [ PDF - 88Kb ]

March, 27, 1998

RD/RA Negotiation Time Frames - March 27, 1998 (8400015) [ PDF - 5Kb ]

March 27, 1998

Assessment of Controls Over Emergency Removal Actions at Methyl Parathion Sites (7400069) (PDF - 59KB)

September 23, 1997

Report of Audit of Region 3's Billing of Superfund Oversight Costs (7100292) [ PDF - 83KB ]

September 22, 1997

Final Report of Audit on the Maryland Department of the Environmental Leaking Underground Strorage Tank Program (7100290) [ PDF - 120KB ]

September 17, 1997

EPA Can Do More to Help Minimize Hardrock Mining Liabilities (7100223) [ PDF - 462KB ]

June 11, 1997

Biennial Hazardous Waste Data: Opportunity for Improvement (7100114) [ HTML ]

April 29, 1997

Animal Waste Disposal Issues (7100142) [ HTML ]

April 21, 1997

Further Improvements Needed in the Administration of RCRA Civil Penalties (7100146) [ HTML ]

April 14, 1997

Laboratory Data Quality at Federal Superfund Facilities (7100132) [ HTML ]

April 7, 1997

Consolidated Report on EPA's Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program (6100264) [ HTML ]

February 2, 1997

Review of Barriers to Superfund Site Cleanups (6400016) [ HTML ]

February 2, 1997

Environmental Data Quality at DOD Superfund Sites in Region 9 [ Summary ] | [ Full ]

January 6, 1997

Manifesting Requirements on Hazardous Waste Generators [ Summary ] | [ Full text ]

November 15, 1996

Agency Management of the Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Program (6100160) [ HTML ]


Region 8 Needed to Further Improve Interagency Agreement Oversight to Ensure Efficient Summitville Site Cleanup (6400019) [ HTML ]


Region 9 Data Quality Oversight at the Aerojet Superfund Site (6400044) [ HTML ]



Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations

Posted on September 25th, 2010 by Greg Wannier

In the absence of major climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, parties in the United States seeking meaningful action on climate change mitigation have turned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for action.  However, despite authorization from the Supreme Court's seminal Massachusetts v. EPA ruling in 2007 to regulate greenhouse gases, EPA's greenhouse gas regulations have been heavily contested.  The most recent challenge comes from the State of Texas, whose Attorney General, Greg Abbott, filed a legal challenge on September 16 in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking to prevent implementation of certain EPA regulations. [1]

The complaint challenges four EPA actions: (1) the initial endangerment finding, which says that carbon emissions from motor vehicles are reasonably likely to threaten public health and welfare; (2) the “Timing Rule,” which reads the Clean Air Act's (CAA's) language to allow regulation of carbon emissions from stationary sources (any source of pollution that cannot move, unlike all vehicles); (3) the “Tailpipe Rule,” which sets greenhouse gas emission standards for Light Duty Vehicles; and (4) the “Tailoring Rule,” which exempts small emitters from regulation. [2]

Texas' challenge to the endangerment finding rests primarily on the assertion that EPA relied on “uncontrollable” outside bodies (a reference to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC) in making its decision.  Indeed, Texas raises similar claims to those raised by climate skeptics during the height of the “Climate-Gate” controversy, labeling EPA's referencing of these sources as a violation of agencies' constitutional obligation not to delegate certain duties. [3] This challenge faces an uphill climb; EPA has a long history of relying on outside peer-reviewed scientific reports, and in any case courts generally defer to federal agencies on scientific and technical matters. [4] Texas' other major challenge is that EPA, in failing to specify an exact level of carbon emissions that constitute endangerment, was impermissibly vague.  Here, again, EPA has a strong argument for judicial deference.  Legal precedent, notably in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA , has allowed endangerment findings to be made at the discretion of the Administrator, even without specific numerical determinations. [5]

Texas next challenges EPA's interpretation of its authority to regulate stationary sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) guidelines in the CAA.  This part of the complaint asserts that PSD regulation is only valid in conjunction with a determination that a given area “satisfies” [6] an EPA-determined Natural Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  Given that no NAAQS has been issued for greenhouse gases, Texas argues that it is impossible to comply, and so any regulation using PSD is invalid.  EPA rejects this interpretation, concluding instead that PSD tools are available to regulate any pollutants “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act. [7] Under this reading, the NAAQS is simply one of many possible regulatory activities that could activate PSD requirements, with other tools notably including regulation of moving sources, as in EPA's subsequent Tailpipe Rule. [8]

The ambiguity between Texas' and EPA's interpretations centers on §161 and §165 in the PSD Chapter of the Clean Air Act.  §161 applies PSD to each region that satisfies a NAAQS, while §165 bans construction of a facility “in any area to which [PSD] applies” unless, among other requirements, the facility meets Best Available Control Technology (BACT) standards “for each pollutant subject to regulation” under the CAA.  Texas argues that §165 cannot apply unless §161 applies, and §161 requires a NAAQS.  EPA, by contrast, appears to view §161 as irrelevant to the issue, [9] and instead focuses on the “subject to regulation” language in §165 as being the true indicator of when BACT requirements may be applied.  This issue is probably the strongest part of the complaint: Texas' interpretation of the two sections' interaction (that §161 says when PSD applies, and §165 says how it applies) is logical.  However, EPA's interpretation also has merit, and EPA is empowered under Chevron to pick any reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision. [10] The fate of Texas' challenge here will depend on how ambiguous the DC Circuit reads the CAA to be in this case.

Texas' next challenge, to the Tailpipe Rule, primarily alleges that it fails to properly account for its costs and benefits.  Specifically, Texas argues that EPA should have considered the impact on stationary source regulation because, based on the Timing Rule's interpretation, this rule would “automatically trigger stationary-source regulation of GHG emissions.”  However, this assertion misstates EPA's finding in its Timing Rule: while a stationary source may be regulated no sooner than when the first “control requirement” takes place (in this case, the Tailpipe Rule), it only allows for, and explicitly does not mandate, stationary source regulations thereafter. [11] Other challenges to this rule, which focus on its alleged redundancy and ineffectiveness in mitigating climate change, are lacking in legal support; carbon emissions are not redundant to the emissions of various ozone-causing gases, and there is no mandate in the CAA that regulations meet any minimum effectiveness threshold so long as the benefits exceed the costs.

Finally, Texas challenges the EPA Tailoring Rule for directly violating clear and unambiguous requirements in the CAA.  The provisions in question are essentially mandates saying that EPA must regulate any emitter of 100 tons per year of any listed pollutant. [12] For practical reasons, EPA raised these thresholds to 75,000 or more tons per year, to avoid being put in the position of regulating minor carbon emitters, which on its face appears to deviate from the plain text of the CAA. [13] EPA justifies its action through the application of three sets of legal precedent: first, it says literal application of CAA would lead to “absurd” results; next it argues that it is administratively necessary to exclude small emitters or the agency will be swamped trying to regulate; and finally it claims to want to implement carbon regulation only “one step at a time,” and to start with major emitters. [14] This part of Texas' challenge has some statutory basis, though the precedent raised by EPA points in the direction of allowing modification in this case.

Although much of this challenge is relatively weak, elements of the case merit attention. Undeniably, the Clean Air Act is imperfectly tailored to the problem of regulating carbon emissions.  However, EPA's interpretations of the four regulations at issue in this case do stand a quite strong chance of surviving DC Circuit review.

The resolution of this and other similar cases will be important to watch, because EPA's regulations here present the strongest source of national greenhouse gas mitigation activity in today's political climate.  Furthermore, successful regulation may also catalyze legislative action: because such regulations would likely be preempted by Congressional action, regulated entities may see a market mechanism as superior to the command-and-control type of regulation that has characterized EPA's efforts to-date.

[1] “Texas Files Legal Action to Block Imposition of EPA Regulations that Threaten Texas Jobs,”

[2] Id. ; see also Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act , 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009); Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs , 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 (Apr. 2, 2010); Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards , 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324 (May 7, 2010); Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title VI Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule , 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, (June 3, 2010).

[3] “Texas Leads Resistance to EPA Climate Action,”

[4] This principle is most famously codified in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC , 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[5] 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496, 66,507.

[6] An area may satisfy a NAAQS either by being in actual compliance with, or if, for outside reasons, it is impossible to say whether or not it is in compliance with, the NAAQS air quality requirements for any given pollutant.

[7] 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004, 17,004-05.

[8] In making this interpretation, EPA relied on a December 18, 2008 memorandum where EPA interpreted the phrase “subject to regulation” as including any regulation promulgated by EPA “that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.”  75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 , 17,004-05, 19-20.

[9] §161 is not cited once in EPA's Timing Ruling.  75 Fed. Reg. 17,004.  EPA interprets §165 as applying to all new emitters, provided of course that the requirements of that section are met (explaining its focus on the “subject to regulation” language in §165).

[10] Chevron v. NRDC , 467 U.S. at 837.

[11] 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 , 17,019.

[12] 42 U.S.C. §§ 7479(1), 7602(j), 7661(2)(B).

[13] 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, 31,567.

[14] 75 FR 31,514, 31,542-45; see also United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989) (discussing absurd results doctrine); Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23, 36–37 (2007) (discussing absurd results doctrine); New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 884, 888 (DC Cir. 2006) (discussing administrative necessity doctrine); National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1209-14 (DC Cir. 1984) (discussing one step at a time theory).


TODAY: EPA Administrator to Testify Before Senate Agriculture Committee

Release date: 09/23/2010

Contact Information: EPA Press Office,, 202-564-6794

WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will testify before the Senate Agriculture Committee today, September 23, 2010. The hearing will take place at 2:00 p.m. in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Hearing details:

WHO: EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

WHAT: Testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee

WHEN: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, September 23

328A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

No further evidence required to facially apparent facts

A District Court in California declined to remand the action to state court holding that the defendant is not bound to submit “summary-judgment-type evidence” as long as the jurisdictional amount was either “facially apparent” from the complaint or was shown to be “more likely than not” by the facts alleged in the removal petition.


EPA Kicks Up the Environmental Justice Fight

Thursday, September 23, 2010 | 5:55 AM

by Cynthia Gordy

On Wednesday morning, Administrator Jackson added another layer to her EJ Mission by holding a meeting with several fellow Cabinet members; Attorney General Eric Holder , Interior Secretary Ken Salazar , HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan , and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood -- as well as representatives from other federal agencies, including Health and Human Services, Education and Labor. It was the first time in more than a decade that the agencies have convened about environmental justice, in a body called the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, despite a Clinton-era mandate establishing the group and requiring them all to tackle the issue.

Read more:

Read more: spoke with Jackson about the group's historic meeting, and whether they can really bring an end to the problem of environmental racism. In the 90s, President Clinton ordered the creation of this interagency working group, but this is the first time all the agencies have met about EJ in over a decade. Why had it taken so many years for the group to convene?
We had so many Cabinet members who showed up today with such a high energy level about environmental justice, and part of the reason they came in person was to tout the things they've done already. After the beginning of the administration, they've now had time to incorporate EJ priorities into their work. Now is the right time for us to meet, because it allows us to build on that foundation. What are some examples of the environmental justice work that agencies have already been doing?
Here at EPA, we have new rulemaking guidance mapping out how our rules at EPA, in ensuring clean air or clean water, ensure that for all communities. We're also part of a Sustainable Communities partnership, with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that's about empowering communities to demand access to recreation, transportation alternatives and energy-efficient housing. The Attorney General mentioned his commitments to ensuring that environmental enforcement is happening across our country, including in low-income communities and communities of color. Shaun Donovan talked about the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, and making sure that disaster relief money is fairly and equitably given to help communities build back better. He touted HUD's work with Gulf Coast states and cites. Your immediate next steps involve holding monthly meetings and having each agency coordinate their EJ activities. But in terms of longer-term goals, do you foresee an end to the unbalanced decision-making that creates problems in the first place? Will things like locating hazardous waste sites in poor Black neighborhoods, or building schools next to highways, be something of the past?
Absolutely. This group is focused on longer-term strategic opportunities. We can all go back to our agencies and change our programs, but what's really going to yield the biggest results are strategic changes -- where we work together to ensure that there's housing money, and transportation money, and EPA regulatory assistance all focused on helping a community do exactly that. The goal is to empower a community to make sure that citing decisions, and decisions about transportation methods and roads, are all coordinated to get different results -- not just marginally better, but dramatically different results.


1933        The California state legislature approved the Central Valley Project which included the Shasta and Friant Dams. It became a federally built water system to sustain California agriculture. The Friant dam was completed in 1944.
    (SFC, 12/29/99, Z1 p.1)

1940-1949    During the 1940s the Associated Sportsmen of California repeatedly warned of damage to the salmon population near Redding and urged the government to release water from Shasta Lake to dilute the poisons from Iron Mountain.
    (SFEC,11/2/97, p.A13)(SSFC, 8/29/10, p.A15)

1957        Iron Mountain mine owners blamed the federal government for fish kills. They held that the Shasta federal dam caused the buildup of pollutants and that previously flows from Spring Creek were rendered harmless by dilution in the Sacramento River.
    (SFEC,11/2/97, p.A13)

1928 Water Policy -- Voters lay a legal cornerstone for water policy in their arid state, stating that water rights are subject to a requirement that water be used in a "reasonable" and "beneficial" manner. This for the first time establishes the legal principal of water conservation. (Constitutional amendment, proposed by the Legislature, approved by 77.2 percent of voters.)

1933 Central Valley Project - The Legislature authorizes construction of a state Central Valley Project, to consist of Shasta Dam on the upper Sacramento River near Redding, Friant Dam on the upper San Joaquin River near Fresno, and other dams and canals. Fifty-two percent of voters in a referendum uphold the Legislature's action in a December special election that attracts a light turnout of less than 900,000. (More than 2 million had come to the polls a year earlier.) In 1935 the financially strapped state, unable to sell bonds for a state Central Valley Project, surrenders the plan to the federal government, which authorizes construction as the federal Central Valley Project.

1935 Pollution Control - - The Dickey Water Pollution Act, the first of the modern clean-water laws, creates a State Water Pollution Control Board.

1959 State Water Project -- The Burns-Porter Act orders construction of the State Water Project, to consist of Oroville Dam on the Feather River , the California Aqueduct from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to Southern California , and other dams and canals. The following year, a narrow 51.5 percent majority of voters authorizes the $1.75 billion bond act that will finance the project. At the time it's the largest bond issue ever approved by a state. Support in more populous Southern California outweighs opposition in the north. Declares Governor Brown of the California Aqueduct: "We are going to build a river 500 miles long… to correct an accident of people and geography."

1969 Clean Water - - The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is adopted as one of the nation's strongest anti-pollution laws and becomes a model for the federal Clean Water Act of 1972.

1970 Environmental Impact Reports -- Reacting to an oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel, lawmakers with Governor Reagan's signature enact the California Environmental Quality Act to require environmental impact reports before any project is undertaken that "could have a significant effect on the environment."

1972 Waste Management - Legislation creates the California Waste Management Board to oversee the safe disposal of California's growing waste. In 1989 the program is revamped and a new board, with the same name, charged with developing plans for reducing disposable waste through reuse and recycling. Goals are set for cutting waste in California's communities by 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. In 1989 the state has 35 municipal curbside recycling programs; by 1995 it has nearly 500.

1980 Peripheral Canal -- The Legislature, with Jerry Brown's signature, authorizes construction of a canal around the periphery of San Francisco Bay to connect the Sacramento River with the California Aqueduct, rather than continuing to draw water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Peripheral Canal is killed by voter referendum in 1982, rejected by 62.7 percent of voters.

1981 Cleanup of Toxic Wastes - A year after Congress creates the Superfund program, California establishes its own fund to clean up sites contaminated by toxic wastes. State and federal officials by 1994 identify 265 "high priority" cleanup sites in California.

1990 Cal EPA - - Governor Wilson creates the California Environmental Protection Agency, with cabinet status, to coordinate environmental regulatory programs. A Department of Pesticide Regulation is put under its jurisdiction.

1994 Incompetent Judges --Voters endorse a constitutional amendment offered by the Legislature to permit greater public oversight in disciplining corrupt, biased or incompetent judges. The Commission on Judicial Performance is given authority to remove or censure judges and its disciplinary hearings will be open to the public. (Approved by 63.7 percent of voters.)

The California Legislature authorized the future Central Valley Project as a state project in 1933. The act authorized the sale of "revenue" bonds not to exceed $170 million.

Even with the authorized revenue bonds, California found itself unable to finance the project. The state could not get the project approved for loans and grants under the National Recovery Act. Harry W. Bashore reported to Reclamation on the upper San Joaquin Relief Project that the State Engineer considered Kennett Reservoir the cornerstone for the entire Central Valley Project. California applied to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (FEA) for grants and loans, and created the Water Project Authority. The Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives recommended $12 million of Federal money for construction of Kennett (Shasta) Dam because of the national benefits to navigation and flood control on the Sacramento River. After reviewing the investigations, the California Joint Federal-State Water Resources Commission, the United States Senate Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers approved and recommended the plan.

California amended its application to the FEA in 1934, and the Water Project Authority became effective. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive allocation of $20 million, later reduced to $4.2 million, under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, for construction of the Central Valley Project on September 10, 1935. Apparently officials assumed the approval was valid under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The Supreme Court case of the United States v. Arizona (295 U.S. 174) threatened the assumption. Before 1935, the government sometimes started irrigation projects using relief funds without conforming to the Reclamation Acts, but the court's decision said the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works did not have the authority to construct Parker Dam, on the Colorado River, without the consent of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled that such an approach violated reclamation laws.

Authorization of the Central Valley Project could not take place at the time because there were no executive branch findings and approval of feasibility. The technical problems, however, did not stop authorization of the project. Active participation by Reclamation, in matters relating to the Central Valley, started in September 1935, at meetings in Sacramento and Berkeley. Reclamation Commissioner Elwood Mead, Chief Engineer Raymond F. Walter, Construction Engineer Walker R. Young, and State Engineer Edward Hyatt attended the meeting. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes sent the feasibility report to the President on November 26, 1935. Roosevelt approved Central Valley Project, including Kennett (Shasta), Friant, and Contra Costa (Delta) Divisions, on December 2, 1935.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, re-authorized the Central Valley Project, and authorized $12 million for it. The Rivers and Harbors Act listed improvement of navigation, regulation, and flood control of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers as the first priorities of the Central Valley Project. Reclamation's primary purpose, supplying water for irrigation and domestic use followed these priorities, and power generation ended up the last priority on the list.

Construction of the Central Valley Project started in the late 1930s. By 1939, the CVP apparently gained more attention for Reclamation from Federal officials. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes was one of the officials who paid little attention to Reclamation and the CVP early in the 1930s. At one point during the decade, Ickes offered to trade Reclamation to the Department of Agriculture in return for the Forest Service. The trade never went through, but reveals the lack of interest the Interior Secretary had for the agency.

Commerce Secretary Locke Announces Awards to Six New Regional Climate Science Collaborations

September 22, 2010

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke today announced six new Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) awards totaling $23.6 million over five years to research institutions, from Honolulu, Hawaii to Boston, Mass., to improve the nation's ability to anticipate and adapt to climate variability and change.

The six regional teams will work closely with natural resource managers and land planners, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector within each region to advance new research on how climate variability and change will impact the environment, economy, and society, and develop innovative ways to integrate climate information into decision-making.

“Climate change affects water supply and demand, coastal communities and ecosystems, energy, agriculture, infrastructure, human health and transportation,” said Mary Glackin, deputy under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere. “The strength of these teams lies in their ability to address regional scale climate impacts and provide timely and relevant information to decision-makers dealing with multiple climate-impact issues and planning decisions.”

The six new RISA awards include:

All six awards have multiple institutions involved; only lead institutions are listed.

These awards were chosen competitively by an independent, expert review panel. NOAA has supported RISA teams for more than 15 years. RISAs represent an effective method to co-design and co-develop climate services and science through partnerships among scientists and decision makers. They will also contribute to research and assessment activities in direct support of the U.S. National Climate Assessment being undertaken by a range of federal entities. The RISA program will be a core component of the emerging Climate Service at NOAA.

In February, the Secretary of Commerce and the NOAA Administrator first announced the intent to establish a new NOAA Climate Service. This new line office will combine the agency's world-class climate science and technical capabilities, and leverage its partnerships, such as those with RISAs to evolve the capacity for sustained engagement with decision-makers to develop, deliver and communicate climate services. The concept of creating a NOAA Climate Service was strongly endorsed by the National Academy of Public Administration, which recently released a report for which Dr. Lubchenco issued a statement of thanks.

RISA teams work closely with NOAA's federal, state and local partners, and many will have strong connections with emerging federal initiatives such as the Department of Interior's Climate Science Centers and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.

The new RISA partnerships join five ongoing RISAs including:   

NOAA's mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook at .


EJ Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreements Program

Grants & Programs Topics


The EJ CPS program requires selected applicants, or recipients, to use the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model (EJ CPS Model) as part of their projects. The EJ CPS Model's purpose is to provide communities with information to help them develop proactive, strategic, and visionary approaches to address environmental justice issues, and to achieve community health and sustainability. Information on the EJ CPS Model can be found in the publication EPA's Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model PDF (44 pp, 1.5MB) . EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) launched the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement (EJ CPS) program in 2003

Recent Awards

On June 5, 2007, EPA announced $1 million in grants across the country for improving the environment in low-income communities. These grants were awarded on May 15, 2007.

Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program 2007 Awards: Project Descriptions PDF (3 pp, 19K)

Brochures, Fact Sheets, and Grantee Contacts

State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreements (SEJCA)

Grants & Programs Topics


In 2009, EPA selected five state projects to receive funding up to $160,000 each, totaling $800,000.

Alaska The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Tribal Participation Protocol Development Project is working with Alaska Native tribal organizations to establish an early notification protocol for the Alaska Pollution Disposal and Elimination System permitting program. The objective of this protocol is to increase community involvement in the permitting process. The project will provide the training and tools for implementing the protocol. The best practices resulting from this project will be applied in other Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation programs and potentially to other State permitting programs.

California The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is working with community representatives, and local, state, and federal regulatory agencies to coordinate multiple environmental pollution mitigation activities. The project will identify inspection and enforcement activities, targeting specific pollution sources, and develop effective strategies for reducing or eliminating these sources in the affected communities. DTSC will also create education programs for community residents and develop compliance assistance programs for small businesses located in selected communities. The initiative will also be exploring options for creating education and job opportunities for community members living in selected communities.

Illinois The East St. Louis Residential Lead Paint Outreach Collaborative will provide community outreach and training to educate and involve residents in lead abatement and paint contamination throughout the City of East St. Louis. The project includes conducting research on the health effects of exposure to residential lead contamination. The outreach plan and public education program will also focus on the hazards of lead contamination, prevention measures, lead blood screening and abatement services. The overall mission of the collaborative is to prevent and eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Chester Environmental Partnership, and the Crozer-Keystone Health System have come together in a partnership to address the issues of asthma triggers, solid waste disposal, and children's environmental health. This project will combine in-home remediation and education with community-based efforts to reduce exposure to air pollution and solid waste. The program will be implemented in three phases:

  1. In-home assessments and baseline evaluations
  2. Asthma education and remediation through peer educators/counselors
  3. Remediation of improperly disposed of solid waste in the community.

South Carolina The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) is implementing a pilot project program utilizing collaborative problem-solving. The goal of the pilot project is to build capacity while leveraging federal and state resources, to address the environmental and social justice concerns within the selected communities. DHEC will offer technical assistance to communities as they conduct environmental assessments and address environmental issues identified in the community. Each pilot project will meet specific criteria. There will be opportunities to participate in leadership development training designed to create organizational capacity, assist in developing strategies, and build partnerships.

Fact Sheet

Environmental Justice Showcase Communities

Grants & Programs Topics

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has committed $1,000,000 to address environmental justice challenges in ten communities across the nation. The Agency is providing $100,000 per project over the next two years to help alleviate the environmental and human health challenges facing many American communities.

The Environmental Justice Showcase Communities effort brings together governmental and non-governmental organizations and pools their collective resources and expertise on the best ways to achieve real results in communities.

Each Region throughout the country has communities with Environmental Justice concerns including:

Therefore, EPA will work to improve collaboration in the delivery of services to support communities with environmental justice issues.

The successes and lessons learned in these demonstration projects will be used to help guide the design and implementation of future Environmental Justice projects and will help EPA increase its ability to address local environmental challenges in more effective, efficient, and sustainable ways.

List of Showcase Communities

Envrionmental Justice Small Grants Program

Grants & Programs Topics


Fiscal Year 2009 marked the 15th anniversary of EPA's Environmental Justice Small Grants Program (EJSG). Since its inception in 1994, the Program has awarded more than $20 million in funding to 1,130 community-based organizations, and local and tribal organizations working with communities who are facing environmental justice issues.

The Environmental Justice Small Grants Program (EJSG), supports and empowers communities working on solutions to local environmental and public health issues. The Program assists recipients in building collaborative partnerships to help them understand and address environmental and public health issues in their communities. Successful collaborative partnerships involve not only well-designed strategic plans to build, maintain and sustain the partnerships, but also to work towards addressing the local environmental and public health issues.

Top of Page

Fact Sheets

Top of Page

Grant Recipients

Top of Page

Emerging Tools for Local Problem Solving

EPA’s Role in Environmental Justice
On February 11, l994, the President issued Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” which identified three goals:

To focus federal agency action on the environment and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities.

To promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that substantially affect human health and the environment.

To provide minority and low-income communities greater access to information on, and opportunities for public participation in, matters relating to human health and the environment.
The President encouraged federal agencies to reinvent the way the nation approaches environmental justice so that our day-to-day efforts would be more effective in protecting the public health and environment. EPA has a leadership role in helping federal agencies implement this executive order.

About the Small Grants Program
EPA recognized that community involvement was critical to environmental decision-making and made a commitment to invest resources in projects that would financially benefit affected communities. In fiscal year 1994, the Office of Environmental Justice established the Small Grants Program to provide financial assistance to eligible community groups (e.g., community-based grassroots organizations, churches, other nonprofit organizations, tribal governments) to address local environmental problems.
Each year, approximately $1 million are made available for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program. These funds are divided equally among the 10 EPA regions, where the actual grants are awarded and managed. Awards range from $10,000 to $25,000 each. The amount awarded in a given year can vary depending on the availability of funds.
Grant proposals submitted for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program are evaluated within the EPA region where the project is located through competitive review and evaluation. Award decisions are made based on established criteria, which include geographic balance, diversity of project recipients, and sustainability of benefits of projects after the grant is completed. The review criteria also require the applicant to demonstrate strong community involvement.

• Meaningfully involve and engage the community in planning the redevelopment and reopening.
• Build partnerships among community stakeholders through which environmental and other community issues concerning the former landfill site can be addressed.
• Ultimately, convert back into a useful community asset.

• Enhance the community’s understanding of environmental and public health information systems.
• Generate information about pollution in the community.
• Build community capacity for identifying local environmental justice problems.
• Involve the community in designing and implementing activities to address these concerns.

• Educate and train residents and youth to implement energy efficiency improvements in their neighborhoods.

• Facilitate information exchange among those who are affected by poisoning.
• Allow for the formation of an important partnership with Gardeners.
• Build community capacity to address environmental justice concerns by enabling community members to implement solutions to correct a local problem.

• Employ an environmental justice specialist to initiate community/grassroots/government interaction.
• Build capacity among youth to identify environmental justice problems, enhance problem-solving, and actively participate in solutions for affected communities.
• Hold the first Environmental Justice Awareness Conference.

• Train a core of neighborhood outreach leaders who live near the incinerator in the science and law of medical incineration, environmental networking, and grassroots organizing.
• Through these leaders, create a partnership between the community and the industry.

• Clean up trash, refuse, and other impacts to water quality in the Watershed.
• Identify wildlife and plants that grow in the Watershed.
• Identify riparian areas and possibly map these areas in the Watershed.
• Grow and develop relationships with tribal members and tribal entities.

• Learn more precisely the health and quality of life issues raised by living near freeways.
• Learn about air quality and mechanisms to protect the community from airborne toxins.
• Quantify, translate, and present the knowledge gained to the public in order to promote increased participation in environmental decision-making.

• Establish a working group of Americans familiar with NEPA training needs and challenges.
• Conduct a NEPA training needs assessment.
• Compile and assess existing NEPA training materials.

• Develop a simple resource brochure that covers the basics of the effects of the indoor environment on respiratory health, written for low-literacy understanding and produced in English and Spanish.
• Host a meeting for community leaders to learn about the environmental justice issues surrounding asthma and other respiratory illness.
• Disseminate information packages to all day care centers and elementary schools in the target neighborhood. Send packets to 80 pediatricians and respiratory specialists who might treat patients in the target area.

• Educate communities about the issues of sewage lagoons and the impacts these lagoons might have on the environment and human health.
• Participate in a health fair to further disseminate information to the public about clean water and solid waste disposal.
• Work with the Community Environmental Health Assessment Team to educate the affected counties and to demonstrate the benefits of using alternative solutions to sewage lagoons.

• Revive a lake monitoring database and collect more information.
• Initiate community-based partnerships.
• Create opportunities for future collaborative efforts in protecting surface water and ground water from polluted runoff.
• Utilize data to monitor interstate pollution and to develop regional strategies for reducing air pollution.

• Detect, assess, and evaluate the effects on and risks to human health related to hazardous substances.
• Survey, research, collect, and analyze data, which will be used to expand scientific knowledge and the community’s understanding of the effects of exposure to asbestos.
• Acquire contact information for as many of the identified individuals as possible to establish baseline.

• Detect, assess, and evaluate the effects on and risks to human health from hazardous substances.
• Ensure that the research relates to “hazardous substances,” as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 101(14).
• Research, collect, and analyze data, which will be used to expand the scientific knowledge and understanding of hazardous substances being transported.
• Expand the communities’ scientific knowledge and understanding of hazardous substance issuese.
• Train youth in approved research techniques.
• Publish a report documenting research results and outlining appropriate measures the community

• Train project participants to make presentations and assist them in facilitating the delivery of workshops and demonstrations that illustrate methods and resources related to healthy air, water, and soil.
• Perform hands-on environmental restoration work.
• Disseminate relevant information at all project events and make pertinent information available at project sites in English, Spanish, and Tongan.

• Use research to analyze and understand how air quality affects local low-income and minority communities.

• Inform rural residents about the health hazards associated with the improper management and/or storage of waste materials on their properties.
• Use outreach and education to facilitate the collection and recycling of waste products.
• Reduce the negative health impacts associated with incinerating and stockpiling waste on rural properties.

• Conduct onsite assessments of qualifying low-income residents referred by home-care workers and housing officials.

• Hold formal, classroom-style presentations featuring lectures, slides, posters, props, brochures, and pamphlets.
• Educate residents and the communities about the correlation between indoor quality and their health.

• Estimate particulate matter (PM) emission levels from heavy-duty mobile sources in the area.
• Monitor the concentrations of PM from those sources present in indoor air to better understand the levels of pollution to which residents are exposed.
• Help residents and environmental community workers to better organize and advocate for environmental justice rights, to identify sources of diesel pollution, and to bring together residents and business to improve environmental conditions.

• Produce a report that reveals new information about hazardous air pollutant emissions.

• In the same report, evaluate the risks exposure to hazardous air pollutants pose to the respiratory health

• Improve communications among native peoples and communities on oil and gas issues.
• Enhance native community capacity to identify and address environmental justice issues related to oil and gas development.
• Promote and enhance the native communities’ understanding of information needed to address oil and gas issues.

• Promote safe fishing and fish preparation.
• Organize community participation in cleanup initiatives.
• Encourage more aggressive actions to limit future discharge of toxins into the river.

• Increase community awareness about contaminated sites and sources of industrial air pollution.
• Educate the general public and policymakers about disproportionate environmental health risks.
• Increase community involvement in the Community Coalition for Environmental Justice’s (CCEJ’s) outreach, education, and advocacy efforts on environmental justice issues.

• Transfer oversight responsibilities from government agencies to community leaders within the community.
• Foster the framework and relationships necessary to address environmental justice issues through community outreach and the recruitment of stakeholders within the community.
• Expand the scope of environmental education.
• Assist in integrating volunteers into the Program.
• Conduct outreach presentations to low-income youth and families.

• Increase community understanding about environmental issues related to clean air and recycling.
• Conduct a comprehensive outreach campaign via public radio.
• Encourage public participation in protecting the environment.
• Provide printed information in Spanish.

• Create a process by which youth and their parents will become better educated and more involved with the environmental, programs and projects.
• Increase the capacity of youth and their parents to recognize and participate in finding solutions to the community problems of litter, dumping in the sea and on land, and improper disposal of household hazardous waste.

Subject Matter Contacts

Except for the mail code, these contacts all have the same address:

Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject Contact Mail Code Phone # Fax #
Air, indoor air, radiation, ozone, global warming, emissions trading Office of Air and Radiation
Wil Wilson (
6101A 202-564-1954 202-564-1549
Native American, indigenous peoples, Alaskan Natives American Indian Environmental Office
Jill Nogi (
4104 202-564-0804
Title VI Office of Civil Rights
Helena Wooden-Aguilar (
1201-A 202-343-9681
Enforcement, compliance, federal facilities, criminal enforcement (all media) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Loan Nguyen (
2201A 202-564-4041 202-501-0701
Legal Office of General Council
David Coursen (
OGC legal advice is only available to EPA program offices, not to the public.
2322-A 202-564-0781 202-564-5541
Toxic chemicals, pesticides, farmworkers, toxics release inventory Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances
Fred Jenkins (
7409M 703-308-9597
Research, technology development Office of Reseach and Development
Jason Edwards (
8104-R 202-564-5568 202-565-2925
Hazardous waste, land fills, Superfund, brownfields, spills Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Pat Carey (
5101T 202-566-0199
Water, non-point sources, water discharges Office of Water
Alice Walker (
4102T 202-529-7534 202-269-3597
Grants & contracts Office of Admin. & Resources Mgt.
Leo Gueriguian (
3102A 202-564-0388 202-564-1887
Information management Office of Environmental Information
Lorena Romero-Cedeno (
2812T 202-566-0978 202-566-0977
Policy analysis Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation
Kelly Maguire (
1807T 202-564-2273 202-566-2220
Congressional liaison Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Relations
Carolyn Levine (
1301A 202-564-1859 202-501-1550
Public affairs Office of Public Affairs
Doretta Reaves (
1702A 202-564-7829 202-501-1773
Environmental justice Office of Environmental Justice
Jasmin Muriel (
2201A 202-564-4287 202-501-0740

EJ Regional Contacts

Contact the regional coordinator for your state


(CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)
Amy Braz
One Congress Street, 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02203-0001
617-918-1346 617-918-0346
(NJ, NY, PR, VI)
Terry Wesley
290 Broadway, Room 2637
New York, NY 10007
212-637-5027 212-637-4943
(DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV)
Reginald Harris
1650 Arch St. (MC-3ECOO)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-2988 215-814-2905
(AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Cynthia Peurifoy
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-562-9649 404-562-9664
(IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
Lara Lasky
77 West Jackson Blvd. C-14J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-5614  312-582-5538
(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Shirley Augurson
Fountain Place, 12th Floor
1445 Ross Ave., (6RA-D)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-7401 214-665-6648
(IA, KS, MO, NE)
Althea Moses
901 North 5th Street (ECORA)
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7649 913-551-9649
(CO, MT, ND, SD, UT)
Art Palomares
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, CO 80202-1129
(AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU)
Deldi Reyes
75 Hawthorne Street (CED-1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3795 415-947-8026
(AK, ID, OR, WA)
Running Grass
1200 Sixth Avenue (CRE-164)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2899 206-553-7176

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’s Organization and Infrastructure
In July 1970, the first EPA Administrator formally organized EPA based upon existing environmental legislation that encompassed discrete media programs for water, air, pesticides, radiation, and solid waste, as well as 10 regional offices and a laboratory structure inherited from other federal agencies. However, President Nixon’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization, also known as the Ash Council, recommended organizing EPA according to functional categories (e.g., monitoring, research, standard-setting, enforcement, assistance) rather than along media lines (e.g., air, water, land). This recommended organizational approach was intended to recognize the interrelated nature of pollution problems, acknowledge that pollutants cut across media lines, encourage balanced budget and priority decisions between component functions, and permit more effective evaluations of total program performance.
However, the realities of environmental legislation made this type of integration difficult and would require an incremental, three-phased approach. The first phase of EPA organization was dominated by its discrete medium orientation. The second phase followed a hybrid functional/media structure similar to EPA’s current organization. Finally, the third phase would eliminate the media-oriented program offices in favor of the functional units recommended by the Ash Council. This was never realized. Studies we reviewed indicate that EPA’s failure to move to this third phase may hinder EPA’s ability to effectively enforce and oversee environmental laws.
OIG work has also shown that EPA’s organization has impeded achievement of environmental goals and efficient use of resources. Recurring themes include: inadequate coordination between EPA headquarters offices; inconsistencies in enforcement among EPA’s Regions; inadequate national (Agency) guidance, procedures, or priorities on programs; a lack of strategic plans that link program missions, goals, and performance measures; and decentralized management contributing to allocation and resource management problems. For example:
In a review of EPA’s Drinking Water Program, it was unclear whether the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) was adequately coordinating its efforts with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW). OECA reported that it has “substantive, regular, and consistent” coordination with OGWDW on both rule development and enforcement, while other sources indicated that OECA’s enforcement priorities may be out of alignment with those of OGWDW.
In a review that assessed EPA’s oversight and assistance of tribal community water systems, we found that the five Regions we reviewed varied in the quality of oversight they provided to tribal community water systems. One Region failed to monitor for certain contaminants, chose not to enter known monitoring violations into the Safe Drinking Water Information System, and did not conduct enforcement actions against the systems that committed these violations.
 EPA relies heavily on guidance to communicate Agency policy and regulations. OIG work has shown a culture in EPA that treats guidance as non-binding to parties, including EPA Regions, and accepting of guidance that is incomplete, draft, or interim. This could lead to inconsistent implementation and impede EPA’s ability to effectively enforce necessary actions since private parties may perceive unfairness and the absence of boundaries on their activities.
 In a review of the Border 2012 Program, a joint U.S.-Mexico effort to improve the environment and protect the health of people living along the border, we found that success varied across the different media areas as well as by leadership despite a program structure aimed at reducing stove-piping. Program implementation varied depending on the Region. There was no systematic roadmap that defined the relationships between resources, activities, and intended outcomes; nor were there management controls to ensure that results were documented or that goals were being achieved.
 An OIG review found that EPA’s decentralized management of the Superfund program contributes to allocation and resource management problems. EPA spreads its Superfund appropriation across a variety of offices and Regions. This has limited EPA’s opportunities to effectively manage Superfund resources for cleanup.
Oversight of Delegations to the States
EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish its mission, EPA develops regulations and establishes programs that implement environmental laws. These programs may be delegated to State, local, and tribal agencies that request to take primacy of the program. Delegation, however, does not relieve EPA of its statutory and trust responsibilities for protecting human health and the environment. EPA performs oversight of State, local, and tribal programs in an effort to provide reasonable assurance that delegated programs are achieving their goals. EPA does not have the resources to effectively administer all its responsibilities directly. EPA relies heavily on local, State, and tribal agencies for compliance and enforcement and to obtain performance data. In its FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, EPA states it delegated the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance to the States and tribes.
A critical management challenge to EPA is oversight of its delegations to States. Federal environmental statutes grant EPA a significant role in implementing the intent of the law, and also authorize a substantial role for States. However, quality data is often lacking to ensure that the intent of the law is met. Also, Federal requirements establish consistency for businesses and within industries nationwide. States’ discretion adds flexibility to address specific circumstances and local issues. However, joint implementation and enforcement leads to special challenges in interpretations, strategies, and priorities.
Our evaluations have shown that EPA’s oversight of State programs requires
improvement for several reasons. These include inconsistent enforcement guidance
interpretation; States and Regions not meeting minimum reporting requirements;
differing standards for State delegation agreements among the Regions; disagreements on
enforcement priorities between OECA and the Regions; inaccurate data systems; and
internal control deficiencies. For example:
 We found that EPA did not provide effective enforcement oversight of major facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in long-term significant noncompliance. EPA inconsistently applied guidance defining timely formal enforcement actions. Also, EPA guidance did not provide meaningful direction on what constitutes “appropriate” actions. Timely and appropriate formal enforcement actions are important to minimize additional pollutants from being discharged into the nation’s waters to ensure protection of human health and the environment. We estimated that up to 51 million pounds of excess pollutant loads were discharged during our review period by 44 facilities reviewed, representing loads that could have been minimized.
 EPA and States did not maintain complete and accurate records of NPDES compliance and enforcement activities. Many Region and State files were incomplete, and data in EPA’s information systems were incomplete and inaccurate. Further, Regions and States did not report inspection-related violations in EPA’s Permit Compliance System. An accurate history of the compliance and enforcement activities at a facility is important for oversight and making future enforcement decisions. The lack of accurate information inhibits EPA’s ability to provide effective oversight to NPDES major facilities and thus protect human health and the environment from excess levels of toxic or harmful pollutants.
 We found Regions and States did not always oversee industrial users discharging into wastewater treatment plants without approved programs. EPA was working on developing guidance for overseeing categorical and significant industrial users discharging to plants without approved programs, but had put it off due to other priorities.
 In a review of EPA’s oversight and assistance of tribal community water systems, we found internal control deficiencies existed in administering EPA’s oversight in some of the Regions we reviewed. To varying degrees, tribal drinking water records were incomplete due to a failure to maintain oversight of system operations and/or poor records management. Internal controls are an important safeguard for ensuring that systems operate as intended. Deficiencies in these controls may indicate that the systems are vulnerable to failure, resulting in increased risk to public health.
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.

Can Sustainable Farming Feed the World?

by Francis Thicke

[The following is an excerpt taken from my book, 'A New Vision for Iowa Food and Agriculture'.]

Chapter 16. Can Sustainable Farming Feed the World?

Proponents of industrial agriculture often proclaim that if sustainable or organic farming were widely adopted there would be mass starvation around the world. There are several flaws to that argument.

The first flaw is the assumption that converting to sustainable or organic farming means returning to the methods of 100 years ago. Clearly, that is not the case. While we can learn and apply many things from earlier traditional farming methods, advances in technology and increased understanding of biology and ecology have taken organic farming far beyond the farming methods of 100 years ago. Then, all farming was “conventional,” because the distinction between organic and conventional had not yet been made. Since then, conventional and organic farming methods have diverged, and both have become much more productive.

Innovations in farm equipment over the years have benefited both organic and conventional farmers.  For example, in the 1960's when my brother and I would cut hay using a tractor hitched to a converted horse mower on the farm we grew up on, it took the two of us about an hour to cut one or two acres. Today, on my organic farm, I can easily cut, condition and windrow 10 acres of hay per hour by myself.  In the 1960s, it took our family crew of four a long hard day to bale 50 tons of hay; today I can bale 50 tons in two hours, by myself.  Also, today's organic farmers use mechanical weeders and guidance systems on cultivators to control weeds much more efficiently and precisely than possible in the 1960s.

But the greatest advancement for today's organic farmers has been an increased understanding of biology and ecology, and how to design and manage organic farms to efficiently utilize the energy and organizing power of nature's ecology. For example, as discussed earlier, new scientific understandings of grassland ecology help grass-based farmers better manage grazing in order to increase biodiversity and productivity and reduce the need for fossil-fuel-based inputs.

Also, new scientific advancements in understanding the ecology of insects, weeds and plant diseases are helping organic farmers manage pests through the use of crop rotations, beneficial insects, pest mating disruptions and other cultural practices that circumvent the need for chemical pest controls.

Certainly, there is room for improvement in organic food production, just as there is in conventional production. However, it is remarkable that organic agriculture is as productive as it is today given the paucity of research funding for organic over the years. Long-term research comparing organic and conventional farming methods done by Iowa State University has found that corn and soybean yields of organic and conventional farming systems are similar.

The agriculture research budget of the United States Department of Agriculture is approximately $2 billion annually. Before the 2002 Farm Bill – when $5 million was marked for organic research – there were virtually no USDA research funds specifically dedicated to research on organic agriculture. The 2008 Farm Bill raised funding for organic agriculture research to $15 million, a good increase but still meager in comparison to research funding for conventional agriculture. One can only wonder where organic agriculture production would be today if its research budget had been on par with that of conventional agriculture over the past 50 years.

A research team from Michigan compared yields of organic versus conventional agriculture by analyzing 293 existing data sets from around the world. They found that in developed countries, the yields of organic and conventional agriculture were about equal. But in developing countries, the organic yields were higher, often substantially so. The study concluded “that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.”

A 2008 United Nations analysis of 144 projects in 24 African countries found that yields more than doubled where organic practices that maximized the use of on-farm resources were used. In addition to yield increases, the study found that environmental benefits from organic farming in those studies included improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. The UN study concluded that “the evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.”

A key reason why researchers are looking to organic methods – particularly in developing nations around the world – is that organic methods optimize the use of locally available resources and biologically produced resources on site, rather than relying on expensive external inputs that are not readily available and are often too expensive for limited-resource farmers.

The Green Revolution of the latter 20th Century was a great triumph of increasing food production in food-deficit countries using the methods of industrial agriculture. However, scientists are now recognizing that some of the unintended consequences of the Green Revolution include extensive soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, loss of agricultural land through salinization, depletion of water tables, increased pest resistance and social disruption.

In 2008, the United Nations, World Bank and Global Environment Facility sponsored an International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) by a team of more than 400 scientists and development experts from more than 80 countries. The IAASTD team looked at policy options for how agricultural knowledge, science and technology could reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods and human health, and facilitate equitable and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development around the world. The team produced a comprehensive report in which they addressed the successes and shortcomings of past development efforts and made recommendations for future efforts. The report pointed out that past development efforts of the Green Revolution have produced large increases in food production, but those increases have come with significant environmental and social costs, and the challenge today “is to increase the productivity of agriculture in a sustainable manner.”

The IAASTD team pointed out that “for many years, agricultural science focused on delivering component technologies to increase farm-level productivity,” and argued that to increase food production in a sustainable manner requires recognition that agriculture is multifunctional. As the report framed it: “The concept of multifunctionality recognizes agriculture as a multi-output activity producing not only commodities (food, feed, fibers, agrofuels, medicinal products and ornamentals), but also non-commodity outputs such as environmental services, landscape amenities and cultural heritages.”

The IAASTD report made recommendations for how agricultural knowledge, science and technology could be applied in international development in ways that would “recognize and give increased importance to the multifunctionality of agriculture, accounting for the complexity of agricultural systems within diverse social and ecological contexts.” The recommendations focused on eight areas in which the multifunctionality of agriculture should be considered:

Applying the concept of the multifunctionality of agriculture would no doubt serve us well in the United States also. Often policies for agricultural production in this country run counter to environmental and social concerns. For example, U.S. crop subsidy programs in general provide the highest incentives for farmers to grow annual crops that can have the greatest potential harmful environmental effects, such as soil erosion and nitrate leaching to water resources. Another example is the existence of state-level laws that give higher priority to the economic returns of CAFO owners than to the health, quality of life and property values of their neighbors.

Some of the multifunctional aspects of agriculture that we in the United States should consider in our deliberations on agricultural policy include the viability of rural communities, the competitiveness of family farms, the health of farmers and rural residents, the resilience of farming systems to extreme weather events, the aesthetic and recreational value of the landscape, the nutritional value of the food we produce, the welfare of farm animals, the effects of farming practices on air and water quality, the compatibility of agriculture with wildlife habitat, and the long-term sustainability of our farming systems.

Designing agricultural policies that take into account the inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture's many roles will take more comprehensive thinking, but will provide ample payback in enhanced benefits for society and reduced externalized costs from agriculture. Such policies will move us beyond industrial agriculture to a multifunctional agriculture designed around nature's ecology, with long-term benefits for farmers and all of society.

[Stay tuned to this blog: I will be posting all the chapters from my book, 'A New Vision For Iowa Food And Agriculture' to this blog during the final weeks before the election on November 2nd. I look forward to any comments or questions you have.]

Federal Judge Rules Against Army Corps' Attempt to Extend Jurisdiction over Prior Converted Cropland

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. , Sept. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- A federal judge ruled against an attempt by the federal government's U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to summarily extend and expand their federal powers under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore on Tuesday sided with New Hope Power Company and Okeelanta Corporation who argued the Army Corps had improperly extended their powers by attempting to enact new legislative rules without following proper procedure, including having a public notice period. 

Under the Clean Water Act, the Corps has jurisdiction over navigable waters, including wetlands.  But, according to current law, "prior converted croplands" are exempt from the Corps' jurisdiction, because they were lawfully "converted" prior to the enactment of the CWA.  In January 2009 , the Corps summarily announced that for the first time these lands that had changed to non-agricultural use would now be regulated by the Corps.  No notice or comment period accompanied the announcement.

The Court's decision stems from New Hope Power Company's plans to eliminate the long-distance hauling of ash by developing an environmentally sound ash monofill on land adjacent to its renewable power plant. Although state and local agencies had completed extensive reviews of the proposed monofill (and have since issued the appropriate permits), the Corps informed New Hope Power that it would apply a new rule to the proposed ash monofill, which would impose new federal barriers that would make the project cost considerably more. 

Judge Moore rebuffed the federal agency's attempt to illegally assert jurisdiction over the prior converted croplands, stating:

[T]here has been a definitive shift in the Corps' substantive rules regarding what the Corps considers wetlands…. Before the Stockton Rules, prior converted cropland that was shifted to non-agricultural use was treated as exempt.  Following the [new] Rules, the opposite was true.  ... Thus the Stockton Rules broadly extended the Corps' jurisdiction and sharply narrowed the number of exempt prior converted croplands . (emphasis added.)

"This is a great victory for Florida against the federal government's continued attempts to impose burdensome barriers to economic development in these trying times," said Gaston Cantens , Vice President of Florida Crystals Corporation, referring to two similar attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Water Act to extend their power beyond their statutory authority and impose drastic regulations on Florida residents. 

Both of Florida 's U.S. Senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican George LeMieux , oppose the EPA's actions and believe the federal government should back off.

A study by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the University of Florida projects the EPA mandates could cost Florida up to $1.6 billion annually and eliminate 14,500 jobs. A survey of nine Florida water utilities estimated that a household's sewer rates would increase by $62 per month, or more than $700 per year.


Joint Venture Amendment



Lawyers committee for civil rights

131 Stuart Street, Suite 400
San Francisco , CA 94105
Phone: 415-543-9444
Fax: 415-543-0296

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Entity Number: 200035010105
Date Filed: 11/29/2000
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1600 S MAIN ST STE 325
Entity City, State, Zip: WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
Agent for Service of Process: STEPHEN LOPEZ
Agent Address: 1600 S MAIN ST STE 325
Agent City, State, Zip: WALNUT CREEK CA 94596



Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
09/03/2010  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FILED Not Applicable  N/A 
07/28/2010 11:00 AM DEPT. 02  COURT TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 3 DAY(S) - Minutes COMPLETED 
07/26/2010 9:05 AM DEPT. 02  COURT TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 3 DAY(S) - Minutes NOT HEARD/CONT 
02/01/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. 02  JURY TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 6 DAY(S) VACATED 
12/18/2009 3:00 PM DEPT. 02  ISSUE CONFERENCE - Minutes COMPLETED 
11/13/2009 4:00 PM DEPT. 02  ISSUE CONFERENCE - Minutes NOT HEARD/CONT 
09/01/2009 9:00 AM DEPT. 02  JURY TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 6 DAY(S) - Minutes NOT HEARD/CONT 
08/14/2009 4:00 PM DEPT. 02  ISSUE CONFERENCE - Minutes NOT HEARD/CONT 
06/08/2009 9:00 AM DEPT. 02  JURY TRIAL - LONG CAUSE/ 6 DAY(S) - Minutes NOT HEARD/CONT 
05/18/2009  IF THE FEES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID BY 06/18/09 Not Applicable 
05/18/2009  WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596-8812 Not Applicable 
05/18/2009  1600 S. MAIN ST. STE. 325 Not Applicable 
05/18/2009  PAUL HOFFMAN Not Applicable 
05/18/2009  ** VOID ** GC 70617(A) MOTION FEE Not Applicable 
05/15/2009 9:00 AM DEPT. 02  ISSUE CONFERENCE - Minutes NOT HEARD/CONT 
05/04/2009  HEARING ON MOTION WAS SET FOR 6/10/09 AT 9:00 IN DEPT. 02

Business Entity Search

 Entity Name  NV Business ID  Status  Type
IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, LLC NV20011022183 Default Domestic Limited-Liability Company
 Entity Name  NV Business ID  Status  Type
ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. NV19981381493 Default Domestic Corporation


Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Entity Number: C0818998
Date Filed: 06/21/1977
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 9940 BUSINESS PARK DR #185
Entity City, State, Zip: SACRAMENTO CA 95827
Agent for Service of Process: T. W. ARMAN
Agent Address: 9940 BUSINESS PARK DR #185
Agent City, State, Zip: SACRAMENTO CA 95827


Business Entity Information
Status:   Default File Date:   2/27/2001
Type:   Domestic Limited-Liability Company Entity Number:  LLC2027-2001
Qualifying State:  NV List of Officers Due:  2/28/2010
Managed By:  Managing Members Expiration Date:  2/27/2501
NV Business ID:  NV20011022183 Business License Exp:

Registered Agent Information
Address 2:  City:   CARSON CITY
State:   NV Zip Code:   89701
Phone:  Fax: 
Mailing Address 1:  Mailing Address 2: 
Mailing City:  Mailing State:   NV
Mailing Zip Code: 
Agent Type:   Commercial Registered Agent - Corporation
Jurisdiction:   NEVADA Status:   Active
View all business entities under this registered agent

Financial Information
No Par Share Count:  0 Capital Amount:  $ 0
No stock records found for this company

Officers Include Inactive Officers
 Manager - TED ARMAN
Address 1:   PO BOX 992867 Address 2: 
City:   REDDING State:   CA
Zip Code:   96099 Country: 
Status:   Active Email: 


General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-17411 Docketed: 10/29/2009
Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
USA, et al v. T.W. Arman, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) united states
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed: 06/12/1991
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
     09/29/2009      09/29/2009      10/23/2009      10/29/2009
Prior Cases:
Date Filed: 01/07/2009      Date Disposed: 02/18/2009      Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
Date Filed: 04/20/2009      Date Disposed: 07/28/2009      Disposition: Denied - Judge Order

Current Cases:

                      Plaintiff - Appellee
Joan M. Pepin
Direct: 202-305-4626
[COR LD NTC Government]
Environment & Natural Resources Division
P.O. Box 23795, L'Enfant Plaza Station
Washington, DC 20026-3795

Larry Corcoran, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Direct: 202-305-0370
[COR NTC Assist US Attorney]
Environmental Enforcement Section
P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-7611

Yoshinori H. T. Himel, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Direct: 916-554-2760
[COR NTC Assist US Attorney]
Suite 10-100
501 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
                      Plaintiff - Appellee
Margarita Padilla, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Direct: 510-622-2135
[COR NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
20th Floor
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Sara J. Russell, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Direct: 916-324-7853
[COR NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
Suite 125
1300 I Street
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
William A. Logan, Jr.
Direct: 925-945-6792
[NTC Pro Se]
Logan & Giles LLP
2175 N. California Blvd.
Suite 310
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
William A. Logan, Jr.
Direct: 925-945-6792
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Logan & Giles LLP
2175 N. California Blvd.
Suite 310
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., FKA Aventis CropScience USA, Inc.
                      Defendant - Appellant
William A. Logan, Jr.
Direct: 925-945-6792
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)

           Plaintiffs - Appellees,









           Defendant - Appellant.
10/29/2009  1 
11 pg, 248.18 KB
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND CADS: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript due for Orig Clerk USDC, Sacramento on 12/22/2009. Certificate of record due 12/29/2009. Appellant T. W. Arman, Appellant William A. Logan Jr. and Appellant Logan & Giles LLP opening brief due 02/08/2010. Appellee State of California and Appellee United States of America answering brief due 03/09/2010. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7112437] (GR)
10/29/2009  2 
10 pg, 211.73 KB
Filed Appellants T. W. Arman, William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP Civil Appeals Docketing Statement. Served on 10/23/2009. [7112442] (GR)
12/10/2009  3 
2 pg, 30.85 KB
Filed order MOATT: (EC)Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [7159804] (KD)
12/14/2009  4 
4 pg, 77.11 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP response to order to show cause dated 12/10/2009. Date of service: 12/10/2009. [7164029] (WAL)
01/04/2010  5 
2 pg, 649.3 KB
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Joan M. Pepin for Appellee USA. Date of service: 01/04/2010. [7181008] (JMP)
01/04/2010  6  Added attorney Joan M. Pepin for USA, in case 09-17411. [7181057] (EL)
02/11/2010  7 
30 pg, 2.16 MB
Filed Appellant T. W. Arman motion "breatch of patent title, supersedeas writ de ejectione firmae....". Served on 02/08/2010. [7230966] (CW)
03/02/2010  8 
3 pg, 220.87 KB
Received from John F. Hutchens' notice regarding absolute & immediate injunctive relief. [7249887] (EL)
03/08/2010  9 
2 pg, 137.21 KB
Received from John Hutchens' Breve Soke, served on 03/05/2010 [7256642] (EL)
03/11/2010  10 
2 pg, 28.89 KB
Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and EDWARD LEAVY): The court has received and reviewed the response to this court's order to show cause. The jurisdictional issue does not appear suitable for summary disposition. Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged. The court strikes the filings submitted by John F. Hutchens, a non-party to this appeal, received on February 11, 2010, March 2, 2010 and March 8, 2010, from the docket. If appellant has not already done so, appellant shall within 14 days after the date of this order, designate any reporter's transcripts or serve on appellee a statement indicating that appellant does not intend to order any transcripts. See 9th Cir. R. 10-3.1(a). If appellant designates transcripts, the transcripts will be due April 26, 2010. The opening brief and excerpts of record are due May 26, 2010; the answering brief is due June 25, 2010; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7262669] (AF)
05/25/2010  12 
1 pg, 32.68 KB
Filed certificate of record on appeal. RT filed in DC 12/17/08, 9/23/09 [7351079] (EL)
05/26/2010  11  14 day oral extension by phone of time to file Appellant Logan & Giles LLP brief. Appellant Logan & Giles LLP opening brief due 06/09/2010. Appellee State of California and Appellee United States of America answering brief due 07/09/2010. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the appellee brief. [7350286] (TH)
06/09/2010  13 
27 pg, 64.43 KB
Submitted (ECF) Opening brief for review. Submitted by Appellants William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP. Date of service: 06/09/2010. [7366866] (WAL)
06/09/2010  14  Received non-party John Hutchens' UNDER the great SEAL absolute order for inspection petition for emergency review order for reinstatement of claims etc, served on 6/9/10. [7367056] (EL)
06/10/2010  15 
2 pg, 81.46 KB
Filed clerk order: The opening brief [ 13 ] submitted by William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a blue cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7368096] (WP)
06/11/2010  16  Filed Appellants William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP excerpts of record in 2 volumes. Served on 06/09/2010. [7374030] (WP)
06/17/2010  17  Received 7 paper copies of Opening brief [ 13 ] filed by William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP. [7377357] (SD)
06/24/2010  18  Deleted Incorrect Docket Entry (LB)
06/24/2010  20  14 day oral extension of time granted to appellee USA. The answering brief for appellee USA is due 7/23/2010. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the last-served answering brief. [7390098] (LB)
06/30/2010  19 
3 pg, 268.14 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellee State of California Correspondence: Letter to Clerk. Date of service: 06/30/2010 [7389577] (MP)
07/23/2010  21 
43 pg, 315.24 KB
Submitted (ECF) Answering brief for review. Submitted by Appellee USA. Date of service: 07/23/2010. [7415725] (JMP)
07/26/2010  22 
2 pg, 81.79 KB
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [ 21 ] submitted by USA is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a red cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7417446] (WP)
07/26/2010  23  Filed Appellee USA excerpts of record in 1 volume. Served on 07/23/2010. [7417457] (WP)
07/29/2010  24  Received 7 paper copies of Answering brief [ 21 ] filed by USA. [7422418] (SD)
08/05/2010  25  Oral extension of time granted to appellants T. W. Arman, William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP. The reply brief is due 8/23/2010. [7435466] (LB)
08/23/2010  26 
7 pg, 24.79 KB
Submitted (ECF) Reply brief for review. Submitted by Appellants William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP. Date of service: 08/23/2010. [7449230] (WAL)
08/24/2010  27 
2 pg, 81.79 KB
Filed clerk order: The reply brief [ 26 ] submitted by William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a gray cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7450466] (WP)
08/26/2010  28  Received 7 paper copies of Reply brief [ 26 ] filed by William A. Logan, Jr.. [7454559] (SD)
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-17411 Docketed: 10/29/2009
Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
USA, et al v. T.W. Arman, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) united states
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed: 06/12/1991
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
     09/29/2009      09/29/2009      10/23/2009      10/29/2009

06/24/2010  20  14 day oral extension of time granted to appellee USA. The answering brief for appellee USA is due 7/23/2010. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the last-served answering brief. [7390098] (LB)
06/30/2010  19  Filed (ECF) Appellee State of California Correspondence: Letter to Clerk. Date of service: 06/30/2010 [7389577] (MP)
07/23/2010  21  Submitted (ECF) Answering brief for review. Submitted by Appellee USA. Date of service: 07/23/2010. [7415725] (JMP)
07/26/2010  22  Filed clerk order: The answering brief [ 21 ] submitted by USA is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a red cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7417446] (WP)
07/26/2010  23  Filed Appellee USA excerpts of record in 1 volume. Served on 07/23/2010. [7417457] (WP)
07/29/2010  24  Received 7 paper copies of Answering brief [ 21 ] filed by USA. [7422418] (SD)
08/05/2010  25  Oral extension of time granted to appellants T. W. Arman, William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP. The reply brief is due 8/23/2010. [7435466] (LB)
08/23/2010  26  Submitted (ECF) Reply brief for review. Submitted by Appellants William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP. Date of service: 08/23/2010. [7449230] (WAL)
08/24/2010  27  Filed clerk order: The reply brief [ 26 ] submitted by William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a gray cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. [7450466] (WP)
08/26/2010  28  Received 7 paper copies of Reply brief [ 26 ] filed by William A. Logan, Jr.. [7454559] (SD)

Jalil Isa


September 22, 2010

EPA Hosts Historic Meeting on Environmental Justice

Obama administration cabinet members show commitment to healthy environment and strong economy for all Americans

WASHINGTON – Today, for the first time in more than a decade, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, reconvened the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG) in a meeting held at the White House. The meeting, attended by five cabinet members, demonstrates the Obama administration's dedication to ensuring all Americans have strong federal protection from environmental and health hazards. Pollution like dirty air and contaminated water can have significant economic impacts on overburdened and low-income communities, driving away investment in new development and new jobs and exposing residents to potentially costly health threats. This historic gathering marks a recommitment to advancing the mandate of Executive Order 12898, “ Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations , ” which states that each agency, with the law as its guide, should make environmental justice part of its mission.

The role of the EJ IWG is to guide, support and enhance federal environmental justice and community-based activities. By coordinating the expertise and resources of federal government agencies, the EJ IWG will work to identify projects where federal collaboration can support the development of healthy and sustainable communities. The EJ IWG will also seek opportunities to provide green jobs training in communities in need and promote a clean energy economy.

Attendees at the meeting included Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Justice; Secretary Ken Salazar, Department of Interior; Secretary Shaun Donovan, Department of Housing and Urban Development; Secretary Ray LaHood, Department of Transportation; Administrator Martha Johnson, General Services Administration; Carol Browner, senior advisor to the president on energy and climate change; John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Melody Barnes, director of the White House Office of Domestic Policy; and representatives from the following federal agencies: Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, Army, Agriculture and Defense, among others.

“Environmental challenges in low-income and minority communities are barriers to opportunity. Dirty air, polluted water and contaminated lands degrade health and the environment while discouraging investments and economic growth,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We believe that the burdens these communities face are best approached with collaborative efforts, built on the strengths brought by a team of different federal agencies. Revitalizing this workgroup creates an important chance to work together on environmental justice issues that have held back the prosperity of overburdened communities for far too long.”

“This country was built on the promise of equal opportunity for all of us, yet low-income families and minority communities shoulder a disproportionate amount of pollution and environmental degradation. We cannot and will not ignore these disparities,” said Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ”As the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, I am committed to ensuring that environmental justice isn't just an afterthought - it's an integral part of our mission.”

“In too many areas of our country, the burden of environmental degradation falls disproportionately on low-income and minority communities – and most often, on the children who live in those communities,” Attorney General Eric Holder said. “Our environmental laws and protections must extend to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status which is why the Department of Justice is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns through aggressive enforcement of federal environmental laws in every community.”

“At the Department of Transportation, one of our top priorities has been promoting livable communities in collaboration with HUD and EPA,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Through coordinated investments that improve access to affordable and sustainable housing and transportation opportunities, together we can improve the quality of life for communities across America .”

“As stewards of our natural resources and history, the Department of Interior has a special obligation to protect and promote our nation's resources for all communities and all persons,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “Every American deserves a healthy environment in which they can live, learn and play.”

“HUD joins with our colleagues in the Obama administration to make an unprecedented commitment to combating environmental justice discrimination that all too often affect disadvantaged communities,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. “At HUD we are committed to providing equal access to housing, mitigating risks to communities in disaster-prone areas, ensuring homes are free of health hazards, and working to create sustainable and inclusive communities across America so that a family's success is not determined by the zip code they live in.”

During the meeting, some immediate next steps for the EJ IWG group were identified; these include:

· Hold monthly EJ IWG meetings, including assigning senior officials from each agency to coordinate EJ activities.

· Organize regional listening sessions in 2011.

· Hold follow-up EJ IWG Principals Meetings in April and September 2011.

· Each agency will be tasked to develop or update their EJ strategy by September 2011.

· Plan a White House forum for EJ leaders and stakeholders on environmental justice.

Administrator Jackson highlighted examples of EPA's environmental justice efforts:

· Plan EJ 2014 —A four-year roadmap to help EPA develop stronger community relationships and increase the agency's efforts to improve environmental and health conditions in overburdened communities. The plan includes three main sections: Cross-cutting Agency Strategies, Tools Development, and Program Initiatives.

· EJ in Rulemaking Guidance —The “Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action” is a step-by-step guide that helps EPA staff consider environmental justice at key points in the rulemaking process.

· Sustainable Communities Partnership —A collaborative Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, and EPA partnership to improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.

The principles of environmental justice uphold the idea that all communities overburdened by pollution – particularly minority, low income and indigenous communities – deserve the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, equal access to the decision-making process and a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. EPA serves as the lead for environmental justice issues in the federal government.

More information on the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice:

View photos from the meeting:


Subpart E--Procurement Standards of this part. Sec. 1274.902 Purpose (XXX 1995)

The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to conduct a shared resource project that will lead to REMINERALIZATION OF DEPLETED CROP LANDS .

This cooperative agreement will advance the technology developments and research which have been performed on IRON MOUNTAIN MINE . The specific objective is to OPTIMIZE AVAILABILITY OF MINERALS IN SOIL FOR CROPS .

This work will culminate in BETTER AND SAFER FOOD . Sec. 1274.903


Responsibilities (XXX 1995). (a) This cooperative agreement will include substantial [ EPA, DOJ, NOAA, NASA, DOE, DOI, FEMA, FWS, CALIFORNIA] _____________participation during performance of the effort. _______ and the Recipient agree to the following Responsibilities, a statement of cooperative interactions to occur during the performance of this effort . ??? and the Recipient shall exert all reasonable efforts to fulfill the responsibilities stated below. (b) ??? Responsibilities. Since ??? contractors may obtain certain intellectual property rights arising from work for ??? in support of this agreement, ??? will inform Recipient whenever ??? intends to use ??? contractors to perform technical engineering services in support of this agreement. The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (c) Recipient Responsibilities. The Recipient shall be responsible for particular aspects of project performance as set forth in the technical proposal dated ____________, attached hereto (or Statement of Work dated ____________, attached hereto.) The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 1274.904 Resource Sharing Requirements (XXX 1995). (a) NASA and the Recipient will share in providing the resources necessary to perform the agreement. ??? funding and non-cash contributions (personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.) and the dollar value of the Recipient's cash and/or in-kind contribution will be on a ________ ( ??? ) - ________ (Recipient) basis.


Congressional Oversight Panel Assesses the TARP on the Eve of Its Expiration

Finds Major Economic Weaknesses, Stigma, and Moral Hazard Remain

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Congressional Oversight Panel today released its September oversight report, "Assessing the TARP on the Eve of Its Expiration." The Panel found that, although the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provided critical support to the financial markets at a time when market confidence was in freefall, the program has been far less effective in meeting its other statutory goals, such as supporting home values, retirement savings, and economic growth.

Under its original authorization, the TARP would have expired at the end of 2009. Late last year, however, the Secretary of the Treasury exercised his legal authority to extend the program until October 3, 2010, the latest date authorized by statute. This month, in anticipation of the final expiration of the TARP's most significant authorities, the Panel explored the program's overall effectiveness. The Panel found that:

Although the TARP quelled the financial panic in the fall of 2008, severe economic weaknesses remain even today. Since the TARP was authorized in October of 2008, 7.1 million homeowners have received foreclosure notices. Since their pre-crisis peaks, home values have dropped 28 percent, and stock indices -- which indicate the health of many Americans' most significant investments for college and retirement -- have fallen 30 percent. Given that Treasury was mandated by law to use the TARP to address these measures of the economy, their lingering weakness is cause for concern.

The TARP's extension served primarily to extend the implicit guarantee of the financial system. When the Secretary extended the TARP, he stated that any new use of funds would be limited to providing mortgage foreclosure relief, extending capital to small and community banks, and supporting the securitization market. He also noted that extending the TARP would preserve his authority to intervene swiftly in the event of another financial crash -- essentially prolonging the government's "implicit guarantee" of the financial system. In practice, this second justification proved by far the more significant, as Treasury did not add any additional funding to any programs intended to address the specific economic weaknesses identified by the Secretary.

The TARP's "stigma" has grown and may prove an obstacle to future financial stability efforts. Treasury's policy choices have been increasingly constrained by public anger about the TARP. For example, the TARP is today so widely unpopular -- due in part to shortcomings in Treasury's transparency and its implementation of TARP programs -- that some banks refused to participate in the Capital Purchase Program for fear of losing customers. The unpopularity of the TARP may mean that the government will not authorize similar policy responses in the future. Thus, the TARP's greatest consequence may be that the government has lost some of its ability to respond to financial crises.

Economists surveyed by the Panel raised severe concerns about moral hazard. The Panel sought the input of four prominent economists on the effectiveness of the TARP. These experts generally agreed both that the TARP was necessary to stabilize the financial system and that it had been mismanaged and could pose significant costs far into the future. Further, the economists unanimously felt that the program created significant moral hazard. TARP offered its funding on relatively generous terms, without requiring participating institutions to enter liquidation or receivership, remove failed managers, or wipe out existing shareholders. The fact that the government chose not to impose such stringent costs meant that the TARP's moral hazard costs were much greater than necessary.

The full report is available at The Congressional Oversight Panel will continue to issue monthly reports evaluating the TARP until the Panel's statutory authority expires on April 3, 2011.

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created to oversee the expenditure of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds authorized by Congress in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and to provide recommendations on regulatory reform. The Panel members are: J. Mark McWatters; Richard H. Neiman, Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York; Damon Silvers, Policy Director and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO; Kenneth Troske, William B. Sturgill Professor of Economics at the University of Kentucky; and Elizabeth Warren, Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.


TARP cop sees fraud cases rising

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:46pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top bailout cop said evidence of fraud among banks that sought taxpayer funds was on the rise, and some of his investigations involve amounts exceeding $550 million.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, told the Reuters Washington Summit on Tuesday that his office has 120 open investigations of banks that "reflect the full array of banks that applied for and received TARP funding."

These cases are likely to lead to criminal charges for more bank executives and founders, Barofsky said.

"I just see those numbers going up," he added.

Investigations by the SIGTARP, as his operation is known, so far have led to charges against eight bank executives, including Lee Farkas, former head of bankrupt mortgage lender Taylor, Bean and Whitaker.

Farkas is facing federal charges related to his participation in a scheme to fraudulently obtain $553 million in TARP funds for Montgomery, Alabama-based Colonial Bancshares. The investigation prevented the funds from being disbursed, and Colonial subsequently failed.

Barofsky said that some cases could top the Colonial case in terms of the dollar amount of attempted or actual theft from taxpayers. "We have investigations in, above, and below that range," he added.

The SIGTARP operation is expanding its staff and has opened branch offices in New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles and San Francisco to pursue these investigations, even as the $700 billion bailout program is set to cease new investments on October 3.

Barofsky, who rides around Washington in a black "plainclothes" Chevrolet Impala equipped with a siren and emergency lights, said SIGTARP will hit its peak staff and activity in the next two years, roughly trailing TARP's peak activity by about a year.

The operation will stay in business until the last dollar of bailout investments is repaid or written off, and because some programs could last 10 years, SIGTARP may have another eight to run. But Barofsky said it would likely scale back within a few years as investments are exited.

Barofsky also said he will audit the General Motors Co GM.UL initial public offering soon after it is completed, with the aim of correcting any deficiencies in the process to aid the government's exit from other investments, such as Chrysler Group, insurer American International Group ( AIG.N ) and automotive lender GMAC Financial Services.


Barofsky also said his staff is deep into an investigation of the New York Federal Reserve Bank's disclosures about controversial taxpayer-funded payments to AIG counterparty banks as part of the insurer's massive bailout.

Last January, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversights and Investigations, subpoenaed hundreds of thousands of pages of Fed documents involving the $62 billion in payments to Wall Street and foreign bank to liquidate credit default swap contracts written by AIG. However, the Fed did not provide the same documents to SIGTARP for a previous audit it conducted on the same bank payments.

Disclosure of the payments, often referred to as a "back door bailout" for banks, came months after they were made and fueled public anger over the $180 billion AIG rescue. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who ran the New York Fed at the time, denied any involvement in the disclosure decisions, but faced calls in Congress to resign over the controversy.

Judge refuses to dismiss AIG lawsuit

(Reuters) - A judge refused to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit accusing American International Group Inc ( AIG.N ) of misleading investors about its exposure to subprime mortgages, which led to a liquidity crisis and $182.3 billion of federal bailouts.

Monday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain allows the case to go forward and could pave the way for a trial over AIG's near collapse. The government rescue led taxpayers to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the New York-based insurer.

AIG spokesman Mark Herr declined to make an immediate comment.

Investors led by the State of Michigan Retirement Systems accused AIG, executives and directors of failing to disclose the risks that AIG had taken on through its portfolio of credit default swaps (CDS) and a securities lending program.

Swain wrote that the allegations in the class-action lawsuit were sufficient to suggest there was "a strong inference of fraudulent intent" in how AIG communicated publicly about the risks in the portfolio of credit default swaps.

She also said that plaintiffs made sufficient arguments to claim that AIG "materially misled the market" in hiding its "expansive" CDS underwriting, repeatedly expressing confidence in its ability to manage risk and justifying a May 2008 capital raising.

Among the defendants are Martin Sullivan, a former AIG chief executive; Joseph Cassano, who ran AIG's Financial Products unit, which managed the CDS portfolio; current and former directors; 34 banks that underwrote AIG securities, and former accountant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The lawsuit covers investors who owned AIG securities between March 16, 2006, and September 16, 2008, when AIG received its first bailout.

E. Powell Miller, a lawyer for the lead plaintiff, declined to make an immediate comment, saying he had yet to confer with his client.

Brad Karp, a lawyer for the banks, declined to make an immediate comment. James Gamble, a lawyer for the outside directors, declined to comment. Lawyers for Sullivan, Cassano and PwC did not immediately return calls seeking a comment.

Shares of AIG rose $1.67, or 4.6 percent, to $38.14 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is In re: American International Group Inc 2008 Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-05072.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Maureen Bavdek and Steve Orlofsky)






"the revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review. (How much is two orders of magnitude damages?)

COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; 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

Christ Statue and Spiritual Sanctuary

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.”

New Report Casts Doubt On Government's AIG Investment, TARP 

NU Online News Service, Sept. 16, 3:26 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON — American International Group (AIG) still relies largely on government funding for capital and liquidity, and “most observers” expect that the AIG Investment Program will generate “significant losses” to U.S. taxpayers, according to a new government report.

The Congressional Oversight Panel's September report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—called “Assessing the TARP on the Eve of Its Expiration”— also carries other distressing news.

It acknowledges that the program provided “critical support” to the financial markets at a time when market confidence was in freefall, but it states the program has been far less effective in meeting its other statutory goals, such as supporting home values, retirement savings, and economic growth.

And, because it failed to stem the decline in value of the assets of Americans, especially their securities and homes, the report says the TARP program is very unpopular amongst the public.

“Thus, the greatest consequence of the TARP may be that the government has lost some of its ability to respond to financial crises,” the report notes.

It adds that since TARP was authorized in October of 2008, 7.1 million homeowners have received foreclosure notices.

“Since their pre-crisis peaks, home values have dropped 28 percent, and stock indices—which indicate the health of many Americans' most significant investments for college and retirement—have fallen 30 percent,” the report states.

“Given that Treasury was mandated by law to use the TARP to address these measures of the economy, their lingering weakness is cause for concern,” according to the report.

The COP report was released on the “eve of the expiration of the program,” which is scheduled to end Oct. 3.

“Popular anger remains high about taxpayer support of America's largest banks, and that anger has only intensified in light of the continuing economic turmoil,” the report states.

The TARP's unpopularity may mean that, unless the program's effectiveness can be convincingly demonstrated, the government will not authorize similar policy responses in the future, according to the report.

Regarding AIG, it says the latest estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury project losses in the amount of $36 billion, $50 billion, and $45 billion, respectively, although the estimated losses have steadily decreased since the inception of the credit facility.

The report notes that Treasury's ability to recoup its investment depends on the value of AIG's common stock at the time Treasury sells its interests.

Therefore, the report states, the value of Treasury's substantial investment in AIG and the size of any gain or loss are dependent on many external variables, and “the protracted investment in AIG continues to create significant risks to taxpayers.”

The report adds that Treasury has invested approximately $47.5 billion in TARP funds in AIG. This investment is comprised of non-cumulative preferred stock in the amount of $40 billion and an equity capital facility under which AIG has drawn down $7.5 billion.

Including the $1.6 billion in unpaid dividends, AIG's outstanding TARP assistance equals $49.1 billion, the report explains.

In addition, AIG must repay $79.1 billion in outstanding debt to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

“The timing of Treasury's exit is complicated by the fact that AIG is not permitted to repay Treasury until it has fully repaid FRBNY,” the report states.

Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and AIG have stated that they are confident that AIG will fully repay FRBNY in the near future without “jeopardizing its financial viability,” according to the report.

"All our constitutional laws and our system of government are based upon the fact that the government is not permitted to do anything that violates this system... but if the government is in a position to increase the quantity of money, all these provisions become absolutely meaningless and useless." — Ludwig von Mises

TARP Oversight Panel: AIG Still a 'Significant Risk' to Taxpayers

September 20, 2010

American International Group Inc. still owes the federal government about $128.2 billion, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program's Congressional Oversight Panel has issued a report suggesting it's still hard to say whether that taxpayer investment will pay for itself.

"Whether Treasury will be able to exit its investments in AIG without substantial losses turns on AIG's ability to produce strong operating results and demonstrate that it is capable of functioning as a stand-alone investment-grade company without government support," the report said.

An attempt to reach AIG (NYSE: AIG) for comment on the TARP report wasn't immediately successful.

"AIG still relies largely on government funding for capital and liquidity, although there are recent indications that AIG is planning to issue bonds," the report said. "Treasury's ability to recoup its investment depends on the value of AIG's common stock at the time Treasury sells its interests. Therefore, the value of Treasury's substantial investment in AIG and the size of any gain or loss are dependent on many external variables, and the protracted investment in AIG continues to create significant risks to taxpayers."

The company's outstanding TARP help equals $49.1 billion, while its debt to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is $79.1 billion. AIG has to repay FRBNY before it can turn to settling its debt with the Department of the Treasury.

In general, the report reflected increasing optimism in the federal agencies that AIG may recover, but it points out the company has offered no concrete time line for debt repayment.

"At this time, AIG cannot afford to divert the cash it is generating through its insurance operations towards repaying FRBNY, because it is still quite weak financially," the report said. "Both the timing of the government's exit from its involvement with AIG and the ultimate return on its investment are difficult to predict with confidence."

The panel's report also included views from academic experts. It quoted Alan Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, as saying that "regarding stabilizing institutions like AIG, one has to count TARP as a huge success." He said it threw a "security blanket around every large entity. This is not something you'd want to do under normal circumstances but was appropriate at the time. And the net cost to the taxpayers for this part of the program will, in the end, be very small. In that sense, TARP looks like a bargain."

Because Treasury will sell off the remaining warrant positions it holds in Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Lincoln National Corp., ending the financial connection between the two major insurers and the federal government, that leaves AIG as the only insurance company financially connected to TARP (BestWire, Sept. 9, 2010).

TARP is nearing its statutory expiration on Oct. 3.

AIG stock was trading at $36.67 on the afternoon of Sept. 20, up 2.89% from the previous close. Most AIG insurers have current Best's Financial Strength Ratings of A (Excellent).

Hank Greenberg on the AIG Plan: ‘Disgraceful'

-By Shira Ovide and Serena Ng

Hank Greenberg hasn't worked for AIG in five years. But he still has plenty of strong opinions about the plan announced today for the government to unwind its majority ownership in the troubled insurer he once led.

“I think that's disgraceful to say they don't want me or shareholders to make money,” Greenberg, who left in 2005 amid an accounting probe, said to WSJ about the Treasury's reported efforts to carefully select the price of converting its $49 billion in AIG preferred shares into what will be a 92% stake in AIG's common stock .

Greenberg took issue with views attributed to Treasury officials that the government doesn't want to leave too much room for AIG's private investors to reap a windfall from their company stock. Greenberg remains one of AIG's largest private investors.

“It sounds like the old Soviet Union,” Greenberg said in another interview today. “When the government starts deciding who should make a profit and who should not, if you invested in a company, what kind of a message does that send?”

Greenberg also challenged the view, held by some federal officials, that it will take around a year and a half for the U.S. government to completely dispose of its AIG shares.

“I think it's going to take years, maybe a decade or more, for [the government] to sell down over 90% of the company,” Greenberg said in the Journal interview from Wednesday. “I'm not going to spend even a nickel to buy any more shares with the government owning so much stock.”

“As soon as they try to sell the stock it will go down,” making further sales more difficult, he predicted.



National ag groups ask EPA to reconsider water strategy nationally and in Florida

Thirty-six national agriculture groups are asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to delay a proposed action on water quality in Florida and to reconsider its strategy nationally because of the expected costs.

The EPA has proposed numeric limits for nutrients including phosphorus and nitrogen in Florida's rivers, springs and lakes to reduce algae blooms and coastal red tide events. But the federal agency, which is scheduled to adopt a proposal on Oct. 15, faces opposition from state agriculture officials and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection along with utilities, cities and agriculture groups who say the limits will be too costly.

The Sept. 17 letter was sent by national groups including the American Farm Bureau Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Milk Producers Federation and the U.S. Cattleman's Association. They asked EPA to delay the Oct. 15 action on the proposed criteria for lakes, streams and rivers and to combine it with criteria for Florida estuaries that are expected to be finalized in 2012.

Wastewater utilities in Florida have estimated the cost of complying with the new criteria as $98 billion over 30 years. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has estimated the initial cost for Florida farmers at $3 billion with annual costs at $902 million to $1.6 billion. The EPA has offered the much lower estimate of $130 million plus $11 million per year for agriculture, utilities and other industries.

The criteria being established in Florida will provide a template for EPA to use elsewhere in the nation when setting criteria, according to the letter from the 36 groups. They said the 1998 National Strategy for Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria should be updated to include new science to address concerns about the cost of such regulations.

"The goals of the Clean Water Act must not be set and pursued in isolation from all of the other important goals and priorities of society, including promoting vibrant, strong, job-creating businesses, economically strong communities and productive and valuable use of the land for agricultural and other purposes," the letter said.

An EPA spokesperson said Monday that the agency "is proposing a cost-effective rule to curb the impacts of nutrient pollution that decimates property values and can cause costly illnesses." Earthjustice attorney David Guest, who represents environmental groups in a lawsuit that led to EPA setting a timeline for proposing the criteria in Florida, dismissed what he said are the "phony economic arguments" from the agriculture industry.

"The real reason is when the numbers are set it is going to become so clear that agriculture is destroying the drinking water supplies and the rivers, lakes, and estuaries upon which our whole economy depends; and it is going to become so clear they have to clean up their act," Guest said.

(Story provided by the Florida Tribune . Photo and story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and Do not copy or redistribute without permission, which can be obtained by contacting

New and Revised Clean Water Act Methods Proposed

September 23rd, 2010


In August 2010 the EPA issued a notice proposing new and revised analytical methods to be used under the Clean Water Act (CWA) .

The proposed rule, entitled “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures”, will effect numerous EPA Methods , ASTM Methods, Standard Methods, and alternative test methods.

EPA methods:

ASTM methods:

In addition, the EPA has proposed adding eight alternate test procedures:

The Standard Methods to be impacted, include those for oil and grease, ammonia, boron, inorganic ions, arsenic, selenium, aluminum, beryllium, chemical oxygen demand, phosphorous, oxygen, potassium, silica, sulfate and sulfide.

In addition, EPA is proposing minimum quality control requirements to improve consistency across method versions; corrections to previously approved methods; and various changes to sample collection, preservation, and holding time requirements.

For complete information on these methods read the proposed rule by visiting

Ninth Circuit says no to judicial review of compliance orders

NOAA Strategic Plan

 Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Support for Library Facilities Across the Country
Listen To: Audio, Transcript
 Secretary Vilsack Announces Awards to Support Regional Economic Development Strategies
 Agriculture Secretary Announces Bonus Awards for States Achieving Outstanding, Timely Nutritional Assistance
 100 Retired Generals and Admirals, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Urge Congress to Pass Child Nutrition Bill As Matter of National Security
Listen To: Audio, Transcript
 USDA Announces Technology Grants for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
 Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Recovery Act Funding To Improve Water System Infrastructure, Health and Sanitation in Rural Communities
 Hawaii Rural Development State Director Kanazawa Announces USDA Funding Assistance for Energy Reduction, Business Development and Job Creation
 Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Support for Library Facilities Across the Country
 Secretary Vilsack Commends Dairy Industry for Efforts to Reduce Carbon Footprint
 Agriculture Deputy Secretary Announces Support for Rural Economic Development Projects Across The Country


September 20th, 2010 02:15am

TARS policy addresses regulatory inconsistency

By Dan Verel, Business Journal Staff Reporter


Afghan govt reopens tender for giant iron ore mine

By Waheedullah Massoud (AFP) –


The Afghan government Saturday invited bids from international mining firms to develop an iron ore deposit said to be one of the world's richest, the mines minister said.

The Hajigak iron ore mine in central Afghanistan is believed to hold up to two billion tonnes of high-grade iron ore, the raw material of steel making.

"The Hajigak iron ore deposit is open for tender as of today," mines minister Wahidullah Shahrani said at the site of the deposit.

"We are going to tender this today in Kabul on all government websites, all leading economic and mines journals for the expression of interest," he told reporters during a visit to the mine.

He said the mine would generate an annual 300 million dollars in direct earnings for the Afghan government and 1.5 billion dollars in indirect income for the country.

Afghanistan invited tenders last year to develop the mine but, receiving only a lukewarm response, cancelled the process after Shahrani took over the minister's post when his predecessor was removed amid corruption allegations.

Shahrani said planned to travel to New York on Wednesday, to persuade major miners to bid. He visited London earlier this year to drum up international interest in Afghanistan's mineral wealth.

Shahrani said he expected the contract to be awarded by the end of 2011.

Agreements were signed earlier this week on developing a cross-country railroad that would link northern gas and oil reserves to coal mines in the centre, via Hajigak, and on to the southern Ainak copper deposit, he said.

This would facilitate transportation of coal to smelters at Hajigak and Ainak, he said.

The mine was the central point of a massive "iron ore belt" running from the highest peaks of the Pamir mountains, near the far northeastern border with China, to the western border with Iran, he said.

"According to our estimate, Hajigak could be just ten percent of the entire iron ore belt," said Shahrani, adding that the smelter project alone could generate 7,000 jobs.

Hajigak was first discovered by British geologists in 1890. Specialists from the former Soviet Union did further exploration from 1965-1967, declaring the deposit at around 1.8 billion tonnes.

Shahrani put potential annual output at 10 million tonnes -- giving it a potential uninterrupted lifespan of 180 years.

Afghanistan is in the midst of a protracted war with Taliban-led insurgents which has intensified over the past year, with foreign-funded projects and construction workers often the target of attacks.

A study earlier this year by US geologists found Afghanistan had reserves of valuable minerals, including lithium, iron, gold, niobium, mercury and cobalt, on a larger scale than previously believed, worth about a trillion dollars.

The Afghan government later called this a "very conservative estimate" and put the value at up to three trillion dollars.

During his June road trip to London, Shahrani vowed total transparency in the awarding of contracts to exploit the country's mineral wealth, which he said could net the war-torn country 3.5 billion dollars a year by 2015.

Shahrani estimated that revenues from mineral, oil and gas reserves -- including 1.6 billion barrels of oil in the Afghan-Tajik Basin -- could wean Afghanistan off aid by 2015.

The Hajigak mine is located in harsh mountain terrain about 130 kilometres (100 miles) west of Kabul and is shared by the three provinces of Parwan, Bamian and Wardak.

In 2008, the Afghan government awarded a licence to develop the Aynak copper mine, in Logar province, to a Chinese consortium for about three billion dollars. Mining at the site has yet to begin.

The contract obliges the Chinese partner to develop a smelter, refinery and factory as well as infrastructure such as roads, houses, hospitals and schools centred on the mine, as well as educating Afghan mining specialists.

Zinc Replacing Platinum in Fuel Cells, Lithium in Batteries

September 15, 2010 by admin

Zinc Air, Incorporated out of Montana has licensed the rights for a zinc air fuel cell developed by a retired chemist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The good news for hydrogen hybrid vehicle makers it that zinc is seen as a replacement for expensive platinum in fuel cells and not so environmentally friendly imported lithium in lithium-ion batteries.

According to the LLNL website, “The technology enables safe, lower-cost, clean, quiet, reliable and environmentally friendly power generation. Zinc Air Fuel Cell (ZAFC) products combine atmospheric oxygen from the air we breathe with zinc metal pellets as the fuel to generate electricity.

“In operation, the fuel cell consumes all of the zinc and is operationally quiet, providing instantaneous electrical energy with no greenhouse gas emissions . It also doesn't contain any of the toxic elements found in lithium batteries or other battery chemistries.”

Here is a high resolution image that shows how the zinc pellets are recycled in an environmentally friendly manner. Using zinc would mean less reliance on foreign countries for both platinum for fuel cells and lithium for the hybrid batteries.

According to Zinc Air Inc. President Dave Wilkins, “At the moment, most in the auto industry are currently looking to lithium batteries as the power solution for electric vehicles , but those batteries are manufactured primarily outside of the United States and are not cost effective for widespread use. There is enough readily available zinc just in the United States to produce billions of these batteries.”

So, using zinc instead of platinum or lithium would solve four problems:

1. First, replacing higher costing materials with lower costing zinc
2. Second, less environmental impact if zinc is used
3. Third, more reliance on U. S. resources for zinc rather than other countries for the other materials already listed
4. More U. S. jobs for mining zinc and manufacturing fuel cells and batteries

The proverbial ball is in Zinc Air's court. Now, let's see if they run with it.

Read more….

Leo Motors to Demonstrate Its Zinc Air Fuel Cell Generator

Battery using a metal particle bed electrode


A zinc-air battery in a case including a zinc particle bed supported adjacent the current feeder and diaphragm on a porous support plate which holds the particles but passes electrolyte solution. Electrolyte is recycled through a conduit between the support plate and top of the bed by convective forces created by a density of differential caused by a higher concentration of high density discharge products in the interstices of the bed than in the electrolyte recycle conduit.

Inventors: Evans; James V. (Piedmont, CA) , Savaskan; Gultekin (Albany, CA)
Assignee: The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA)
Appl. No.: 07/433,475
Filed: November 8, 1989

Additional Applications  
Solid Zinc Strip has a unique set of attributes that make it perfect for a variety of applications.

For instance, Braille printing plates made from
Solid Zinc Strip  create avery pronounced embossing that will not tear or stain paper during the printing process. The self-annealing properties of solid zinc strip allow these plates to be used for many years. Finning pads are made from solid zinc strip and are used to polish eyeglass lens.

All you have to do is look at Zinc's unique set of attributes to know that its uses are wide and varied and provide some very innovative solutions.

EPA Marks 20 th Anniversary of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

WASHINGTON — This year during Pollution Prevention Week, September 19-25, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency marks the 20 th anniversary of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The act laid the groundwork for reducing pollution at its source and protecting children and families from exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as significantly reducing the amount of contaminants released into the environment. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson is urging the public to recommit to the goal of pollution prevention in their everyday lives.

"Protecting public health and the environment begins with pollution prevention. We're taking proactive steps that minimize pollution at the source and keep environmental threats from reaching our communities," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 gave our nation a strong start in this direction. Twenty years later, we must work with our government and industry partners to foster clean innovations and sustainable strategies that expand and enhance pollution prevention across the country."

EPA is focused on integrating of pollution prevention goals into all its programs and has already achieved results in many agency programs:

· In 2009 alone, Americans with the help of Energy Star saved $17 billion dollars on their energy bills and reduced greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of 29 million cars.

· WasteWise celebrated 15 years of environmental results in 2009, with 2,860 members contributing to the prevention and recycling of more than 160 million tons of waste (or 320 billion pounds).

· Since the program began in 2003, Plug-In To eCycling partners have recycled more than 360 million pounds of electronics, including televisions, computers and cell phones.

· WaterSense has helped consumers save 46 billion gallons of water and $343 million in water and sewer bills since the program's inception in 2006.

· Green electronics, Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, and the Design for the Environment (DfE) programs have reduced the use of toxic materials in everyday items like computers and household cleaners and give consumers the choice to use safer products since the programs began in 2006, 1995 and 1992 respectively. To day, more than 2,000 products carry the DfE label.

EPA has also been working closely with states, local governments, international organizations, environmental groups and industry to identify pollution prevention opportunities. One example is the Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) Program, which is helping manufacturers reduce costs and become more efficient, competitive and sustainable in a global market.

More information on Pollution Prevention Week and what you can do:

Participate in Pollution Prevention Week webinars—Journey to Sustainability:

Pollution Prevention Week radio actualities:

Improving Drinking Water Quality by Ensuring Water Quantity

Posted on September 22, 2010 | Filed Under: Clean Water , Protecting Rivers , Global Warming

Jenny Hoffner
Director, Water Supply

09-21-10 NACD Weighs in on EPA's Clean Water Strategy

Posted by Brian Allmer on September 21, 2010


The EPA giveth, and taketh away federal sustainability programs

Available Funding in Region 9

EPA supports two major types of grants:

Ongoing grants , which are commonly awarded to states, tribes, and U.S. territories to support and establish environmental programs;

Project-specific grants , which are typically competitive, and available to state and local governments, tribes, non-profit organizations, and educational institutions.

Funding Sources for Communities
Provides summaries of current Region 9 funding opportunities, contacts, and links to related documents. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) provides a complete listing of all the different types of EPA grants. For a complete listing of EPA grant opportunities currently open, visit .

Funding Solicitations (Open RFPs)
Includes details about many of EPA Region 9's current funding opportunities, and how to submit a proposal.

Agriculture Grants
Grant funding for projects that explore ways to improve agricultural practices and reduce their environmental effects

Managing Your Special Appropriation Act Project
Guidance for special situations defined in EPA's annual Appropriations Act.

Region 9 Topics and Program

Information for Applicants

Before You Apply
You should be familiar with federal grant requirements before you apply. These requirements, established in law , Executive Order, federal regulation, and the OMB Circulars, often vary depending on the type of organization applying. For example, they establish which costs may be charged to a federal grant, how open competition is required for equipment, supplies, and contracts procured under a grant, and what efforts that must be taken to contract with women- and minority-owned firms.

Applying for a Grant
If you have been asked to submit a formal application for a grant by an EPA project officer or your proposal has been formally selected for funding by EPA Region 9, please follow these guidelines. In many cases, EPA Region 9 will send you additional guidance information with a Region 9 tracking number to help you apply for your specific program/project. If you are submitting a grant proposal , however, there is a different procedure (see Requests for Proposals ).

Managing Your Grant
Information for EPA grant recipients, including regulations, common forms, reports, and required certifications.

Water State Revolving Funds

General EPA Guidance on Section 1512 Recipient Reporting:

Federal Reporting:

Davis Bacon Act Regional Resources

EPA Civil Rights Obligations under The Recovery Act

EPA Notice to Grantees Re: ACORN Funding Prohibitions, August 17, 2010

Mandatory Grant's Management Training for Non-Profit Applicants and Recipients - EPA's new recipient course designed to help non-profit recipients and applicants understand assistance agreement regulations, the application process, management of their assistance agreements and the close out process. Completion of this class is mandatory for all non-profit award recipients upon receipt of monetary actions effective October 1, 2007. Please check your award document for the term and condition. Your certification will be good for 3 years after which you will have to update your training. ( This class is not required for Colleges or Universities. The cost principles taught are specially for non-profit enities. )

Additional Resources

Find Current Funding Opportunities - Contains information on CFDA Catalogue, Grants Competition, Small Business Gateway and Open Announcements, and

OMB Relaunches Web Site to Track Federal Spending: http://www.USAspending.Gov , a single searchable Website that provides information on each Federal grant and contract awarded.

How to Apply - Find information on the grant tutorial, headquarters grant application requirements and forms.

EPA Grantee Forms - Find all EPA and OMB grant related forms.

Grant and Fellowship Information - Locate information about grant and fellowship programs offered by EPA offices.

Open Announcements - Locate up-to-date information on open announcements

Competitive Information and Competitive Awards

Grant Awards Database - Contains award information on EPA open grants and includes a view of grant awards by quarter. The database can be searched by any word or combination of words appearing within the award record.

Policy and Regulations - New regulations, policies, proposed rules, important notices and the regulatory agenda of future regulations.

Suspension and Debarment Program - Suspension and debarment actions protect the government from doing business with individuals/companies/recipients who pose a business risk to the government.

Find the Grant Regional Office Near You - Includes links to all ten EPA regional grant offices.

EPA's Plan for Grants Management - This Plan charts the course the Agency will follow in the coming years to deliver an effective system for grants administration.

State Grants | Find Current Funding Opportunities | How to Apply | EPA Grantee Forms | Grant and Fellowship Information | Open Announcements | Closed Announcements/Pending Awards | Desk Top Resource | Policy, Regulations and Guidance | Davis Bacon | Suspension and Debarment Program | Find the Grant Regional Office Near You | EPA's Plan for Grants Management |


Coal-mining group files second suit against EPA guidelines

By Darren Goode - 09/20/10 12:57 PM ET

The National Mining Association on Friday filed a second lawsuit in federal district court to block implementation of tougher EPA water-quality ?guidelines for “mountaintop removal” and other coal-mining practices in six Appalachian states.

The group is arguing the court should suspend the guidelines because of their economic damage to the coal states. It is the second lawsuit NMA has filed in district court against the guidelines. In an initial filing in July, the group argued the guidelines violated federal law by circumventing requirements for public notice and comment and receiving a peer review.

“There's an illicit policy being implemented based on bogus science which is already having real economic consequences,” said National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich. “It is, in effect, in our view, contributing to the delays that we've seen in getting permits approved and therefore adding to the stress throughout the coal communities in the six states they apply to.”

The guidelines were issued in draft form April 1. EPA is taking publi comment until Dec. 1 and will issue final guidelines by next April. But the agency is already using the released guidelines to clarify how? future Clean Water Act permits are being issued for coal-mining practices in the six states.

NMA is also arguing the guidelines meet “all the legal definitions of regulations” and should be treated to the same process before they become final and are actually used, Popovich said.

Coal-state lawmakers from both parties have joined the fight, as well.

A bipartisan group of 15 House lawmakers — led by Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and including five Democrats — has so far backed a bill introduced last week to block funding next year for EPA to implement the guidelines.

In addition, Popovich said one coal-state Democratic senator has had “serious discussions” about offering a companion bill, which could? come up in this fall's spending debate. The issue was raised at a pro-coal rally attended by House and Senate coal-state lawmakers from both parties on Capitol Hill last week.

EPA has countered that the guidelines are based on sound science. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in a statement when they were released said that the “people of Appalachia shouldn't have to choose between a clean, healthy environment in which to raise their families and the jobs they need to support them.”

EPA expected to resolve litigation of controversial solid waste rule

As reported by the U.S.-based Waste Business Journal ( ), a settlement resolving litigation over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) controversial definition of solid waste (DSW) rule is expected soon.

Lisa Feldt, deputy assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, told the Environmental Council of the States' annual meeting on August 30, 2010 that "we are in settlement talks and hope to have an announcement soon."

The current rule, which dates from the Bush administration, provides exemptions for the management of certain wastes under Resource Conservation & Recovery Act requirements in an effort to promote recycling.

In its lawsuit, Sierra Club alleges that the exemptions go too far and will lead to dangerous "sham" recycling at facilities located disproportionately near low-income and minority communities.

Sierra Club also filed a petition for reconsideration with EPA urging the agency to repeal the rule.

Last year, EPA said it was considering more precisely defining how industry must "contain" recyclable materials and that it would require more elaborate notification by companies seeking exemptions.

In January, EPA released a draft methodology for analyzing the rule's impacts on low income and minority communities.

Group sues feds over gravel mining regulations

Monday, September 20, 2010

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- An environmental group is challenging the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is developing gravel mining regulations for rivers in Oregon.

The Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed a lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Portland alleging the corps kept salmon advocates out of meetings to develop standards for taking gravel out of the Chetco River in southwestern Oregon.

The complaint claims the corps failed to heed environmental concerns raised by state and federal agencies.

The lawsuit also seeks to overturn a NOAA Fisheries Service finding that mining in the Chetco under terms of a proposed permit would not push threatened coho salmon closer to extinction.

Spokespeople for the agencies said they could not comment on the lawsuit.



Iron Mountain Mine case study

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Mar 7, 2006 ... Listing Iron Mountain Mine on the National Priorities List was key to the success of this project, as listing gave ... - Similar

EPA, scientists tour Iron Mountain Mine cleanup project » Redding ...

Aug 21, 2010 ... Jane Vorpagel burned through her camera's battery taking snapshots of the green and black crystals that mark the heart of Iron Mountain Mine ... - Cached

  1. [PDF]

    Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Iron Mountain Mines , inc. P.O. Box 992867 ...

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
    IRON MOUNTAIN MINES PRIVATE PROPERTY. Mineral Exploration & Mine Develppment . Mining • Processing. Producers of Industrial and Agricultural Minerais ...
    www. ironmountainmine .com/ iron %20 mountain / TEDS%20NEW%20PICTURES.pdf - Similar
  2. Blogs: Marc Beauchamp's blog

    Jul 4, 2010 ... I am corresponding to you again concerning my property known as Iron Mountain Mines , Inc., located in Shasta County , California . ... iron -m.html - Cached

Iron Mountain Mine | Online Resources for Environmental Impact ...

by IM Mine
May 4, 2007 ... Iron Mountain Mine near Redding, California operated from the 1870's to the 1960's (Verosub, 2007). The mineral deposits found and mined ... - Cached - Similar

Iron Mountain Mine : “A Hellish Pit” « KCBS All News 740AM & FM106.9

Aug 29, 2010 ... Chronicle reporter Peter Fimrite says the abandoned copper mine is often called one of the most polluted places on earth with some of the ... iron - mountain - mine -a-hellish-pit/ - Cached

Toxics Program Remediation Activities

Jul 2, 2010 ... Mine Shaft Plugging Assessment - Geochemical characterization of Iron Mountain and geochemical modeling studies predicted that if the mine ... iron _ mountain .html - Cached - Similar

AR Index| Iron Mountain Mine |US EPA |Region 9|Superfund

Jan 11, 2008 ... 06/08/1998, Richard Sugarek / Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9, T W Arman / Iron Mountain Mines , Inc, ROC: Site mine maps for view ...!OpenDocument - Cached

Inside a toxic hellhole, Iron Mountain Mine - Aquafornia

Aug 31, 2010 ... The Iron Mountain Mine , outside of Redding, is a hellish pit where acid water sloshes against your boots, greenish bacterial slime gurgles ... - Cached

New Iron -Eating Microbe Major Component of Mining Pollution and ...

Mar 10, 2000 ... Edwards says the microbe found in such abundance at the Iron Mountain Mine is probably more common in nature that is currently recognized, ... - Cached - Similar

Iron Mountain Mine dredging ahead of schedule; legal fight continues...

Nov 22, 2009 ... While a dredging project to remove Iron Mountain Mine tailings from Keswick Lake is ahead of schedule, legal documents continue to pile up ... iron - mountain - mine -dredging-ahead-of-schedule/ - Cached - Similar

Iron Mountain Mine , CA - Southwest Region - DARRP

Sep 24, 2009 ... Location: Iron Mountain Mine , Shasta County, California. ... Overview: From the 1860s through 1963, Iron Mountain Mine (IMM) in Shasta County ... iron /index.html - Cached - Similar

Negative pH and Extremely Acidic Mine Waters from Iron Mountain ...

by DK Nordstrom - 2000 - Cited by 134 - Related articles
In this report we present new data on acid mine waters from the undergroundworkings at Iron Mountain that have pH values as low as -3.6 with total ... - Similar

Iron Mountain Mine | Implementation of the Recovery Act | US EPA

Iron Mountain Mine was mined for iron, silver, gold, copper, zinc and pyrite from the 1860s through 1963. As a result of the mining activities, annual rains ... iron _ mountain .html - Cached - Similar - Ghost towns

Iron Mountain During the 1890s when Mountain Copper Company owned Iron Mountain Mine , a company town named Iron Mountain was located on the mountain. ... - Cached

Inside a toxic hellhole, Iron Mountain Mine - one of - Twitter ...

Sep 1, 2010 ... Inside a toxic hellhole, Iron Mountain Mine - one of the most polluted places on Earth. - Derekmarkham (Derek Markham) ... iron - mountain - mine -one-of-the- most-polluted-places-on-earth/ - Cached

Iron Mountain Mine CERCLA Site

INCIDENT SUMMARY: Acid mine drainage (AMD) from Iron Mountain Mine runs out of the mine site and into several creeks, reservoirs, and the Sacramento River, ... iron - mountain .aspx - Cached

Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site Settlement; This is a Stauffer ...

Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site Settlement; This is a Stauffer Management - Business Editors WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 20, ... - Cached


Aug 25, 2004 ... It is possible, according to Edwards, that the microbe found in such abundance at the Iron Mountain Mine near Redding, Calif., is ubiquitous ... - Cached

ScienceMatters @ Berkeley.

Feb 13, 2006 ... Every time UC Berkeley professor Jillian Banfield descends into the abandoned Richmond Mine in Iron Mountain , California, she's fascinated ... - Cached - Similar

Geochemical and biological aspects of sulfide mineral dissolution ...

by KJ Edwards - 2000 - Cited by 65 - Related articles
Jump to Biodiversity at Iron Mountain : seasonal and spatial relationships ... ?: At Iron Mountain , as at other sites ... within the Richmond mine . ...

EPA Demo
Iron Mountain Mine Site, CA

1990 to 1991

S. Jackson Hubbard
(513) 569-7507

Table 3-8 Projects Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil

Iron Mountain Mine Site, CA. 1990 to 1991. S. Jackson Hubbard (513) 569-7507, Separation: Precipitation, microfiltration & sludge dewatering ... - Cached - Similar

Separation: Precipitation, microfiltration & sludge dewatering Sludge & leachable soil Heavy metals, non-volatile organics & solvents, oil, grease, pesticides, bacteria, solids Up to 5% solids, 30 lb/hour of solids, 10 gpm of wastewater Heavy metal precipitation, filtration, concentrated stream dewatering Filter cakes 40-60% solids, water recycled EXXFLOW and EXXPRESS fabric microfilter and filter press.


by C ROBINSON - 2003
Mar 28, 2003 ... The inactive Cu-Zn mines at Iron Mountain , California, are well known for producing extremely acidic drainage and a variety of Fe-sulfate ... - Cached



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Introduction: The Iron Mountain mining district, in the Klamath Mountains of northern California, is host to some of the most extremely acid mine waters ...

GRIN | Characterization of Waterbodies Affected by Acid Mine ...

by T Heise - 2010
Mar 29, 2010 ... 17 Acid Mine Drainage in Tasmania, Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101. 18 Iron Mountain Mine , U.S.A. . ... mine - drainage

Geochemical Transactions | Comments | Acid mine drainage ...

by G Druschel - 2004 - Cited by 68 - Related articles
Acid mine drainage biogeochemistry at Iron Mountain , California. Gregory K Druschel* email , Brett J Baker* email , Thomas M Gihring email ... - Cached

USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division 100th ...

Nov 4, 2009 ... The Iron Mountain Mine National Priorities List Site is a 4400-acre inactive mine ... Iron Mountain Mine treatment plant. Courtesy of EPA. ... - Cached

NRDC: Too Good To Throw Away - Appendix C

The Iron Mountain mine , one of the most destructive Superfund sites, deposits 400 pounds of copper and 1400 pounds of zinc into Shasta County reservoirs ... › ... › All Recycling Documents - Cached - Similar


Too Good To Throw Away

Recycling's Proven Record

California Shasta County, located in northern California, bears many unpleasant reminders of the old gold rush days. The Iron Mountain mine, one of the most destructive Superfund sites, deposits 400 pounds of copper and 1,400 pounds of zinc into Shasta County reservoirs every day -- one-fourth of the copper and zinc discharged into surface waters for the entire United States. The Balaklala mine discharges acid and heavy metals into a tributary of the Shasta Lake, one of California's most important recreational lakes. In Southern California, upcoming passage of the Desert Protection Act will bring hundreds of abandoned -- and potentially life-endangering -- mines into the National Park system.

Scientists Report First Sequencing Of Environmental Genome

Feb 3, 2004 ... Acid mine drainage in Spring Creek downstream from the Richmond Mine, part of the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site nine miles northwest of ... - Cached


Acid Mine Drainage - USGS Publications 9/14/0

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
computations for acid mine waters, Iron Mountain , California. ... quality and discharge data for acidic mine waters at Iron Mountain , Shasta County, ...

Microbial diversity in acid mine drainage of Xiang Mountain ...

by C Hao
Jul 16, 2010 ... Druschel GK, Baker BJ, Gihring T, Banfield JF (2004) Acid mine drainage biogeochemistry at Iron Mountain , California. Geo- ...

Shotgun sequencing finds nanoorganisms - Probe of acid mine ...

Dec 22, 2006 ... The organisms in the mine drainage, which live in a pink slick on ... the Richmond Mine at Iron Mountain , Calif. The mine is one of the ... - Cached


old-shasta-county-gold- mines - lé W,

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
at Mammoth Mine on Iron Mountain. 'Note the '. ' !*'- player“s uniforms, the bleachers, ..... Gladstone Mine First Aid Dispe. Iron Mountain Mine Hospital ... mines .pdf



File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
May 5, 2010 ... hazardous waste on land where Defendant Iron Mountain Mines is located. Iron Mountain Mines is owned and operated by Defendant. T.W. Arman. ... IRON %20MT%20 MINES %205_6_ 2010%20ORDER.pdf

Feds pay to clean up Blue Ledge Mine |

Jun 4, 2010 ... The company has extensive experience with mine remediation projects, including the stimulus-funded Iron Mountain Mine restoration project ...

Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference: Proceedings - Google Books Result

Gary Almeraris , Bill Mariucci - 2009 - Science - 1386 pages
In 2001, North Pacific Research was hired to upgrade the capture and control facility. The general layout of the Iron Mountain Mine is shown in Figure 1. ... ... - Copper mining and the toxiccopper smelters

In 1896, Mountain Copper Company began successfully mining copper at Iron Mountain Mine and built Shasta County's first copper smelter at Keswick. ... - Cached

Acid mine drainage - MicrobeWiki

Aug 26, 2010 ... 6.1 Iron Mountain , California; 6.2 Acid Drainage Technology Initiative, ... Acid mine drainage in a stream just outside of Pittsburgh, PA. ... mine _drainage - Cached

Current Research

Iron Mountain, California

At Iron Mountain near Redding, CA research is currently focusing on a “molecular-level understanding of the metabolism of organisms involved in AMD formation”. The project is using several methods to identify the molecular community and the roles of specific organisms present. DNA sequence analysis is used to learn what organisms are in the environment and then fluorescence in-situ hybridizations (FISH) determines cell type distribution and geochemical conditions. Samples are taking from different locations such as sediments, pore fluids, free-flowing waters, and subaerial biofilms. These field samples then serve as innoculum in various media that are incubated under aerobic, microaerophillic, and anaerobic conditions. Information about growth rates, metabolic capability, and optimal growth conditions is taken from isolates which are then identified through DNA sequence analyses. Currently, analysis has identified Leptospirillum group II, Leptospirillum group III, and Ferroplasma acidarmanus. [9] Allen, E. and Banfield, J. 2005. “Community genomics in microbial ecology and evolution”. Nauture Reviews Microbiology 3:489-498.

Highlights of Research Progress, Genomic Science Program

by I Gallery
Apr 19, 2010 ... Microbial Community Thriving in Acid Mine Drainage ... abandoned gold mine at Iron Mountain , one of the nation's worst Superfund sites (see ... - Cached

An Archaeal Iron -Oxidizing Extreme Acidophile Important in Acid ...

by KJ Edwards - 2000 - Cited by 239 - Related articles

Advances in the Hydrogeochemistry and Microbiology of Acid Mine Waters

by D Nordstrom - 2000 - Cited by 39 - Related articles
refuse piles. This species optimally grew at 55°C and pH about 2. At the Iron Mountain Mine site, a new iron-oxidizing Archaeon has been found, Ferro- ...


Oxidation Kinetics of Tetrathionate at Low pH: Implications for ...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
the Iron Mountain Mine site may be intimately linked to the mechanism and rate of sulphur oxidation in different environ- ments. It is the goal of this ... - Similar

Environment – This Just In - Blogs

The Iron Mountain Mine acid draining treatment facility, the heart of the ... Iron Mountain, a former mine that is dripping with acid capable of eating away ... iron ment/ - Cached

World's most acidic water found in mine - Water Technology Online ...

With a pH of -3.6, the puddles found in the Iron Mountain Mine are more acidic ... The Iron Mountain Mine was the largest copper mine in California in the ... - Cached

Acid Mine Drainage ( Iron Mountain ) - Analysis

Acid Mine Drainage ( Iron Mountain ). Download · Analysis · Info · Home. Analysis. Assembly. Gene Calling. Annotation. • Acid Mine Drainage ... - Cached

Data Usage Policy (February 5, 2009)

As a public service, the raw sequence data from the genome sequencing projects are being made available by the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) before scientific publication. The purpose of this policy is to balance the imperative of DOE and JGI that the data from its sequencing projects be made available to the scientific community as soon as possible with the reasonable expectation that the collaborators and the JGI will publish their results without concerns about potential preemption by other groups that did not participate in the effort.

These pre-publication data are preliminary and may contain errors. The goal of our policy is that early release should enable the progress of science. By accessing these data, you agree not to publish any articles containing analyses of genes or genomic data on a whole genome or chromosome scale prior to publication by JGI and its collaborators of its comprehensive genome analysis. These restrictions will be lifted on the publication of the whole genome description or the expiration of a 12-month period after public release of the 8x assembly and draft annotation, whichever comes first. During this waiting period, the data will be available for any kind of publication that does not compete directly with planned publications (e.g. reserved analyses) of the JGI and collaborators. A principal collaborator or "champion," listed in the organsim's Info page and is the point of contact and arbiter regarding publication plans. Scientists are strongly encouraged to contact the principal collaborator and JGI about their intentions and any potential collaboration.

Reserved analyses include the identification of complete (whole genome) sets of genomic features such as genes, gene families, regulatory elements, repeat structures, GC content, etc., and whole-genome comparisons of regions of evolutionary conservation or change. Manually annotated genes within the Genome Portal are also reserved. Studies of any type on the reserved data sets that are not in direct competition with those planned by the JGI and its collaborators may also be undertaken following an agreement to that effect. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the the principal collaborator and JGI to discuss such possibilities.

If these data are used for publication, the following acknowledgment should be included: "These sequence data were produced by the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in collaboration with the user community." We request that you notify us upon publication so that this information can be included in the final annotation.

The data may be freely downloaded and used by all who respect the restrictions in the previous paragraphs. While still in waiting period status, the assembly and raw sequence reads should not be redistributed or repackaged without permission from the JGI. Any redistribution of the data during this period should carry this notice: "The Joint Genome Institute provides these data in good faith, but makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any purpose for which the data are used." Once moved to unreserved status, the data are freely available for any subsequent use.

Do not show Data Usage Policy for Acid Mine Drainage (Iron Mountain) next time

Microbiome Details

Microbiome Information
Genome Statistics
Phylogenetic Distribution of Genes
Phylogenetic Profiler
Genome Viewers
Export Genome Data
Scaffold Search

Microbiome Information

Microbiome Name Taxon Object ID NCBI Taxon ID NCBI Project ID GOLD ID in IMG Database External Links Genome type Sequencing Status IMG Release Comment Release Date Add Date Modified Date Obsolete Flag Is Public Bins (of Scaffolds) Project Information GOLD ID NCBI Project ID Publication Journal Isolation Country Isolation Year Geographic Location Project Location (Longitude) Project Location (Latitude) Project Geographical Map Funding Agency Sequencing Center Metadata Isolation Temperature Optimum pH Phenotype Disease Relevance Habitat
Acid Mine Drainage
Method : tetra
        Thermoplasmatales archaeon Gpl  ( 410 )
        Leptospirillum sp. Group II  ( 70 )
        Leptospirillum sp. Group III  ( 474 )
        Ferroplasma acidarmanus Type I  ( 170 )
        Ferroplasma acidarmanus Type II  ( 59 )
Nature (428, 37-43)
Iron Mountain California

"Iron Mountain California
"); GEvent.addListener(gmarker, "click", function() { gmarker.openInfoWindowHtml("Iron Mountain California
"); }); } //
DOE Joint Genome Institute, Univ of California, Berkeley
Richmond mine at Iron Mountain California
Acidic, Metal tolerance, Pink biofilm
Biotechnological, Environmental
Acid mine, Biofilm, High metal concentration

Metagenome Statistics

Number % of Total DNA, total number of bases DNA scaffolds Genes total number COG clusters Pfam clusters TIGRfam clusters
10830886 100.00%
        DNA coding number of bases 8854527 81.75%
        DNA G+C number of bases 4696265 45.77% 1
1183 100.00%
        CRISPR Count 14
12820 100.00%
        Protein coding genes 12559 97.96%
        Pseudo Genes 0 0.00%
        RNA genes 261 2.04%
                rRNA genes 12 0.09%
                        5S rRNA 3 0.02%
                        16S rRNA 5 0.04%
                        18S rRNA 0 0.00%
                        23S rRNA 4 0.03%
                        28S rRNA 0 0.00%
                tRNA genes 249 1.94%
                Other RNA genes 0 0.00%
        Protein coding genes with function prediction 7172 55.94%
                without function prediction 5387 42.02%
        Protein coding genes connected to KEGG pathways 3 2430 18.95%
                not connected to KEGG pathways 10129 79.01%
        Protein coding genes connected to KEGG Orthology (KO) 3955 30.85%
                not connected to KEGG Orthology (KO) 8604 67.11%
        Protein coding genes connected to MetaCyc pathways 1384 10.80%
                not connected to MetaCyc pathways 11175 87.17%
        Protein coding genes connected to SwissProt Protein Product 0 0.00%
                not connected to SwissProt Protein Product 12559 97.96%
        Protein coding genes with enzymes 2297 17.92%
        w/o enzymes but with candidate KO based enzymes 0 0.00%
        Protein coding genes with COGs 3 7095 55.34%
                with Pfam 3 7265 56.67%
                with TIGRfam 3 2449 19.10%
                with IMG Terms 0 0.00%
                with IMG Pathways 0 0.00%
                with IMG Parts List 0 0.00%
                in internal clusters 7303 56.97%
        Fused Protein coding genes 0 0.00%
        Protein coding genes coding signal peptides 2189 17.07%
        Protein coding genes coding transmembrane proteins 2416 18.85%
        Obsolete Protein coding genes 0 0.00%
        Revised Protein coding genes 4 0.03%
        Genes with Proteomic data 0
1728 35.46%
1762 0.00%
1007 0.00%

Notes :

1 - GC percentage shown as count of G's and C's divided by a total number of G's, C's, A's, and T's.
      This is not necessarily synonymous with the total number of bases.
2 - Pseudogenes may also be counted as protein coding or RNA genes,
      so is not additive under total gene count.
3 - Graphical view available.

Phylogenetic Distribution of Genes

Phylogenetic Profiler

Genome Viewers

Compare Gene Annotations

Compare Gene Annotations

Gene annotation values are precomputed and stored in a tab delimited file
also viewable in Excel.

Download Gene Information

Download Gene Information

Gene information is precomputed and stored in a tab delimited file
also viewable in Excel.

Export Genome Data

Download sequences and gene information for this genome.

FASTA nucleic acid file for all scaffolds
FASTA amino acid file for all proteins
FASTA nucleic acid file for all genes
FASTA intergenic sequences
Tab delimited file for Excel with gene information


Protein Study Finds Clues to Microbes' Survival Techniques

May 5, 2005 ... Acidophilic microbes thrive in this biofilm growing inside an abandoned mine at Iron Mountain , Calif. The microbes' metabolism creates ... - Cached

Agenda 5 27 May 2010 Litigation filed against the Regional and/or ...

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. ... - Cached


Addressing Threats from Abandoned Mines in California Communities

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Effects to biota are often acute (fish kills). ? Effects to plants are long lasting (barren hill sides). Iron Mountain Mine , Shasta County ...

Natural Resource Restoration Plans, NOAA Office of the General Counsel

Apr 21, 2010 ... Iron Mountain Mine Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council. 2000. Final Restoration Plan for Natural Resource Injuries From Iron Mountain Mine . ... - Cached - Similar

Iron Mountain Mine Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council. 2000. Final Restoration Plan for Natural Resource Injuries From Iron Mountain Mine. Report of the Iron Mountain Mine Natural Resource Trustee Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), California Department of Fish and Game, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Copies may be requested from: Eva Grey, USBR. [Southwest DARRP web site.]


The EPA listed Iron Mountain Mine as a federal Superfund site in 1983, ... Additional information on Iron Mountain Mine is available on the Web at ... 6d8c6077be9d48d68525697d005f3ad3!OpenDocument&Start=1&

RODS Abstract Information - Superfund Information Systems - EPA ...

The Iron Mountain Mine site includes mining property on the topographic ... Iron Mountain Mines , Inc. (IMMI) acquired a majority of the parcels to the mine ... - Cached



Iron Mountain, Redding CA - Bench Testing / Site Evaluation

Iron Mountain Mine had the distinction of being the largest generator of metal contaminants into a drinking water supply in the United States. The varying volume of AMD flowing from Iron Mountain Mine ranges between 150 gpm in the summer to over 1200 gpm during periods of heavy precipitation.

On this site, acid water draining from the underground workings within the massive sulfide ore bodies and mine waste dump are creating a monumental problem. Iron Mountain Mine contains many miles of tunnels and stopes containing millions of gallons of AMD. In the lower levels the AMD is under several hundred pounds of pressure and heat is being generated, assisting the normal chemical processes of breaking down the sulfide ores. This is creating a very concentrated AMD. One AMD source is generating an effluent that measures a pH of -3.6.

This site has been an EPA Super Fund Site for many years. A decision was made to treat the AMD at Iron Mountain with lime; first, a single lime and, second, a dual lime system. By EPA estimates the amount of metal leaving the discharge stream from the site has been reduced by 95%.

The volume of toxic sludge created by this double liming process is almost unimaginable. HPT has repeatedly attempted to obtain actual AMD treatment, sludge handling and storage costs at this site but neither EPA nor the Principal Responsible Party has been forthcoming with any financial information. The only information available at this point is the amount of sludge being generated and the cost of handling the volume of sludge are considerably higher than had been anticipated.

Major Treatment Problems Associated With Iron Mountain Mine AMD

The plant mix at Iron Mountain Mine is unusually high in copper (over 185,000 PPB).

The copper present is in both of its naturally occurring ionic states: Cu+1 and Cu+2 with most of it in the Cu+1 state. Copper in the +2 state can be easily removed by addition of a lime Ca (OH) 2. The addition of CA (OH)2 starts a two-phase reaction: first, neutralization of the acid (H+) by it's association with the hydroxides (+OH-) =>H2O creating water, and second, the copper +2 is hydrolyzed to form insoluble copper hydroxide Cu (OH)2 that will precipitate. The calcium in the lime reacts with the sulfates (SO4) and forms CaSO4 (calcium sulfate) in large quantities. The treated AMD is now free of copper +2. However, some copper +1 is still in solution as Cu OH, or precipitated as an unstable hydroxide. When the pH is raised above 7.5, the copper +1 hydroxide will re-dissolve, re-contaminating the treated AMD with copper that may/will exceed discharge standards.

Tests done at Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL) showed the Iron Mountain Mine plant mix had an arsenic level of >17.5 PPM, a manganese level of >4.7 PPM and a cadmium level of >13 PPM.

Because of the high pH necessary to remove these metals it was necessary to change the initial single lime treatment to a much more expensive double liming system.

The use of both slack lime Ca(OH)2 and quicklime (CaO) make the process very labor intensive. The process has to be monitored extensively because mine run lime varies considerably in solubility and the amount of inert materials in each batch.

For AMD sites that require the pH to be raised only to 7.0 or slightly above, this can be easily accomplished with common slack lime Ca(OH)2. If the AMD contains metals that require a higher pH the more active quick lime (CaO) must be used.

The use of this double liming process has serious financial consequences. The amount of sludge generated can be double or triple what a single lime process generates. The second problem is that quick lime is very corrosive. Employees must use both breathing protection equipment as well as protective clothing. Quick lime is also very hard to store and has a tendency to absorb moisture from the air and this moisture oxidizes the quick lime into slack lime and usually turns it into a concrete like material making it hard to dispense.

Lastly, any treated AMD that has a final pH above 9.0 will have to use some sort of pH control chemical to reduce the pH below the 9.0 discharge specification usually weak hydrochloric acid.

Use of the Proprietary AMD Systems on the Iron Mountain Plant Mix AMD

This AMD also contained high levels of arsenic, cadmium and manganese. By using the ISM pretreatment system these metals were oxidized or reduced so that they could all be precipitated at a pH below 9.0.

The testing by LLNL proved our AMD process had successfully reduced the arsenic from 2600 parts per billion to 11 parts per billion.

The cadmium and manganese were also significantly reduced. Starting cadmium levels were 4670 parts per billion and after treatment it was non-detectable or below 10 parts per billion. The manganese was reduced from 13,000 parts per billion to less than 90 parts per billion.

The treated AMD was demetalized but was still very high residual sulfate level (over 60,000 parts per million). The sulfates were reduced with lime, creating a metal free calcium sulfate. During the LLNL tests, an agricultural grade of calcium hydroxide and some unknown calcium material was used to reduce the sulfate levels. This material successfully reduced the sulfates to 147 PPM from 35,700 PPM. We have never been able to duplicate this level of sulfate reduction by this method.


1. Although the majority confusingly states that "we join the other circuits that measure delay from when the movant was on notice that its interests may not be protected by a party already in the case," Maj. at 18 (emphasis added), the majority's application of this standard correctly measures delay from when the Nation could no longer reasonably believe its interests were adequately represented. See Maj. at 21 ("The Nation could never have reasonably thought that the state was representing the Nation's interests in recovering its damages.").

2. I express no view on whether the district court properly resolved Tyson's Rule 19 motion. Rather, I only point out that until that motion was resolved, the Nation could have reasonably believed that the district court would adopt the position of Coeur D'Alene II rather than the position of Coeur D'Alene I regarding the CERCLA trustee issue.




Shasta County , by M. E. Dittmar, Redding , California .

"The best foundation for communal prosperity is diversity of resource. A diversity of soil and climate assure a variety of agricultural, horticultural and pomological products. A diversity of industrial raw materials and forest resources invites industrial expansion. When a community embraces these, with a superabundance of water for power and irrigation, it offers a combination of advantages, rarely equalled (sic) and never excelled. These are the advantages that Shasta County at the extreme head of the Sacramento Valley possesses.

"In area Shasta is the largest geographical subdivision of the Sacramento River drainage, embracing 4,050 square miles within its borders - the States of Rhode Island and Delaware could be included in this area and leave a surplus of over 750 square miles.

"The increasing importance of irrigation as an aid to intensive agriculture, speeding up the soil, is generally recognized. As compared with dry farming and cereal crops exclusively, intensive agriculture, fruitgrowing (sic) and diversified husbandry, has increased the annual net profit from the soil many fold. In the last analysis, water on the land is as a rule more valuable than the land itself.

"According to official daily gauging records, the average annual run-off, originating within the limits of Shasta County , is 8,100,000 acre feet - a valuable irrigation and power asset.

"Over one-sixth of the potential water-power energy of California exists within the border of Shasta County . The development of cheap and convenient power means industrial development. Water, for power and for irrigation, is the 'open sesame' of Shasta's future.

"To utilize the power, Shasta has industrial raw materials to attract giants of capital and industry. The industrial metals, copper, iron and zinc, already highly developed and of the first magnitude in quantity; cement materials and great beds of fine quality clays; the elements essential for the manufacture of commercial fertilizers, on a scale to supply the greater part of the North American continent with calcium nitrates - destined to entirely supersede the sodium nitrates of Chile; hardwood timber for the manufacture of furniture, and vast forests of commercial pine and fir for the lumberman - containing over 5,250,000,000 feet (board measure) standing commercial timber.

"These resources represent the foundation for an industrial community that cannot be equalled (sic) for diversity, quantity and general advantages, within a like area anywhere in the United States .

In metal mining, Shasta has been in a class by itself, leading all other countries in California for the past eighteen years. The official statistics from 1897 - the year when her great sulphide ore bodies were first exploited - to 1914 (last year estimated) credit the county with a total output of $99,144,777, or an average of over $5,508,000 per year.

"More than two thousand men find employment at good wages, all the year round, in this great industry, and approximately $3,000,000 per annum are paid out within the borders of the county for wages and supplies.

"The great industrial metal, copper, is next to iron in importance, in the work of the world. In the past eighteen years Shasta has produced 488,211,278 pounds of this metal.

"To Shasta County is due the credit of the first important development on the Pacific Coast , in the production of iron ore, and the manufacture of pigiron by means of the electric furnace.

"The electric furnaces at Heroult have also been utilized in the manufacture of ferro-manganese, for the steel plants of the eastern portion of the United States . Here are grouped the iron ores, the elements essential in the manufacture of special steel, and a million horsepower of potential energy - the basis for the upbuilding of another Pittsburgh.

"In emphasizing the industrial present and future of Shasta County, we wish to make its importance apparent from the 'home market' viewpoint, with thousands of consumers finding remunerative and continuous occupation the producer has an advantage not frequently enjoyed, and this is particularly true where intensive cultivation is practiced, on smaller land holdings.

Deciduous fruit is grown on an extensive scale in the lower valleys and foothills. The culture of the prune is predominant, with peaches and pears a close second.

"The olive, one of the most stable orchard products, has demonstrated its superiority in Shasta County . Hundreds of contiguous acres are now planted to olive groves, and one of the largest groves in the State, containing 120 acres, planted more than twenty years ago, is also one of the most prolific in the State.

"The vine, in these higher but still semi-tropic latitudes, during the long sunny summer days, stores larger percentages of sugar in the grape - an advantage that will appeal to the viticulturist.

"No climatic reason exists why oranges should not be grown successfully, as the isothermal zone of the Central California valleys extends to the vicinity of Redding . Trees a score of years old or more, planted chiefly for ornamental purposes, attest the feasibility of citrus culture.

"Cereals of all kinds are grown in the main valley - especially in the Church Creek Bottoms - and in the mountain valleys of northeastern Shasta. A greater area is being devoted from year to year, to alfalfa, with the increase of irrigation - although three crops are usually cut without irrigation - and dairying and stock-raising are on the increase.

"The stock-grower, except where stock is wintered in the higher altitudes, does little winter feeding, utilizing instead a combination of summer and winter range, made possibly by the varying altitudes and the vast acreage of public domain in the forest reserves.

" Shasta County contains a number of thriving cities and towns. Redding is the county seat, a beautifully located city of about four thousand people (circa 1915), at the extreme head of the Sacramento Valley , where mountain and vale meet. It is the natural distributing center for a large area of Northern California, the center of industrial development, with large and prosperous business houses, excellent hotels, etc., up-to-date schools including the Shasta County high school, churches of various denominations, and all the more prominent fraternal organizations.

"The thriving towns of Anderson and Cottonwood are the chief fruit centers of Shasta, and thousands of tons of fruit, as well as agricultural products and livestock, are shipped annually from these points.

"Kennett is the center of smelting activity, and is an important industrial city of over two thousand people.

"Other towns of importance are Fall River and McArthur, in northeastern Shasta; Castella, La Moine and Delta, in the Sacramento Canyon ; De Lamar, French Gulch, the old pioneer county seat of Shasta, Coram and Keswick, in the mining districts; Millville and Ono represent smaller agricultural and stock-raising communities.

"The County is traversed by many good roads, and the streams are bridged with creditable permanent structures. The California State Highway is under construction, through the heart of Shasta, and State Highway laterals, into Trinity County to the west, connecting with the main trunk road at Redding , have been provided for.

"Shasta has excellent main line railroad facilities, with expansion in feeders and other main line construction assured in the near future.

"The beautiful in nature is blended with the utilitarian, in Shasta County . In the Shasta Canyon , enchanting vistas of Mount Shasta and the stately domes and spires of the Castle Crags offer an ever-changing panorama of indescribable grandeur, through verdant mountain recesses cut by the crystal river.

"The beautiful McCloud in all its pristine glory, where the gamey trout abounds, and the timid doe or stately buck emerges from their leafy lanes along the river's brink or mountain glades. The rugged gorges of the Pit, where masjesty (sic) and power impress the visitor. Beautiful Burney, the misty mistic (sic) falls that tumble over lava cliffs a hundred feet and more, to greet the onrush of the river - all these inspire.

"But nature, not content with her lavish bestowal of the majestic and beautiful, assays a new wonder - the awe-inspiring eruption of Mount Lassen . In a region of fantastic natural features, the mountain long quiescent now holds the center of the stage. Unique, as the only active crater in continental United States - remote from centers of population, that the release of its pent-up energies may fall harmless - it presents a spectacular climax in its periodical eruptions, forcing a mighty column of steam and volcanic ejecta, two miles and more in the air. This is Shasta's exclusive wonder, though visible for a hundred miles, and Congress recognizes its attractive powers by proposing to establish here the Lassen Volcanic National Park . The Lassen Trail Highway to Manzanita Lake , five miles from the crater summit, presents a route of easy access for the automobilist. The nature lover will find the lure of Shasta's natural wonders an inspirational revelation.

"The development of the manifold resources of Shasta County assures her a great future -

"The door of opportunity stands ajar.
Industrial opportunity for capital.
Land at reasonable prices for the home-seeker.
Delightful climate, and magnificent scenery.
The foundation of prosperity is secure.

"(Note. - For more detailed information, send for booklet on Shasta County , California , free, address Shasta County Promotion and Development Association, Redding , California . Or during the Fair at Shasta headquarters, California State Palace , P.P.I.E.)"

Shasta County Mineral Industry (circa 1919) – Excerpt from California Mineral Production for 1919, Bulletin No. 88 , by Walter W. Bradley, California State Mining Bureau, 1920, pp. 165.

Area: 3,858.
Population: 13,311 (1920 census)
Location: North-central portion of state.

" Shasta County stood eleventh in California among the mineral-producing counties for 1919, with an output valued at $2,912,718, as compared with the 1918 production worth $8,098,671. The marked decrease both in 1918 and 1919 was due to the falling off in the output of copper, the large plants of the Mammoth and Mountain copper companies being shut down most of the year. Not taking petroleum into account, Shasta for a number of years lead (sic) all of the counties by a wide margin; but in 1919 was passed by San Bernardino , Yuba, Amador, and Nevada among the 'metal' counties.

"Shasta's mineral resources include: Asbestos, barytes, brick, chromite, coal, copper, gold, iron, lead, lime, limestone, mineral water, molybdenum, pyrite, silver, soapstone, miscellaneous stone, and zinc.

"Lassen Peak is located in southeastern Shasta County

"Commercial production for 1919 was as follows:

(Headings for the information below are: Substance, Amount, and Value.)

Copper, 8,673,342 lbs., $1,613,242
Gold, ---, $425,000 (estimated)
Lime and limestone, ---, $29,100
Platinum, 121 oz., $21,075
Pyrite, 138,046 tons, $497,398
Silver,---, $155,000 (estimated)
Stone, miscellaneous, ---, $31,750
Other minerals,* ---, $40,153
(Total value) $2,912,718

(* Includes barytes, brick, iron ore, lead, mineral water, and zinc.)

CAL. HSC. CODE § 25375.5 : California Code - Section 25375.5

(a) Except as specified in subdivision (b), the procedures specified in Article 8 (commencing with Section 11435.05) of Chapter 4.5 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, and in Section 11513 of, the Government Code apply to the proceedings conducted by the board pursuant to this article.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), Sections 801, 802, 803, 804, and 805 of the Evidence Code apply to the proceedings conducted by the board pursuant to this article.

(c) The board may consider evidence presented by any person against whom a demand was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25372. The evidence presented by that person shall become a part of the record upon which the board's decision shall be based.

Nothing in this article shall require, or be deemed to require, pursuit of any claim against the board as a condition precedent to any other remedy.

(a) Compensation of any loss pursuant to this article shall preclude indemnification or reimbursement from any other source for the identical loss, and indemnification or reimbursement from any other source shall preclude compensation pursuant to this article.

(b) If a claimant recovers any compensation from a party in a civil or administrative action for a loss for which the claimant has received compensation pursuant to this article, the claimant shall reimburse the state account in an amount equal to the compensation which the claimant has received from the state account pursuant to this article. The Attorney General may bring an action against the claimant to recover the amount which the claimant is required to reimburse the state account, and until the account is reimbursed, the state shall have a lien of first priority on the judgment or award recovered by the claimant. If the state account is reimbursed pursuant to this subdivision, the state shall not acquire, by subrogation, the claimant's rights pursuant to Section 25380.

(c) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the purpose of this section to prevent double recovery for a loss compensable pursuant to this article.

Compensation of any loss pursuant to this article shall be subject to the state's acquiring, by subrogation, all rights of the claimant to recover the loss from the party determined to be liable therefor. Upon the request of the board, the Attorney General shall commence an action in the name of the people of the State of California to recover any amount paid in compensation for any loss pursuant to this article against any party who is liable to the claimant for any loss compensable pursuant to this article in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 25360 to 25364, inclusive. Moneys recovered pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the state account.

(a) The board shall, in consultation with the department, adopt, and revise when appropriate, all rules and regulations necessary to implement this article, including methods that provide for establishing that a claimant has exercised reasonable diligence in satisfying the conditions specified in Sections 25372, 25373, 25375, and 25375.5, and regulations that specify the proof necessary to establish a loss compensable pursuant to this article.

(b) Claims approved by the board pursuant to this article shall be paid from the state account.

(c) The Legislature may appropriate up to two million dollars ($2,000,000) annually from the state account to be used by the board for the payment of awards pursuant to this article.

(d) Claims against or presented to the board shall not be paid in excess of the amount of money appropriated for this purpose from the state account. These claims shall be paid only when additional money is collected, appropriated, or otherwise added to that account.



Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice for the Public Review of the Draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay

AIG Announces Plan to Repay U.S. Government

October 06, 2010 | Insurance Business Weekly

American International Group Inc. (AIG) announced that it has entered into an agreement-in-principle with the U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury), the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), and the AIG Credit Facility Trust (the Trust) designed to repay all its obligations to American taxpayers and position AIG as strong, independent, and worthy of investor confidence.

"This is a pivotal milestone as we deliver on our long-standing promise to repay taxpayers, and we thank the American people for their support," said Robert H. Benmosche, AIG President and Chief Executive Officer. "We are very pleased that this agreement vastly simplifies current government support of AIG, sets forth a clear path for AIG to repay the FRBNY in full, and sets in motion the steps for the U.S. Treasury to exit its ownership of AIG over time.

"With this plan, we remain on track to emerge with one of the largest, most diversified property and casualty companies in the world, a leading U.S. life insurance and retirement savings operation, and other businesses that enhance this nucleus. As our results this year underscore, AIG's core businesses are financially strong, well-managed enterprises that are well-positioned to deliver long-term value to all of our stakeholders. With this plan underway, we can concentrate our full attention on managing our businesses for the benefit of all of our stakeholders," Mr. Benmosche said.


EPA mandate could cost taxpayers billions

By Jon Campbell • • October 2, 2010, 5:36 pm

"We don't feel the EPA's limits are achievable by any means," said Chip McElwee, executive director of the Broome County Soil & Water Conservation District. "You could take the sewage treatment plants off line, we could go live in the woods, and then eliminate half of our farms; that's how you would have to get there."

McElwee is not alone in his beliefs. A number of local and state sewage and farm representatives say the EPA's plan has the potential to cause incredibly difficult economic conditions.

"The missile is pointed right at the Southern Tier counties," said Dean Norton, president of the New York Farm Bureau. "We need to try and do everything we can to try to slow this down and try to change it."


“The law assumes that property is always in the possession of its owner ….” Pennoyer v. Neff , 95 U.S. (5 Otto) 714, 727 (1877)





Public Health Goal
A revised PHG of 300 ^g/L was developed for copper in drinking water, based on a review 1
of the scientific literature since the original PHG, in 1997 (OEHHA, 2008). Copper is an
essential nutiient in humans, and has not been shown to be carcinogenic in animals or
humans. However, young children, and infants in particular, appear to be especially
susceptible to the effects of excess copper.
The revised PHG of 300 pig/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable
numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life

(see Table 1). Therefore, the revised PHG for copper wUl have no impact on the
protectiveness of the remedies originally selected in the RODs for IMM.

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)


Vitamin Firms Settle U.S. Charges, Agree to Pay $725 Million in Fines


WASHINGTON -- The world's two biggest vitamin makers agreed to pay a total of $725 million to settle Justice Department charges that they and other manufacturers engaged in a massive price-fixing conspiracy that inflated the cost of everything from breakfast cereal to hamburgers over the past decade.

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., a unit of the Swiss drug giant Roche Holding AG that has 40% of the global human and animal vitamin market, agreed in U.S. District Court in Dallas to pay a record $500 million fine and plead guilty as part of the settlement. BASF AG, a major German chemical maker that has 20% of the market, will pay $225 million and enter a guilty plea as well.

Rhone-Poulenc SA of France, the world's third-biggest vitamin maker with 15% market share, also participated in the price-fixing ring. But the company began cooperating with federal investigators a few months ago under an amnesty program and helped make the case against its co-conspirators, U.S. officials said.

Members of the ring, including Rhone-Poulenc, also face potentially massive damage claims in 25 private lawsuits now pending in four federal courts. The suits were brought by livestock farmers and other purchasers of bulk vitamins who allege they were forced to pay illegally inflated prices. The first of these cases was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in March 1998.

Wide Effect Cited

The cartel "is the most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy ever uncovered," declared Joel Klein, chief of the Justice Department's antitrust division. The price-fixing ring "hurt the pocketbook of virtually every American consumer, anyone who took a vitamin, drank a glass of milk, or had a bowl of cereal," he said.

Increasingly Painful Penalties

10 largest fines secured by the U.S. Justice Department in antitrust cases.



Roche Holding $500 1999 Vitamins
BASF 225 1999 Vitamins
SGL Carbon 135 1999 Electricity conductors
Ucar International 110 1998 Electricity conductors
Archers Daniels Midland 100 1996 Feed supplements, food additives
Bayer 50 1997 Food additives
HeereMac 49 1997 Offshore oil and gas construction services
Showa Denko Carbon 33 1998 Electricity conductors
Fujisawa Pharmaceutical 20 1998 Industrial cleaners
Dockwise 16 1997 Offshore oil and gas construction, transportation


Appeals Court To Hear PwC, AIG Negligence Claim 

A New York state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments on Sept. 14 that American International Group's (AIG) auditor failed to unearth the alleged fraud the company perpetrated and should be held liable for it.

In the case, a Delaware court threw out a suit, Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana v. American International Group, because it was determined that AIG employees committed the fraud and the auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers should not be held negligent for failing to identify the fraud.

However, the Delaware court passed the issue of auditor liability to the New York Court of Appeals to resolve questions in that state's law over whether professional malpractice/negligence suits are barred against an auditing firm under the doctrine of “in pari delicto” or at mutual fault.

The Delaware court asked the New York court to decide if a suit can be brought against an auditing firm that was not a participant in the corporation's fraud but failed “to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements.”

The Supreme Court of Delaware said it would take no further action until after the New York court makes a decision.

The questions stem from illegal accounting actions taken by AIG dating back to 1999, including the company's sham reinsurance contract with Gen Re to cover-up company losses.

Stuart Grant, with the law firm Grant & Eisenhofer, will be representing the plaintiffs in the case.

  SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians claim the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by failing to ensure that six states meet national air quality standards. And the EPA failed to take final action on clean-air plans submitted by 13 other states and the District of Columbia, according to the federal complaint.
      The EPA found in 2008 that six states and three U.S. territories failed to submit implementation plans for National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and failed to issue federal implementation plans for North Dakota, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, the environmental groups say.
And the EPA never took final action on plans submitted by Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and West Virginia.
      EPA approvals are required under to Clean Air Act, to limit levels of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, lead and ozone.
      The groups ask the court to order the EPA to implement the "long-overdue" standards under the Clean Air Act.
      They are represented by Kristin Henry with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program in San Francisco.


In  Hilao , the Ninth Circuit recognized that “serious questions” as to whether this method comported with due process, but nonetheless concluded that due process was provided.  Id. (citing Hilao, 103 F.3d at 786). “The defendant's interest was in the aggregate amount of damages; thus, provided that the average was properly calculated, it was of no consequence to defendant that some plaintiffs would have been entitled, in individual adjudications, to more or less than this average.”  Id. (citing  Hilao , 103 F.3d at 786). The Ninth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had an “enormous” interest in the use of averages since individual adjudications were infeasible; and the Hilao court concluded that balancing these interests under  Connecticut v. Doehr , 501 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1991) and  Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the method did not offend the Due Process clause.  Id.

The court in  Adoma cited the Ninth Circuit's recent en banc opinion in  Dukes v. Wal-Mart , affirming the continuing validity of  Hilao . Dukes v. Wal-Mart , 603 F.3d at 625-27:

Id. *7.

The court concluded that “the types of arguments are common to all class members” and that “ Hilao appears to permit a representative inquiry to determine the magnitude of these effects, and at this stage, the court cannot distinguish Hilao.”  Id. *8.  The court also found that the “question of whether the Avaya system gave defendants at least constructive knowledge of the employee overtime is a common question.”  Thus it concluded that common questions predominate.


The court thus granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, defining the classes as follows:

Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Program

With over 20,000 communities in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), there is a significant challenge keeping flood hazard maps current. The CTP Program is an innovative approach to creating partnerships between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and participating NFIP communities, regional agencies, State agencies, tribes, and universities that have the interest and capability to become more active participants in the FEMA flood hazard mapping program.

FEMA is seeking qualified Partners to collaborate in maintaining up-to-date flood hazard maps and other flood hazard information. For more information about the CTP Program including a tool for determining whether the CTP Program is right for your community, agency, tribe, or university, as well as information on who to contact to discuss participation, please visit one of the referenced links on the right-hand side of this page.

Structure of Cooperative Utility Model
One model for replacing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that has so far received frequent
mention but little sustained analysis is the lender cooperative utility. Yet while each different model
for a successor to the GSEs has its own strengths and weaknesses, a private lender cooperative
utility may provide the best overall solution based on the design principles listed earlier. Under this
model, securitization would be carried out by a mortgage securitization cooperative that would be
mutually owned by a membership consisting of financial institutions engaged in residential mortgage
lending. Cooperative or mutual structures have existed for more than a century in the U.S. financial
system, ranging from clearing houses (e.g. CME until 2000, DTC, CLS, ICE Trust), banking (e.g.
mutual savings banks, credit unions and the FHLB system) and agricultural finance (e.g. the Farm
Credit System). The main goal of a cooperative is to provide services to its members


The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle him in the web of the law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient ad homines, at least. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jew, inculcated in him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity . . . Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Daemon. - Thomas Jefferson


Withdrawal of Proposed Rules; Discontinuing Rulemaking Efforts Listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions


Stacy Kika




September 15, 2010

EPA to Transition Climate Leaders Program

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will phase down services the agency offers under its Climate Leaders program over the coming year and encourage participating companies to transition to state or non-governmental programs. Factoring into the agency's plans for the program are the many new developments in regulatory and voluntary programs that address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the first-ever mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule that took effect on January 1, 2010. In addition, several states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) now offer climate programs that are now robust enough to serve companies in the Climate Leaders program.

As EPA phases down services the agency provides under the program – including technical assistance and setting greenhouse gas reduction goals – the agency will also take steps to assist the transition of the partners into non-federal programs that will allow them to go above and beyond mandatory reporting requirements to meet their goals. The agency will work with these programs to continue to stay involved in important initiatives related to corporate greenhouse gas accounting and to support companies' actions to reduce their GHG emissions, in particular through other EPA programs such as Energy Star and the Green Power Partnership. The agency will also seek new ways to promote, support and recognize climate leadership.

EPA is confident that this transition will allow the agency to realign resources to better assist companies in learning from the emissions data collected under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. This data will facilitate the exchange and application of best practices and innovative technologies across a wide range of industries. EPA's other voluntary programs will remain in place and continue to work with partner organizations to reduce emissions and increase sustainability.

Climate Leaders was started in 2002 as a voluntary program for organizations to complete a corporate-wide greenhouse gas inventory, set a reduction goal and meet that goal.

Cathy Milbourn

September 15, 2010

EPA Proceeds with Enhancements to its Financial Systems

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that it has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to proceed with enhancements to the agency's financial system. The project aims to improve the way EPA manages its business while ensuring accountability and financial controls.

“I'm pleased with the outcome of our OMB review,” said Barbara Bennett, EPA's Chief Financial Officer. “Our new approach makes good business sense and allows us to focus our efforts and better plan future project management.”

In June 2010, OMB issued guidance requiring the immediate review of financial systems information technology projects across the federal government. The guidance required federal agencies to split projects into smaller, simpler segments with clear deliverables, focus on the most critical business needs first, and incorporate ongoing, transparent project oversight.

In response, EPA designed a new phase-based approach to reach the goal of modernizing its financial system. Rather than implementing the entire project all at once, EPA will proceed with the first phase of the project and will make individual determinations about subsequent phases of the project based on factors such as business requirements and newly available technologies. The subsequent phases were projected to cost more than $180 million.

With joint oversight from EPA's chief financial officer and chief information officer, the approach will help to ensure the project's success. It also provides a more flexible platform to continue to implement improvements incrementally, delivering project value to agency operations sooner.

Jalil Isa

15 de septiembre de 2010

Representantes de 36 gobiernos se reúnen en México. Agenda: reducir gases de efecto invernadero y energía limpia

Administradora Lisa P. Jackson y Ministros adelantan la cooperación para la reducción de metano

La Administradora Lisa P. Jackson de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE.UU. (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés) se unirá a los ministros de los países que forman la Asociación de Metano al Mercado (Methane to Markets ). Esta reunión se dará lugar el 1 de octubre en la Ciudad de México. Durante la reunión, EE.UU. colaborará con otros países socios para promover acción global con el objetivo de reducir las fuentes de emisiones de metano y para identificar recursos adicionales para alcanzar esta meta. El metano es un gas de efecto invernadero (GHG) que es 20 veces más potente que el dióxido de carbono en su capacidad de calentar la atmósfera.

“Con el metano y otros contaminantes dañando la atmósfera del planeta, es una prioridad doméstica e internacional, la cual requerirá la ayuda de todos los países para hacerle frente al cambio de clima y para lograr mejorar la calidad de aire,” dijo la Administradora Lisa P. Jackson. “La asociación de Metano al Mercado ha gozado de tremendos logros en este esfuerzo. Estoy animada a participar en nuestra reunión en octubre al igual que continuar nuestra labor para que juntos podamos reducir las emisiones de metano a nivel mundial.”

La reunión, en la cual EPA y la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de México servirán de anfitriones, también celebrará los logros de la asociación. Éstos incluyen el apoyo de más de 300 proyectos para la reducción de emisiones de metano por todo el mundo. Los proyectos, cuando estén completos, ayudarán reducir las emisiones de GHG en una cantidad equivalente a lo que emiten 11.4 millones de automóviles anualmente. Se espera que los ministros reafirmen sus compromisos a tomar fuertes medidas de acción mundial para combatir el metano durante cinco años más.

La Asociación de Metano al Mercado reduce las emisiones de GHG promoviendo la recuperación y el uso de metano de manera eficiente a través de proyectos globales. Dichos proyectos también son importantes porque proveen nuevas fuentes de energía limpia, a la vez que mejoran la calidad del aire y agua. Desde el 2004, la asociación ha resultado ser uno de los esfuerzos internacionales más efectivos para la reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. La asociación ha crecido de 14 a 36 países socios los cuales representan el 70 por ciento de las emisiones de metano alrededor del mundo. Más de 1,000 organizaciones del sector privado y público también se han unido hasta la fecha.

La asociación ha contado con casi $360 millones en inversiones de compañías privadas e instituciones financieras. EPA estima que si la tecnología actualmente disponible para llevar a cabo la reducción de metano se implementa completamente alrededor del mundo, la reducción de emisiones anuales de GHG en una cantidad equivalente a 280 millones de autos pudiera lograrse para el año 2020 a un costo relativamente bajo.

Más información de la asociación:

Más información sobre las prioridades internacionales de EPA (en inglés):

You are subscribed to HQ: International News Releases for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This information has recently been updated, and is now available .

U.S. Department of Justice
and the
Federal Trade Commission
Issued: August 19, 2010


Where Are the AIG Dividends?


NMA seeks court order barring EPA mining policy


DOE Plays Matchmaker for 'Green' Technologies Ready for ...
By Environmental Leader
If you're an investor, entrepreneur or any business looking for innovative energy-efficiency and renewable energy technologies, the US Department of Energy ( DOE ) is now hosting a Technology Commercialization Portal that houses...

"The second green revolution"


This strategy is by no means the end of the discussion; it is the beginning of a more meaningful conversation with our watershed partners and the first step together on a new path towards more sustainable and safe watersheds and communities.



The purpose outlined in the SWR—drinkable water—is not new . In fact, this strategy is about how we can achieve a leap forward in our nation's watersheds to realize this purpose.

Eastern District Holds That Plaintiffs May Rely on a “Few Representative Inquiries” and Extrapolate to the Class

In 23(b)(1) , 23(b)(3) Class , CAFA , Certification , Extrapolation on September 6, 2010 at 2:17 am

The first step is to improve transparency. Americans have a right to know how their government is doing in enforcing laws to protect the nation's water, and government has an obligation to clearly inform the public about water quality and our actions to protect it. An informed public is our best ally in pressing for better compliance. Therefore I am directing you to improve and enhance information that is available through the EPA web site on compliance with the Clean Water Act and the level of enforcement activity in each state, showing connections where possible to local water quality. This information should be user-friendly and provide a way to look at performance of individual businesses as well as state and national performance. State-by-state performance reports that have already been released under the Freedom of Information Act should also be posted to the web, together with tools to analyze the data EPA prepared for those reports.

Second, we need to raise the bar for clean water enforcement performance. We must make sure that strong and effective action is taken when serious violations of law threaten water quality, and we must boost EPA's enforcement presence against serious violators, recognizing that authorized states have the first opportunity to act. EPA must also improve its own enforcement performance in states where EPA directly implements the clean water program. And we must assure that we are doing the work that is most important to clean up our nation's waters. Because EPA and the states face significant and competing demands for resources, we need to place a high priority on the problems that have the biggest impact on water quality, such as wet weather pollution, which are not currently well represented in the information we have on Clean Water Act compliance.

Third, we need to move EPA's information technology into the 21st century. We need to transform EPA to be not only a collector and disseminator of information but an analytical resource that can present information in a form that is easily understood and useable by the public. We have seen that when information is made public, it can be a powerful tool to help improve the environment directly. We need to launch into a major shift of EPA's Clean Water Act information systems – so that data on both facilities' discharges and compliance and water quality and other environmental conditions will be readily available and transparent to both federal and state regulators and the public, over the web, on a real-time basis.

So that we can identify the concrete steps that EPA should take to accomplish these goals, I am directing you to work with the Office of Water to develop an action plan to further enhance public transparency regarding EPA and state Clean Water Act enforcement program performance, to strengthen that performance, and to transform our water quality and compliance information systems. A critical part of this process should be close consultation with EPA Regional Offices and with states, including the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). You should gather the best ideas from the states and regions, as well as outside stakeholders, and report back to me within 90 days with your recommendations.

cc: Scott Fulton
Diane Thompson
Bob Sussman
Mike Shapiro
Assistant Administrators
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators


Enviros getting paid to go away - and the taxpayer and consumer get to pay again


Food Security Issues; Food Safety (Animal Agriculture); Farm Bill; and EPA Issues


The Army Corps of Engineers is putting solar panels on nine dams in California, and the Department of Homeland Security will include rain gardens and other green landscaping

AIG Derivative Suit Against Greenberg Settles for $90 Million

The Work

September 28, 2010 12:04 PM

"Granddaddy" of AIG Subprime Suit Goes On

Posted by Zach Lowe

Those folks wondering when company higher-ups are going to be punished for their roles in the economic collapse can take heart in one procedural victory: A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a shareholder suit accusing AIG and top executives of making false statements about the insurance giant's exposure to subprime mortgages, according to our colleague Andrew Longstreth at The Am Law Litigation Daily

Longstreth describes the case as "one of the granddaddies of pending subprime securities litigation" and reports Judge Laura Swain of federal court in Manhattan didn't buy AIG's argument that the company's public filings contained enough cautionary language about subprime exposure. AIG has turned to Weil, Gotshal & Manges for counsel in the case, and the company was quick to point out that Swain's ruling did not touch on the merits of the lawsuit, Longstreth reports. The company said it is confident Swain will find no evidence of fraud. 

A pile of other Am Law firms are representing various current and former AIG executives, outside directors, and other entities named in the case. The roster includes: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld , Latham & Watkins , Simpson Thacher & Barlett , Cravath, Swaine & Moore , and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher . The latter is advising Joseph Cassano, who headed up AIG's now-infamous financial products unit and is considered by many to be one of the villains of the financial implosion, the Lit Daily reports. 


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

DOE picks EPRI collaborative to lead cybersecurity project

admin | Tuesday, September 28th, 2010 | No Comments »

Palo Alto, Calif., September 27, 2010 — The Electric Power Research Institute said that the U.S. Department of Energy has selected its cybersecurity collaborative to assess and develop technologies, best practices, metrics and standards to protect the U.S. electric sector against cyber attacks.

The DOE 's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the collaborative will negotiate a funding level for the public-private research initiative.

The EPRI -led collaborative comprises national research and commercial research laboratories, universities and subject mater experts in key areas of cybersecurity .

The participants bring diverse experience in technology, business, standards and policy. It was among 10 cybersecurity initiatives representing an investment of more than $30 million that was announced in Washington, D.C. by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Among the collaboratives' tasks are: assessing requirements and results developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology , North American Electric Reliability Corp ., and other organizations; reviewing power system and cybersecurity standards in meeting power system security requirements; and, testing grid security technologies protocols using laboratories and pilot projects.

“It is essential that we protect the power system from cyber attacks,” said Arshad Mansoor, EPRI's vice president of Power Delivery and Utilization. “The goal is to create a system that enhances the national grid, and especially to buttress its security and integrity.”

The selection of the EPRI collaborative is part of a long-term program that will ultimately lead to the creation of a National Electric Sector Cyber Organization (NESCO).

This federal government-electric sector partnership will analyze the cybersecurity status of the nation's transmission and distribution systems as smart grid technologies are incorporated to enable a low-carbon future.

“The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) brings knowledge gained from six years of cybersecurity vulnerability assessments on grid architectures in the energy sector,” said Rita Wells, energy sector lead of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Defense Systems of the lab, a collaborative participant. “Emerging smart grid technologies are challenging traditional security and functional boundaries, and this is requiring us to pursue new approaches to cybersecurity.”

Up to $10 million is expected to be available over three years to establish NESCO, fund research and development, and set up administrative and operational functions. It is expected that NESCO will become self-sustaining within the three years, using key findings from the collaborative.

“This collaborative effort will play a critical role in addressing cybersecurity for the nation's grid”, said Sami Ayyorgun, senior scientist at Telcordia Technologies. “Our decades of experience in cybersecurity, communications and networking will be critical to the project's success.”

The EPRI-led collaborative comprises Enernex, Flowers CCS, Xanthus Consulting International, N-Dimension, Palo Alto Research Center, SRI, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Sandia National Lab, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Telcordia, University of Houston, Mladen Kezunovic (Texas AM University), University of Minnesota Smart Grid consortium (including Adventium Labs and Honeywell), UCLA, UC Berkeley, Inguardians, and Arc Technical. Siemens and ABB are serving in industry advisory role in the collaborative.

Article source:


Local Governments

Several local governments have developed local wetlands management plans. See the links for the following communities.



Special Publication 103 (Revised 1999): Mines and Mineral Producers Active in California (1997-
1998); by Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology in cooperation with
Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation

NCP, 40 CFR§300.435(f)(2), states, “A remedy becomes ‘operational and functional’ either one year after construction is complete, or when the remedy is determined concurrently by EPA and the State to be functioning properly and is performing as designed, whichever is earlier.




Iron Mountain Mine , Iron Mountain , Iron Mountain [town] , West Shasta Copper - Zinc District , Shasta Co. , California , USA

A Cu-Zn-Fe-Pt-Ti mine located in secs. 26, 27, 34 & 35, T33N, R6W, MDM, about 4 miles NNW of Keswick and 9½ miles NW of Redding.

Old Man ore body, Iron Mountain Mine , Iron Mountain , Iron Mountain [town] , West Shasta Copper - Zinc District , Shasta Co. , California , USA



Iron Mountain Mine, Ltd.

Producer in Shasta county in California, United States with commodity Iron

Ownership information

Type Owner Year
Owner-Operator Iron Mountain Mine, Ltd. 1989
Subject category Reference
Type Date Name Affiliation Comment
  23-NOV-1994   U.S. Bureau of Mines


Date and time this information drawn from the master database:
2010-08-18 13:14:48

Mineral Resources > Online Spatial Data > Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS)

Acid mine drainage biogeochemistry at Iron Mountain, California

The Richmond Mine at Iron Mountain, Shasta County, California, USA provides an excellent opportunity to study the chemical and biological controls on acid mine drainage (AMD) generation in situ , and to identify key factors controlling solution chemistry.



Since silica dissolves above about pH 10.7-11.0, silicates can ber prepared with organic bases. Merrill and Spencer reported the preparation of a number of water-soluble quaternary ammonium silicates by grinding silica gel with a solution of the free base. However, the compounds all appear to have a ratio of 2:1 when expressed by analogy with the alkali metal system.


Numerous metal polyamine silicate compositions can be formed with amines including copper, iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese, and molybdenum.


Humic acid from decaying vegetation is believed to have a structure related to fulvic acid, which has adjacent hydroxyl groups on an unsaturated six-membered carbon ring and forms chelates with silicon. The soluble chelate with ammonium humate has been used to supply silicon as a nutrient to rice plants, which require silicon for their structure.


(not for marijuana cultivation) no smoking

Symptoms of mineral deficiency in soil

Element Deficiency symptoms Probable cause and ordinary remedy
Nitrogen Growth is poor; shoots are short; leaves are small; and yellow brassicas turn pink then orange. Fruit or tubers
are small.
As an immediate booster, spray with diluted liquid
seaweed or fish fertiliser. Incorporate as much compost
and manure as possible.

Root development and flower bud formation are poor, and plants sometimes also show symptoms similar to that of nitrogen deficiency. Brown spots may appear on leaves, or leaf edges may turn brown. Fruit has an acid flavour. Bonemeal is rich in phosphorus. Incorporate 120 g per square metre before planting. The deficiency appears more often in acid soils.
Potassium Growth becomes stunted, and leaves turn a dull bluegreen, with browning at the leaf tips or leaf margins, or showing as blotches. Leaves of broad-leaved plants
curl downwards.
Most often seen on light, sandy soils. Comfrey tea is high in potassium; dilute 1 part tea to 15 parts water and apply to soil. Wood ash is high in potassium.
Magnesium Magnesium deficiency shows either as a loss of colour or as a mottling of red, orange, brown and purple tints. Excessive potash application may be responsible. Spray with a solution of Epsom salts (250 g in 12 litres water).
If liming soil, apply dolomite, which is rich in magnesium as well as calcium, or green sand.
Manganese Manganese deficiency occurs in sandy and alkaline soils, frequently in combination with iron defi ciency. Chlorosis (loss of colour) begins on older leaves. The leaves of green peas develop brown patches. Beetroot leaves have red-brown speckling. This is most evident in poorly drained soils. Lift beds to
improve drainage. Overliming can also be responsible. Never apply manganese to soils with a pH below 6.

Chlorosis (loss of colour) occurs on young shoot tips and leaves, while the veins remain green. Eventually, shoots die back. This condition usually occurs in alkaline soils,
which prevent plants from absorbing iron.
Sequestered iron (iron EDTA) used as a foliar spray produces rapid results. Check soil pH and acidify with sulphur and regular compost additions.
Boron The roots of beetroots, swedes and turnips turn brown. Cauliflower curds also turn brown. Brown cracks appear across the stalks of celery. Apple cores become ‘corky'. The growing points of plants die off. Mix 30 g borax with sand and disperse evenly over 18 square metres of soil. Or spray crops fortnightly with liquid seaweed fertiliser. Overliming can cause
this problem.

Leaves, particularly of broccoli and cauliflowers, develop a disorder known as whiptail. Leaves become distorted and shrink back to the midrib, giving a tail-like appearance. On tomatoes, leaves become mottled and roll forward. Apply ground dolomite to acidic soils. Add kelp meal to soil. For a short-term remedy, apply sodium molybdate at 30 g per 8 litres water. This will treat 8 square metres of soil.
Calcium This shows most commonly in tomatoes and capsicums as a darkened, shrivelled end on fruit. It also causes bitter pit in apples. Uneven soil moisture causes a failure of calcium uptake from the soil. This is particularly evident in pot-grown plants and in light soils. Water regularly. To add calcium,
incorporate crushed eggshells into compost.


Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate offers growers these performance benefits in agricultural applications:

Ag-Gel micronutrient with silicate reduces the stress from diseases including powdery mildew, pythium root rot, and rice blast. It resists or prevents toxicity from phosphorous, manganese, aluminum, and iron, and increases plant tolerance to salt.

Application of Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate improves leaf erectness, reduces susceptibility to lodging in grasses, and improves photosynthesis efficiency.

Crops that have demonstrated benificial responses to Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate application include rice, wheat, barley, sugar cane, tomatoes, beans, cucurbits, strawberries, grapes, roses, apples, grass, and ornamental plants.

Ag-Gel micronutrient with soluble silicate can increase growth and yield by providing micronutrients and by reducing susceptibility to diseases and pests.

Iron in Plants

Iron is a absorbed by plant roots as Fe²+ and Fe³+. The chemical properties of iron making it an important part of oxidation-reduction reactions in both soils and plants. Because iron can exist in more than one oxidation state, it accepts or donates electrons according to the oxidation potential of the reactants. The transfer of electrons between the organic molecule and iron provides the potential for many of the enzymatic transformations. Several of these enzymes are involved in chlorophyll synthesis, and when iron is deficient chlorophyll production is reduced, which results in the characteristic chlorosis symptoms of iron stress.

Iron is a structural component of porphyrin molecules. These substances are involved in band oxidation-reduction reactions in respiration and photosynthesis. As much as 75% of the total cell iron is associated with chloroplast, and up to 90 percent of the iron in the leaves occurs with lipoprotein of the chloroplast and the mitochindria membranes.

The sufficiency range of time in plant tissue is normally between 50 and 250 ppm. and in general, when iron contents are 50 ppm or less in the dry matter, deficiency is likely to occur. Iron deficiency symptoms show up in the young leaves of plants, first because iron does not readily translocate from older tissues to the tip meristem; as a result, growth ceises. The young leaves develop an interveinal chlorosis, which progresses rapidly over the entire leaf. In severe cases the leaves turn entirely white. Iron toxicity can be observed under certain conditions. For example, in rice grown on poorly drained or submerge soils, a condition known as a bronzing is associated with greater than 300 ppm iron levels in rice leaves at telling.

Iron in soil

Mineral Fe. Iron comprises 5% of the earth's crust and is the fourth most abundant element in the lithosphere. Common primary and secondary iron minerals are olivene, siderite, hematite, goethite, magnetite, and limonite. Iron can be either concentrated or depleted during soil development; thus, iron concentrations in soil vary widely, from 0.7 to 55%. Most of the soil iron is found in primary minerals, clays, oxides, and hydroxides.

Forms and functions of Calcium in plants.

Ca is absorbed by plants as Ca²+ from the soil solution and is supplied to the root surface by mass flow and root interception. Ca deficiency is uncommon but can occur in highly leached and unlimed acidic soils. In soils abundant in Ca²+, excessive accumulation in the vicinity of roots can occur.

Ca²+ concentration in plants range from 0.2 to 1.0%. Ca is important in the structure and permeability of cell membranes. Lack of Ca²+ causes a breakdown of membrane structure, with resultant loss in retention of cellular diffusible compounds. Ca enhances uptake of NO3 and therefore is interrelated with N metabolism. Ca²+ provides some regulation in cation uptake. For example, studies have shown that K+ and Na+ uptake are about equal in the absence of Ca²+, but in its presence, K+ uptakes greatly exceeds Na+ uptake.

Ca is essential for cell elongation and division, and Ca²+ deficiency manifests itself in the failure of terminal buds of shoots and apical tips of roots to develop, which causes plant growth to cease. In corn Ca²+ deficiency prevents the emergence and unfolding of new leaves, the tips are almost colorless and are covered with sticky gelatinous material that causes them to adhere to one another. In fruits and vegetables, the most frequent indicator of Ca²+ deficiency consists of disorders in the storage tissues. Examples of Ca²+ disorders are bloom-end rot in tomato and bitter pit of apples. Finally, Ca²+ is generally immobile in the plant. There is very little translocation of Ca²+ in the phloem, and for this reason there is often a poor supply of Ca²+ to fruits and storage organs. Downward translocation of Ca²+ is also limited in roots, which usually prevents them from entering low-Ca soils.

Conditions impairing the growth of new roots will reduce root access to Ca²+ and induce deficiency. Problems related to inadequate Ca²+ uptake are more likely to occur with plants that have smaller root systems than with those possessing more highly developed root systems.

Special attention must be given to the Ca²+ requirements of certain crops, including peanuts, tomatoes, and celery, which are often unable to obtain sufficient Ca²+ from soils supplying adequate Ca²+ for most other crops. Proper Ca²+ supply is important for tree fruits and other crops such as alfalfa, cabbage, potatoes, and sugar beets, which are known to have high Ca²+ requirements.

Ca in Soil

The Ca concentration in the earth's crust is about 3.5%; however, the Ca²+ content in soils varies widely. Sandy soils of humid regions contain very low amounts of Ca²+, whereas Ca²+ normally ranges from 0.7 to 1.5% in noncalcareous soils of humid temperate regions; however, highly weathered soils of the humid tropics may contain as little as 0.1 to 0.3% Ca. Ca levels in calcareous soils vary from less than 1% to more than 25%.

Calcium concentrations in the soil higher than necessary for proper plant growth normally have low affect on the Ca²+ uptake, because Ca²+ uptake, is genetically controlled. Although the concentration of the soil solution is about 10 times greater than that of potassium, it's a uptake is usually lower than that a potassium. Plants capacity for uptake is limited because it can be absorbed only by young root tips in which the cell walls of the in the endodermis are still unsuberized.

As a general rule, course-textured, humid-region soils formed from rocks low in calcium minerals are low in calcium. The fine-textured soils formed from rocks high in calcium are much higher in both exchangeable and total calcium. However, in humid regions, even soils formed from limestone are frequently acetic in the surface layers because of the removal of calcium and other cations by excess leaching. As water containing dissolved CO2 percolates through the soil, the H + forms displaces Ca²+ (and other basic cations) on the exchange complex. If there is considerable percolation of such water through the soil profile, soils gradually become acidic. When leaching occurs, Na+ is lost more readily than Ca²+, however, since exchangeable and solution Ca²+ is much greater than Na+ in most soils, the quantity of Ca²+ lost is also much greater. Calcium is often the dominant cation in drainage waters, springs, streams, and lakes. Leaching of calcium ranges from 75 to 200 lbs. per acre per year. Since Ca²+ is absorbed on the cation exchange capacity (CEC), losses by erosion may be considerable in some soils.

Copper in plants.

Cu is absorbed by plants as the cupric ion, Cu²+, and may be absorbed as a component of either natural or synthetic organic complexes. It's normal concentration in plant tissue ranges from 5 to 20 ppm. Deficiencies are probable when Cu levels in plants fall below 4 ppm in the dry matter.

Symptoms of Cu deficiency vary with crop. In corn the youngest leaves become stunted, and as the deficiency becomes more severe, the young leaves pale and the older leaves die back. In advanced stages, dead tissue appears along the tips and edges of the leaves in a pattern similar to that of K deficiency. Cu-deficient small-grain plants lose color in young leaves, which eventually break, and the tips die. Stem melanosis and take-al root rot disease occur in certain wheat varieties when Cu is deficient. Also ergot infection is associated with Cu deficiency in some wheat and barley varieties. In many vegetables crops the leaves lack turgor. They develop a bluish-green cast, become chlorotic, and curl, and flower production fails to take place.

Cu in it's reduced form readily binds and reduces O2. In the oxidized form the metal is readily reduced, and protein-complexed Cu has a high redox potential. Enzymes that create complex polymers such as lignin and melanin exploit these properties of Cu. Cu is unique in its involvement in enzymes, and its cannot be replaced by any other metal ion.

Toxicity symptoms include reduced shoot vigor, poorly developed and discolored root systems, and leaf chlorosis. The chlorotic condition in shoots superficially resembles Fe deficiency. Toxicities are uncommon, occurring in limited areas of high Cu availability; after additions of high-Cu materials such as sewage sludge, municipal composts, pig and poultry manure's, and mine wastes; and from repeated use of Cu-containing pesticides.

Copper in soil.

Cu concentration in the earth's crust average about 55 t0 70 ppm. Igneous rocks contain 10 to 100 ppm Cu, while sedimentary rocks contain between 4 and 45 ppm Cu. Cu concentration in soils ranges from 1 to 40 ppm and averages about 9 ppm. Total soil Cu may be 1 or 2 ppm in deficient soils.

Copper interaction with other nutrients.

There are numerous interactions involving Cu. Applications of N-P-K fertilization can induce Cu deficiencies. Furthermore, increased growth resulting from the application of N or other nutrients may be proportionally greater than Cu uptake, which dilutes Cu concentration in plants. Increasing the N supply to crops can reduce mobility of Cu in plants, since large amounts of N in plants impede translocation of Cu from older leaves to new growth. High concentration of Zn, Fe, and P in soil solution can also depress Cu absorption by plant roots and may intensify Cu deficiency.

Plant Factors.

Crops vary greatly in response to Cu. Among small-grain species, rye has exceptional tolerance to low levels of soil Cu and will be healthy, whereas wheat fails completely without the application of Cu. Rye can extract up to twice as much Cu as wheat under the same conditions. The usual order of sensitivity of the small grains to Cu deficiency in the field is wheat > barley > oats > rye. Varietal differences in tolerance to low Cu are important, and sometimes they can be as large as those among crop species.

Severe Cu deficiency in crops planted in soils with high C/N residues is related to (1) reactions of Cu with organic compounds originating from decomposing straw, (2) competition for available Cu by stimulated microbial populations, and (3) inhibition of root development and the ability to absorb Cu. If the soil-available Cu is low, manure added to a field may accentuate the problems. Organic material from manure, straws, or hay can tie up Cu, making it unavailable to plants.

Copper - Functions in the plant or soil

  1. Essential for chlorophyll formation

  2. Essential in many plant enzymes (oxidases in particular)

  3. It is involved in electron transfer

  4. Essential in enzyme systems associated with grain, seed, and fruit formation

  5. It has a marked effect on the formation and chemical composition of cell walls - Very distinct on stem tissue

Copper - Special considerations

  1. Copper can be used as a fungicide on plants

  2. Excessive amounts of copper can cause iron deficiency

  3. It is rather immobile in plants, therefore deficiency symptoms usually occur on new growth

Copper - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. Sandy soils

  2. High organic soils

  3. Overlimed soils

  4. High pH soils

  5. Soils with high concentrations of phosphate and nitrogen

Copper - Deficiency Symptoms


  1. General chlorosis of younger leaves

  2. Leaf tips die and curl like pig tails

  3. Interveinal chlorosis toward lower end of leaves

Small Grains

  1. High organic matter soils - Yellowing of plant

  2. Leaf tip dieback and twisting of leaf tips


  1. Youngest tissue turns faded green with grayish cast

  2. Plants appear bushy and drought-stricken

Forms and Functions of Magnesium (Mg) in Plants

Mg is absorbed by plants as Mg²+ from the soil solution and, like Ca²+, is supplied to plant roots by mass flow and diffusion. Root interception contributes much less Mg²+ to uptake than Ca²+. The amount of Mg²+ taken up by plants is usually less than that of Ca²+ or K+.

Mg²+ concentration in crops varies between 0.1 to 0.4%. Mg²+ is a primary constituent of chlorophyll, and without chlorophyll the autotrophic green plant would fail to carry on photosynthesis. Chlorophyll usually accounts for about 15 to 20% of the total Mg²+ content of plants.

Mg also serves as a structural component to ribosomes, stabilizing them in the configuration necessary for protein synthesis. As a consequence of Mg²+ deficiency, the proportion of protein N decreases and that of non proteins N generally increases in plants.

Mg is associated with transfer reactions involving phosphate-reactive groups. Mg is required for maximum activity of most every phosphorylating enzyme in carbohydrate metabolism. Most reactions involving phosphates transfer from bad adenosine triphosphate (ATP) require Mg²+. Since the fundamental process of energy transfer occurs in photosynthesis, glycolysis, the citric or acid cycle, and respiration, Mg²+ is important throughout plant metabolism.

Because of the mobility of plant Mg²+ and it's ready transportation from older to younger plant parts, deficiency symptoms often appear first on the lower leaves. In many species, shortage of Mg²+ results in interveinal chlorosis of the leaf, in which only the veins remain green. In more advance stages the leaf tissue becomes uniformly pale yellow, then brown and necrotic. In other species, notably cotton, the lower leaves may develop a reddish-purple cast, gradually turning brown and finally necrotic.

Mg in Soil

Mg constitutes 1.93% of the earth's crust; however, the Mg²+ content of soils ranges from 0.1% in course, sandy soils in humid regions to 4% in fine-textured, arid, or semiarid soils formed from high-Mg parent materials.

The Mg concentration of soil solutions is typically 5 to 50 ppm in temperate- region soils, although Mg²+ concentrations between 120 and 2,400 ppm have been observed. Mg²+, like Ca²+, can be leached from soils, and Mg losses of 5 to 60 lbs./acre have been observed. The amounts lost depend on the interaction of several factors, including the Mg content of soil, rate of weathering, intensity of leaching, and the uptake by plants. Leaching of Mg²+ is often a problem in sandy soils, particularly following the addition of fertilizer such as KCL and K2SO4. Very little Mg displacement occurs when equivalent amounts of K are applied as either CO3²-, HCO3, or H2PO4-. Apparently, Mg²+ desorption and leaching in coarse-texture soils are enhanced by the presence of soluble Cl- and SO4²-. As with Ca²+, erosion losses can be considerable in some soils.

Mg in clay minerals is slowly weathered out by leaching and exhaustive cropping. Conditions in which Mg is likely to be deficient include acidic, sandy, highly leached soils with low CEC; calcareous soils with inherently lower Mg levels; acidic soils receiving high rates of lining materials low in Mg; higher rates of NH4+ or K+ fertilization; and crops with Mg demand.

Mg Sources

In contrast to calcium, the primary nutrient fertilizers contain magnesium, with the exception of K2SO4 · MgSO4. Dolomite is commonly applied to low-Mg acidic soils. K2SO4 · MgSO4 and MgSO4 (Epsom salts) are the most widely used materials in dry fertilizer formulation. Other materials containing Magnesium are magnesia (MgO, 55% Mg), magnesium nitrate [Mg(NO3)2. 16% Mg], magnesium silicate (basic slag, 3 to 4 % Mg; serpentine, 26% Mg), magnesium chloride solution (MgCl2 ( 10 H20, 8 to 9% Mg), synthetic chelates (2 to 4% Mg), and natural organic complexing substances (4 to 9% Mg). MgSO4, MgCl2, Mg(NO3)2, and synthetic and natural magnesium chelates are well-suited for application in clear liquids and foliar sprays. Magnesium deficiency of citrus trees in California is frequently corrected by foliar applications of Mg(NO3)2. In some tree-fruit growing areas, MgSO4 solutions are applied to maintain levels, and in seriously deficient orchards several annual applications are necessary. K2SO4 ¸ MgSO4 are the most widely used magnesium additives in suspensions. Special suspension grade [100% passing through a 20-mesh screen] of this material is available commercially. Magnesium content in animal and municipal waste is similar to S content and can therefore be used to supply sufficient magnesium.

Manganese in Soil

Mineral manganese. Manganese concentration in the earth's crust average 1000 ppm, and manganese is found in most iron-magnesium rocks. Manganese, when released through weathering of primary rocks, will combine with O2 to form secondary minerals, including pyrolusite (MnO2), hausmannite (Mn3O4), and manganite (MnOOH). Pyrolusite and manganite are the most abundant.

Total manganese in soils generally range between 20 and 3,000 ppm and averages about 600 ppm. Manganese in soils occurs as various oxides and hydroxide coated on soil particles, deposited in cracks and veins, and mixed with iron oxides and other soil constituents.

Soil solution manganese. The principal species in solution is Mn²+ , which decreases 100-fold for each unit increase in pH, similar to the behavior of other divalent metal cations. The concentration of Mn²+, in solution is predominately controlled by MnO2. Concentration of Mn²+ in the soil solution of the acidic and neutral soils is commonly in the range of 0.01 to 1 ppm, with organically complexed Mn²+ comprising about 90 percent of solution Mn²+. Plants take up Mn²+, which moves to their root surface by diffusion.

Manganese in soil solutions is greatly increased under acidic, low-redox conditions. In extremely acidic soils, Mn²+ solubility can be sufficiently great to cause toxicity problems in sensitive plant species.

Interaction with other nutrients

High levels of copper, iron, or zinc, can reduce manganese uptake by plants. Addition of acid-forming NH4+ to soil will enhance manganese uptake.

Plant Factors

Several plant species exhibit differences in sensitivity to manganese deficiency. These differences in the response of manganese deficient and manganese inefficient plants are due to internal factors rather than to the facts of the plants on the soil. Reductive capacity at the root may be the factor restricting manganese uptake and translocation. There may also be significant differences in the amounts and properties of root exudates generated by plants, which can influence Mn²+ availability. It is possible that plant characteristics possessed by irony fission plants may similarly influence manganese uptake in plants and their tolerance to manganese stress.

Manganese sources

Organic manganese. The manganese concentration in most animal wastes is similar to zinc, ranging between 0.01 and 0.05% (0.2and 1 lb. / t). Thus, with most manures, average application rates will provide sufficient plant available manganese. As with iron, zinc, and copper, the primary benefits of organic waste application is increased organic material and associated natural chelation properties that increased manganese concentration in soil solution and plant availability. As with the other micronutrients, manganese content in municipal waste varies greatly depending on the stores. On average, manganese content is about half the copper content (0.05%, or one pound per ton).

Organic manganese. Manganese sulfate is widely used for correction of manganese deficiency and may be soil or foliar applied. In addition to organic manganese fertilizers, natural organic complexes and chelated manganese are available and are usually foliar applied.

Manganese oxide (MnO) is only slightly water soluble, but it is usually a satisfactory source of manganese. Manganese oxide must be finely ground to be affected. Rates of manganese applications range from 1 to 25 lbs. per acre; higher rates are recommended for broadcast application, while lower rates are foliar applied. Band-applied manganese is generally more effective than broadcast manganese, and band treatments are usually about one-half of the broadcast rates. Oxidation to less available forms of manganese is apparently delayed with band-applied manganese. Applications at the higher rates may be required on organic soils. Band application of manganese in combination with N-P-K fertilizers is commonly practiced.

Broadcast application of manganese chelates and natural organic complexes is not normally advised because soil calcium or iron can replace manganese in these chelates, and the freed manganese is usually converted to unavailable forms. Meanwhile, the more available chelated calcium or iron probably accentuates the manganese deficiency. Limestone or high-pH-induced manganese deficiency can be rectified by acidification resulting from the use of sulfur or other assets-forming materials.

Manganese - Functions in plant or soil

  1. It has a role in production of chlorophyll but is not a component

  2. It is involved in electron transfer reactions

  3. Involved in enzyme systems, arginase and phosphotransferase

  4. Involved in enzyme systems of sugar metabolism

  5. Participates in oxygen-evolving system of photosynthesis

  6. Involved in electron transport in chloroplasts

  7. Involved in transfer of electrons from water to the photosynthetic II protein fraction

  8. It accelerates germination and maturity

Manganese - Special considerations

  1. Its solubility increases 100 fold per unit drop in pH - can be toxic in low pH soils

  2. Manganese concentrated in leaves and stems - seeds contain only small amounts

  3. High concentration of Mn in soil can lead to poor iron absorption

Manganese - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. High soil pH

  2. High organic soils

  3. Cool wet soil conditions

  4. Overlimed soils - High calcium levels

Manganese - Deficiency symptoms

Corn & Grain Sorghum

  1. Interveinal chlorosis with general stunting similar to iron deficiency except iron is seldom short on high organic matter soils

Small Grains

  1. Marginal gray and brown necrotic spots and streaks appearing on basal portion of leaves

  2. Ends of affected leaves may stay green for an extended time

  3. On older affected leaves the spots are oval and gray brown


  1. Interveinal chlorosis

  2. As deficiency becomes more severe, leaves become pale green, then yellow

  3. Brown necrotic spots develop as deficiency becomes more pronounced

  4. Veins remain darker as compared to iron deficiency


Zinc (Zn)

Zinc is involved in many enzymatic activities, but it is not known whether it acts as a functional, structural, or regulatory cofactor.

Zinc - Functions in plant or soil

  1. Involved in large number of enzymes - including dehydrogenases, aldolases, isomerases, transphosphorylases, RNA and DNA polymerases

  2. Involved in carbohydrate metabolism

  3. Involved in the rate of protein synthesis

Zinc - Special considerations

  1. Availability enhanced significantly by presence of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil

  2. It is not subject to oxidation-reduction reactions in soil-plant system

  3. It is quite immobile in the soil

  4. It will bond strongly with sulfide formed from decomposing humus under anaerobic conditions

  5. Solubility increases 100 fold for each pH unit lowered

Zinc - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. High pH soils

  2. Calcareous soils

  3. Overlimed soils

  4. Sandy soils

  5. Soils where anaerobic decomposition is present

  6. High soil phosphorus levels - Varies by crop

  7. Cold wet soils

Zinc - Deficiency symptoms


  1. Appear within first 2 weeks after emergence

  2. Broad band of chloritic tissue on one or both sides of leaf midrib - most pronounced towards base of leaf

  3. Young leaves most severely affected

  4. Delayed maturity and reduced yields

Grain Sorghum

  1. Similar to corn

Small Grain

  1. Similar to corn


  1. Chlorosis of younger leaves

  2. Chlorosis may extend to all leaves on plant

  3. Total chlorosis without green veins

Silica (Si)

Silica is one of the most abundant elements on the surface of the earth. Silica contributes to the structure of cell walls. Concentrations of up to 10% occur in silica rich plants. Silica primarily impregnates the walls of epidermis and vascular tissues, where it appears to strengthen the cell wall, reduce water loss, and retard fungal infection.

The involvement of silica in root functions is believed to be its contribution to the drought tolerance of crops. Although no biochemical role for silica in plant development has been positively identified, it has been proposed that in enzyme-silicon complexes they act as protectors or regulators of photosynthesis and enzyme activity.

The beneficial effects of silicon have been attributed to corrections of soil toxicity arising from high levels of available manganese, iron, and aluminum; plant disease resistance; increased availability of phosphorus; and reduced transpiration.

Silica - Functions in plant or cell

  1. In epidermal cell walls silica reduces water loss by cuticular transpiration

  2. Silica acts as a barrier against invasion of parasites and pathogens in endodermis cells of roots

  3. Silica increases epidermal layer of leaves resistance to fungal attacks.

  4. Silica is associated with incorporation of inorganic phosphate into ATP, ADP, and sugar phosphates

Silica - Special considerations

  1. Because of the abundance of silica in the soil, it is difficult to prove it is an essential micronutrient for higher plants

  2. Silica reduced manganese and iron toxicity where soil levels are excessive

Silica - The conditions associated with deficiencies

  1. Undefined

Silica - Deficiency symptoms

Wetland Rice

  1. Reduced vegetative growth and grain production


  1. Drastic reduction in growth

  2. Leaf freckling on leaf blades directly exposed to full sunlight

Sulfur (S)

Although more than 95% of soil sulfur is bonded in organic forms and present in the upper layers of most soils, these reserves are not readily available to the plant.

Forms of Sulfur in Plants:

Sulfur is absorption by plant roots almost exclusively as sulfate, SO4-². Small quantities of SO2 can be absorbed through plant leaves and utilized within plants, but high concentrations are toxic. Typically concentrations of sulfur in plants range between 0.1 and 0.5%. Among the families of crop plants sulfur content increases in order Gramineae < Leguminosae < Cruciferae and is reflected in the differences in sulfur content of their seeds: 0.18-0.19%, 0.25-0.3%, and 1.1-1.7%, respectively.

Functions of Sulfur in Plants

Sulfur is required for synthesis of the S-containing amino acids, which are essential components of protein. Approximately 90% of the sulfur in plants is found in these amino acids. Increasing sulfur availability increase sulfur content in leaves, which increases sulfur containing amino acids.

Plants suffering sulfur deficiency accumulate non-protein nitrogen in the form of NH2 and NH3. It is apparent that sulfur fertilization improves the quality of this forage by narrowing the nitrogen to sulfur ratio. A Nitrogen to sulfur ratio of between 9:1 and 12: 1 is needed for effective use of nitrogen by rumen and microorganisms. This beneficial effect of sulfur fertilization on improving crop quality through reductions in the nitrogen to sulfur ratio is important in animal nutrition.

Ag-Gel is a naturally occurring micronutrient plant fertilizer concentrated into a soluble silicate gel. Produced from naturally occurring micronutrient mineral sources, Ag-Gel is a semi-permeable gel membrane that absorbs and holds over 700% its dry weight in water. When applied to the soil it creates a nutrient rich moisture barrier which helps reduce evaporation from the soil while providing plants essential nutrients they need to thrive.

On November 16, 1909 , Attorney General George Wickersham signed a two-page order creating "The Public Lands Division" of the Department of Justice. He assigned all cases concerning "enforcement of the Public Land Law" including Indian rights cases to the new Division, and transferred a staff of nine -- six attorneys and three stenographers -- to carry out those responsibilities. As the nation grew and developed, so did the responsibilities of the Division and its name changed to the "Environment and Natural Resources Division" to better reflect those responsibilities. The Division, which is organized into nine sections, has offices in Washington, D.C., Anchorage, Boston, Denver, Sacramento, San Francisco and Seattle, and a staff of over 600 people. It currently has over 6,000 active cases, and has represented virtually every federal agency in courts all over the United States and its territories and possessions.



Cooperative Agreements with Commercial Firms


SUMMARY: Current NASA regulations at 14 CFR part 1260 describe the use of cooperative agreements with educational institutions and non-profit organizations. The proposed regulation will establish the requirements for cooperative agreements with commercial firms. DATES: Comments are due on or before August 28, 1995. ADDRESSES: Headquarters, NASA, Washington, DC 20546, ATTN: CODE HK/MR. T. Deback. Comments on the paperwork burden should also be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for NASA, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. T. Deback, (202) 358-0431. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As a result of the National Performance Review, participation in ARPA's Technology Reinvestment Program, the High Performance Computing Initiative, and a strong sense within NASA that cooperative agreements with industry are an appropriate way to carry out certain assistance type activities, use of cooperative agreements is being increased. As part of this increase, cooperative agreements with industry are being utilized for the first time. Regulatory Flexibility Act NASA certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504 (h). NASA requires certain reporting and recordkeeping of commercial firms in order to determine eligibility for selection and compliance with the provisions of the cooperative agreements. The estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is 6680 hours. The estimated average burden hours per response is 6 hours. The rule proposes annual reporting for patents, property, and technical results. Other reports are required at the conclusion of the agreement or the occurrence of other events. The estimated number of likely respondents is 175 firms submitting proposals per year resulting in the award of 50 cooperative agreements per year. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1274 Grant programs, Business and industry. Tom Luedtke, Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement. Accordingly, 14 CFR part 1274 is proposed to be added as follows. PART 1274--COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH COMMERCIAL FIRMS Subpart A--General 1274.101 Purpose. 1274.102 Definitions. 1274.103 Effect on other issuances. 1274.104 Deviations. 1274.105 Approval of Cooperative Agreement Notices (CANs) and cooperative agreements. Subpart B--Pre-Award Requirements 1274.201 Purpose. 1274.202 Solicitations and proposals. 1274.203 Invention and patent rights. 1274.204 Evaluation and selection. 1274.205 Award procedures. 1274.206 Document format and numbering. 1274.207 Distribution of cooperative agreements. Subpart C--Administration 1274.301 Delegation of administration. 1274.302 Transfers, novations, and change of name agreements. Subpart D--Government Property 1274.401 Government property. Subpart E--Procurement Standards 1274.501 Subcontracts. Subpart F--Reports and Records 1274.601 Retention and access requirements for records. Subpart G--Suspension or Revocation 1274.701 Suspension or revocation. Subpart H--After-the-Award Requirements 1274.801 Purpose. 1274.802 Closeout procedures. 1274.803 Subsequent adjustments and continuing responsibilities. Subpart I--Other Provisions and Special Conditions 1274.901 Other provisions and special conditions. 1274.902 Purpose (XXX 1995) 1274.903 Responsibilities (XXX 1995) 1274.904 Resource Sharing Requirements (XXX 1995) 1274.905 Rights in Data (XXX 1995) 1274.906 Designation of New Technology Representative and Patent Representative (XXX 1995) 1274.907 Disputes (XXX 1995) 1274.908 Milestone Payments (XXX 1995) 1274.909 Term of this Agreement (XXX 1995) 1274.910 Authority (XXX 1995) 1274.911 Patent Rights (XXX 1995) 1274.912 Patent Rights--Retention by the Contractor (Large Business) (XXX 1995) 1274.913 Patent Rights--Retention by the Contractor (Small Business) (XXX 1995) 1274.914 Requests for Waiver of Rights--Large Business (XXX 1995) 1274.915 Restrictions on Sale or Transfer of Technology to Foreign Firms or Institutions (XXX 1995) 1274.916 Liability and Risk of Loss (XXX 1995) 1274.917 Additional Funds (XXX 1995) 1274.918 Incremental Funding (XXX 1995) 1274.919 Cost Principles and Accounting Standards (XXX 1995) 1274.920 Responsibilities of the NASA Technical Officer (XXX 1995) 1274.921 Publications and Reports: Non-Proprietary Research Results (XXX 1995) 1274.922 Suspension or Revocation (XXX 1995) 1274.923 Equipment and Other Property (XXX 1995) 1274.924 Civil Rights (XXX 1995) 1274.925 Subcontracts (XXX 1995) 1274.926 Clean Air-Water Pollution Control Acts (XXX 1995) 1274.927 Debarment and Suspension and Drug-Free Workplace (XXX 1995) 1274.928 Foreign National Employee Investigative Requirements (XXX 1995) 1274.929 Restrictions on Lobbying (XXX 1995) 1274.930 Travel and Transportation (XXX 1995) 1274.931 Officials Not to Benefit (XXX 1995) 1274.932 Electronic Funds Transfer Payment Methods (XXX 1995) 1274.933 Retention and Examination of Records (XXX 1995) Appendix A--Contract Provisions Appendix B--Reports Appendix C--Listing of Exhibits Authority: 31 U.S.C. 6301 to 6308; 42 U.S.C. 2451 , et seq. Subpart A--General Sec. 1274.101 Purpose. This regulation establishes uniform administrative requirements for NASA cooperative agreements awarded to commercial firms. Cooperative agreements are ordinarily entered into with commercial firms to-- (1) Support research and development, (2) Provide technology transfer from the Government to the recipient, or (3) Develop a capability among U.S. firms to potentially enhance U.S. competitiveness. (b) Award to foreign firms is not precluded; however, an award may not be made to a foreign government. Sec. 1274.102 Definitions. Administrator. The Administrator or Deputy Administrator of NASA. Associate Administrator for Procurement. The head of the Office of Procurement, NASA Headquarters (Code H). Cash contributions. The recipient's cash outlay, including the outlay of money contributed to the recipient by third parties. Closeout. The process by which a NASA determines that all applicable administrative actions and all required work of the award have been completed by the recipient and NASA. Cooperative agreement. As defined by 31 U.S.C. 6305 , cooperative agreements are financial assistance instruments used to stimulate or support activities for authorized purposes and in which the Government participates substantially in the performance of the effort. This regulation covers only cooperative agreements with commercial firms. Cooperative agreements with universities and non-profit organizations are covered by 14 CFR part 1260. Cost sharing or matching. That portion of project or program costs not borne by the Federal Government except that the recipient's contribution may be reimbursable under other Government awards as allowable IR&D costs pursuant to 48 CFR (NFS) 1831.205-18 ( 59 FR 22521 , May 2, 1994). Date of completion. The date on which all work under an award is completed or the date on the award document, or any supplement or amendment thereto, on which NASA sponsorship ends. Days. Calendar days, unless otherwise indicated. Government furnished equipment. Equipment in the possession of, or acquired directly by, the Government and subsequently delivered, or otherwise made available, to a Recipient. Grant Officer. A Government employee who has been delegated the authority to negotiate, award, or administer grants or cooperative agreements. Incremental funding. A method of funding a cooperative agreement where the funds initially allotted to the cooperative agreement are less than the award amount. Additional funding is added as described in Sec. 1274.918. Recipient. An organization receiving financial assistance under a cooperative agreement to carry out a project or program. A recipient may be an individual firm, a consortium, a partnership, etc. Resource contribution. The total value of resources provided by either party to the cooperative agreement including both cash and in- kind contributions. Revocation. The cancellation of NASA sponsorship, in whole or in part, under an agreement at any time prior to the date of completion. Support contractor means a NASA contractor performing part or all of the NASA responsibilities under a cooperative agreement. Suspension. An action by NASA that temporarily withdraws sponsorship under an award, pending corrective action by the recipient or pending a decision to revoke the award by NASA. Suspension of an award is a separate action from suspension under Federal agency regulations implementing E.O.'s 12549 and 12689, ``Debarment and Suspension.'' Technical officer. The official of the cognizant NASA office who is responsible for monitoring the technical aspects of the work under a cooperative agreement. Sec. 1274.103 Effect on other issuances. For awards subject to this regulation, all administrative requirements of codified program regulations, program manuals, handbooks and other nonregulatory materials which are inconsistent with the requirements of this Regulation shall be superseded, except to the extent they are required by statute, or authorized in accordance with the deviations provision in Sec. 1274.104. Sec. 1274.104 Deviations. (a) The Associate Administrator for Procurement may grant exceptions for classes of or individual cooperative agreements from the requirements of this Regulation when exceptions are not prohibited by statute. (b) Applicability. A deviation is required for any of the following: (1) When a prescribed provision set forth in this regulation for use verbatim is modified or omitted. (2) When a provision is set forth in this regulation, but not prescribed for use verbatim, and the installation substitutes a provision which is inconsistent with the intent, principle, and substance of the prescribed provision. (3) When a NASA form or other form is prescribed by this regulation, and that form is altered or another form is used in its place. (4) When limitations, imposed by this regulation upon the use of a provision, form, procedure, or any other action, are not adhered to. (c) Request for deviations. Requests for authority to deviate from this regulation will be forwarded to Headquarters, Program Operations Division (Code HS). Such requests, signed by the Procurement Officer, shall contain as a minimum: (1) A full description of the deviation and identification of the regulatory requirement from which a deviation is sought. (2) Detailed rationale for the request, including any pertinent background information. (3) The name of the recipient and identification of the cooperative agreement affected, including the dollar value. (4) A statement as to whether the deviation has been requested previously, and, if so, circumstances of the previous request(s). (5) A description of the intended effect of the deviation. (6) A copy of legal counsel's concurrence or comments. Sec. 1274.105 Approval of Cooperative Agreement Notices (CANs) and cooperative agreements. (a) As soon as possible after the initial decision is made by program or procurement personnel to use the CAN process, the cognizant program office or procurement office, shall notify the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS), of the intent to use a CAN in all cases where the total Government funds to be awarded in response to CAN proposals is expected to equal or exceed $10 million. All such notifications, as described below, shall be concurred in by the Procurement Officer. This requirement also applies in those cases where an unsolicited proposal is received and a decision is made to award a cooperative agreement in which the recipient (or one or more of a ``team'' of recipients) is a commercial firm and the total Government funds are expected to equal or exceed $10 million. (b) The required notification is to be accomplished by sending an electronic mail (e-mail) message to the following address at NASA Headquarters: . The notification must include the following information, as a minimum: (1) Identification of the cognizant center and program office, (2) Description of the proposed program for which proposals are to be solicited, (3) Rationale for decision to use a CAN rather than other types of solicitations, (4) The amount of Government funding to be available for awards, (5) Estimate of the number of cooperative agreements to be awarded as a result of the CAN, (6) The percentage of cost-sharing to be required, and (7) Tentative schedule for release of CAN and award of cooperative agreements (c) Code HS will respond by e-mail message to the sender, with a copy of the message to the Procurement Officer, within 5 working days of receipt of this initial notification. The response will address the following: (1) Whether Code HS agrees or disagrees with the appropriateness for using a CAN for the effort described, (2) Whether Code HS will require review and approval of the CAN before its issuance, (3) Whether Code HS will require review and approval of the selected offeror's cost sharing arrangement (e.g., cost sharing percentage; type of contribution (cash, labor, intellectual property, etc.)), and (4) Whether Code HS will require review and approval of the resulting cooperative agreement(s). (d) If a response from Code HS is not received within 5 working days of notification, the program office or center may proceed with release of the CAN and award of the cooperative agreements as described. Subpart B--Pre-Award Requirements Sec. 1274.201 Purpose. Sections 1274.202 through 1274.207 prescribe forms and instructions and addresses other pre-award matters. Sec. 1274.202 Solicitations and proposals. (a) Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6301 (3), NASA uses competitive procedures to award cooperative agreements whenever possible. An award will normally be made as a result of a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) which envisions a cooperative agreement as the award instrument. A Commerce Business Daily synopsis will be used to publicize the CAN. (b) Unsolicited proposals. (1) An award may be made as a result of an unsolicited proposal. The unsolicited proposal must evidence a unique and innovative idea or approach which is not the subject of a current or anticipated solicitation. When a cooperative agreement is awarded as a result of an unsolicited proposal, a Commerce Business Daily synopsis must be published to provide an opportunity for other firms/consortia to express an interest in the agreement unless the exception in 48 CFR (FAR) 5.202(a)(8) applies. Respondents should be given a minimum of thirty days to respond. If interest is expressed, a decision must be made to proceed with the award or to issue a solicitation for competitive proposals. (2) Prior to an award made as the result of an unsolicited proposal, the award must be approved by the Procurement Officer if NASA's total resource contribution is below $5 million. Center Director approval is required if NASA's total resource contribution is $5 million or more. For Headquarters cooperative agreements, approval by the Associate Administrator for Procurement is required if NASA's total resource contribution is $5 million or more. (c) Cost and payment matters (1) The allowability of costs incurred by the recipient is determined in accordance with 48 CFR (FAR) Part 31, ``Contract Cost Principles and Procedures.'' (2) Cost sharing. A substantial resource contribution on the part of the Recipient is required. The Recipient is expected to contribute at least 50% of the total resources required to accomplish the cooperative agreement. Recipient contributions may be in either cash or in-kind or both. In those cases in which a contribution of less than 50% is anticipated from the Recipient, approval of the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) is required prior to award. The request for approval should address the evaluation factor in the solicitation and how the proposal accomplishes those objectives to such a degree that a share ratio of less than 50% is warranted. (3) Fixed Funding. Cooperative agreements are funded by NASA in a fixed amount. Payments in fixed amounts will be made by NASA in accordance with ``Milestone Billings'' which are discussed in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. If the Recipient completes the final milestone, final payment is made, and NASA will have completed its financial responsibilities under the agreement. However, if the cooperative agreement is revoked prior to achievement of all milestones, NASA's funding will be limited to milestone payments already made plus NASA's share of costs incurred by the Recipient since the last milestone payment as reflected in the cost share agreement. In no event shall these additional costs or payment exceed the amount of the next payable milestone billing amount. (4) Milestone billings is the method of payment to the Recipient under cooperative agreements. Performance based milestones are used as the basis of establishing a set of verifiable milestones for payment purposes. Each milestone payment shall be established so that the Government payment is at the same share ratio as the cooperative agreement share ratio. If the Recipient is a consortium, the Articles of Collaboration is required to contain an extensive list of performance based milestones that the consortium has agreed to. Generally, payments should not be made more than once monthly; ideally, payments will be made about every 60 to 90 days but in all cases should be made on the basis of verifiable, significant events as opposed to the passage of time. The last payment milestone should be large enough to ensure that the Recipient completes its responsibilities under the cooperative agreement (or funds should be reserved for payment until after completion of the cooperative agreement). The Government technical officer must verify completion of each milestone to the Grants Officer as part of the payment process. If the Government's projected cash contribution to a cooperative agreement exceeds $5 million, approval of the Milestone Payment clause, including the milestones and anticipated payments, by the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS)is required prior to award. The request for approval should contain substantially the same information required by 48 CFR (NFS) 1832.7006. (5) Incremental funding. Cooperative agreements with anticipated annual funding exceeding $5 million may be incrementally funded subject to the following: (i) Two increments per fiscal year are authorized. The second increment will be the balance of funding for the year. (ii) The incremental funding provision contained in Sec. 1274.918 is included in the cooperative agreement. (6) Cost sharing. Cost sharing requirements on cooperative agreements with commercial firms are based on section 23 of the Attachment to OMB Circular A-110, November 23, 1993 (58 FR 62992, November 29, 1993). Only cash or cash equivalent resources are acceptable sources for the Recipient contribution to a cooperative agreement. This includes such items as purchased equipment, equipment, labor, office space, etc. The actual or imputed value of intellectual property such as patent rights, data rights, trade secrets, etc., are not acceptable as sources for the Recipient contribution. (7) Recipients shall not be paid a profit under cooperative agreements. Profit may be paid by the Recipient to subcontractors, if the subcontractor is not part of the offering team and the subcontract is an arms-length relationship. (8) The Recipient's resource share of the cooperative agreement may be allocated as part of its IR&D program in accordance with a class deviation pursuant to 48 CFR (NFS) 1831.205-18 ( 59 FR 22521 , May 2, 1994). (9) The CAN must provide a description of the non-cash Government contribution (personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.) as part of the Government's contribution to the cooperative agreement in addition to funding. The offeror may propose that additional non-monetary Government resources be provided under two conditions. First, the offeror is responsible for verifying the availability of the resources and their suitability for their intended purpose and, second, those resources are considered part of the Government contribution and paid for directly by the awarding organization. (d) Consortia as recipients. (1) The use of consortia as Recipients for cooperative agreements is encouraged. Consortia will tend to bring to a cooperative agreement a broader range of capabilities and resources. A consortium is a group of organizations that enter into an agreement to collaborate for the purposes of the cooperative agreement with NASA. The agreement to collaborate can take the form of a legal entity such as a partnership or joint venture but it is not necessary that such an entity be created. A consortium may be made up of firms which normally compete for commercial or Government business or may be made up of firms which perform complementary functions in a given industry. The inclusion of a non-profit or educational institutions, small businesses, or small disadvantaged businesses in the consortium could be particularly valuable in ensuring that the results of the consortium's activities are disseminated. (2) Key to the success of the cooperative agreement with a consortium is the consortium's Articles of Collaboration, which is a definitive description of the roles and responsibilities of the consortium's members. It should also address to the extent appropriate: commitments of financial, personnel, facilities and other resources, a detailed milestone chart of consortium activities, accounting requirements, subcontracting procedures, disputes, term of the agreement, insurance and liability issues, internal and external reporting requirements, management structure of the consortium, obligations of organizations withdrawing from the consortia, allocation of data and patent rights among the consortia members, agreements, if any, to share existing technology and data, the firm which is responsible for the completion of the consortium's responsibilities under the cooperative agreement and has the authority to commit the consortium and receive payments from NASA, employee policy issues, etc. (3) An outline of the Articles of Collaboration should be required as part of the proposal and evaluated during the source selection process. (e) Metric system of measurement. The Metric Conversion Act, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act ( 15 U.S.C. 205 ) declares that the metric system is the preferred measurement system for U.S. trade and commerce. NASA's policy with respect to the metric measurement system is stated in NMI 8010.2A, Use of the Metric System of Measurement in NASA Programs, dated June 11, 1991. Sec. 1274.203 Invention and patent rights. (a) A cooperative agreement covers the disposition of rights relating to inventions and patents between NASA and the Recipient. If the Recipient is a consortium or partnership, rights flowing between multiple organizations in a consortium must be negotiated separately and formally documented, preferably in the Articles of Collaboration. (b) Patent rights clauses exist for Recipients of the Agreement whether they are: (1) other than small business or nonprofit organizations (generally referred to as large businesses) or (2) small businesses or nonprofit organizations. The clauses are required by statute and regulation. (c) There are five situations in which inventions may arise under a cooperative agreement: Recipient Inventions, Subcontractor Inventions, NASA Inventions, NASA Support Contractor Inventions, and Joint Inventions with Recipient. (d)(1) Recipient inventions. (i) A Recipient, if a large business, is subject to section 305 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 ( 42 U.S.C. 2457 ) relating to property rights in inventions. The term ``invention'' includes any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation. Title to an invention made under a cooperative agreement by a large business Recipient initially vests with NASA. The Recipient may request a waiver under the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations to obtain title to inventions made under the Agreement. Such a request may be made in advance of the Agreement (or 30 days thereafter) for all inventions made under the Agreement. Alternatively, requests may be made on a case-by-case basis any time an individual invention is made. Such waivers are liberally and expeditiously granted after review by NASA's Invention and Contribution Board and approval by NASA's General Counsel. When a waiver is granted, any inventions made in the performance of work under the Agreement are subject to certain reporting, election and filing requirements, a royalty-free license to the Government, march-in rights, and certain other reservations. (ii) A Recipient, if a small business or nonprofit organization, may elect to retain title to its inventions. The term ``nonprofit organization'' is defined in 35 U.S.C. 201 (i) and includes universities and other institutions of higher education or an organization of the type described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Government obtains an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free license. (2) Subcontractor Inventions. (i) Large Business. If a Recipient enters a subcontract (or similar arrangement) with a large business organization for experimental, developmental, research, design or engineering work in support of the Agreement to be done in the United States, its possessions, or Puerto Rico, Subpart 305 of the Space Act applies. The clause applicable to large business organizations is to be used (suitably modified to identify the parties) in any subcontract. The subcontractor may request a waiver under the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations to obtain rights to inventions made under the subcontract just as a large business Recipient can (see paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section). It is strongly recommended that a prospective large business subcontractor contact the NASA installation Patent Counsel or Intellectual Property Counsel to assure that the right procedures are followed. Just like the Recipient, any inventions made in the performance of work under the Agreement are subject to certain reporting, election and filing requirements, a royalty-free license to the Government, march-in rights, and certain other reservations. (ii) Non-profit organization or Small Business. In the event the Recipient enters into a subcontract (or similar arrangement) with a domestic nonprofit organization or a small business firm for experimental, developmental, or research work to be performed under the Agreement, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. regarding ``Patent Rights in Inventions Made With Federal Assistance,'' apply. The subcontractor has the first option to elect title to any inventions made in the performance of work under the Agreement, subject to specific reporting, election and filing requirements, a royalty-free license to the Government, march-in rights, and certain other reservations that are specifically set forth. (iii) Work outside the United States. If the Recipient subcontracts for work to be done outside the United States, its possessions or Puerto Rico, the NASA installation Patent Counsel or Intellectual Property Counsel should be contacted for the proper patent rights clause to use and the procedures to follow. (iv) Notwithstanding the above, and in recognition of the Recipient's substantial contribution, the Recipient is authorized, subject to rights of NASA set forth elsewhere in the Agreement, to: (A) Acquire by negotiation and mutual agreement rights to a subcontractor's subject inventions as the Recipient may deem necessary, or (B) If unable to reach agreement pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(A) of this section, request that NASA invoke exceptional circumstances as necessary pursuant to 37 CFR 401.3 (a)(2) if the prospective subcontractor is a small business firm or nonprofit organization, or for all other organizations, request that such rights for the Recipient be included as an additional reservation in a waiver granted pursuant to 14 CFR 1245.1 . The exercise of this exception does not change the flow down of the applicable patent rights clause to subcontractors. Applicable laws and regulations require that title to inventions made under a subcontract must initially reside in either the subcontractor or NASA, not the Recipient. This exception does not change that. The exception does authorize the Recipient to negotiate and reach mutual agreement with the subcontractor for the grant-back of rights. Such grant-back could be an option for an exclusive license or an assignment, depending on the circumstances. (3) NASA Inventions. NASA will use reasonable efforts to report inventions made by its employees as a consequence of, or which bear a direct relation to, the performance of specified NASA activities under an Agreement. Upon timely request, NASA will use its best efforts to grant Recipient first option to acquire either an exclusive or partially-exclusive, revocable, royalty-bearing license, on terms to be negotiated, for any patent applications and patents covering such inventions. This exclusive or partially-exclusive license to the Recipient will be subject to the retention of rights by or on behalf of the Government for Government purposes. (4) NASA Support Contractor Inventions. It is preferred that NASA support contractors be excluded from performing any of NASA's responsibilities under the Agreement since the rights obtained by a NASA support contractor could work against the rights needed by the Recipient. In the event NASA support contractors are tasked to work under the Agreement and inventions are made by support contractor employees, the support contractor will normally obtain rights in such inventions. However, if NASA has the right to acquire or has acquired title to such inventions, upon timely request, NASA will use its best efforts to grant Recipient first option to acquire either an exclusive or partially exclusive, revocable, royalty-bearing license, upon terms to be negotiated, for any patent applications and patents covering such inventions. This exclusive or partially-exclusive license to the Recipient will be subject to the retention of rights by or on behalf of the Government for Government purposes. (5) Joint Inventions. (i) NASA and the Recipient agree to use reasonable efforts to identify and report to each other any inventions made jointly between NASA employees (or employees of NASA support contractors) and employees of Recipient. For large businesses, the Headquarters General Counsel may agree that the United States will refrain, for a specified period, from exercising its undivided interest in a manner inconsistent with Recipient's commercial interest. For small business firms and nonprofit organizations, the Associate General Counsel (Intellectual Property) may agree to assign or transfer whatever rights NASA may acquire in a subject invention from its employee to the Recipient as authorized by 35 U.S.C. 202 (e). The grant officer negotiating the Agreement with small business firms and nonprofit organizations can agree, up front, that NASA will assign whatever rights it may acquire in a subject invention from its employee to the small business firm or nonprofit organization. Requests under this paragraph shall be made through the Center Patent Counsel. (ii) NASA support contractors may be joint inventors. If a NASA support contractor employee is a joint inventor with a NASA employee, the same provisions apply as those for NASA Support Contractor Inventions. The NASA support contractor will retain or obtain nonexclusive licenses to those inventions in which NASA obtains title. If a NASA support contractor employee is a joint inventor with a Recipient employee, the NASA support contractor and Recipient will become joint owners of those inventions in which they have elected to retain title or requested and have been granted waiver of title. Where the NASA support contractor has not elected to retain title or has not been granted waiver of title, NASA will jointly own the invention with the Recipient. (e) Licenses to Recipient(s). (1) Any exclusive or partially exclusive commercial licenses are to be royalty-bearing consistent with Government-wide policy in licensing its inventions. It also provides an opportunity for royalty-sharing with the employee-inventor, consistent with Government-wide policy under the Federal Technology Transfer Act. (2) Upon application in compliance with 37 CFR part 404--Licensing of Government Owned Inventions, all Recipients shall be granted a revocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free license in each patent application filed in any country on a subject invention and any resulting patent in which the Government obtains title. Because cooperative agreements are cost sharing cooperative arrangements with a purpose of benefiting the public by improving the competitiveness of the Recipient and the Government receives an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free license in each Recipient subject invention, it is only equitable that the Recipient receive, at a minimum, a revocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free license in NASA inventions and NASA contractor inventions where NASA has acquired title. (3) Notice Requirements. Once a Recipient has exercised its option to apply for an exclusive or partially exclusive license, a notice, identifying the invention and the Recipient, is published in the Federal Register, providing the public opportunity for filing written objections for 60 days. (f) Preference for United States Manufacture. Despite any other provision, the Recipient agrees that any products embodying subject inventions or produced through the use of subject inventions shall be manufactured substantially in the United States. The intent of this provision is to support manufacturing jobs in the United States regardless of the status of the Recipient as a domestic or foreign controlled company. However, in individual cases, the requirement to manufacture substantially in the United States, may be waived by the Associate Administrator for Procurement (Code HS) upon a showing by the Recipient that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. (g) Space Act Agreements. Invention and patent rights in cooperative agreements must comply with statutory and regulatory provisions. Where circumstances permit, a Space Act Agreement is available as an alternative instrument which can be more flexible in the area of invention and patent rights. (h) Data Rights. Data rights provisions can and should be tailored to best achieve the needs and objectives of the respective parties concerned. (1) The data rights clause at Sec. 1274.905 assumes a substantially equal cost sharing relationship where collaborative research, experimental, developmental, engineering, demonstration, or design activities are to be carried out, such that it is likely that ``proprietary'' information will be developed and/or exchanged under the agreement. If cost sharing is unequal or no extensive research, experimental, developmental, engineering, demonstration, or design activities are likely, a different set of clauses may be appropriate. (2) The primary question that must be answered when developing data clauses is what does each party need or intend to do with the data developed under the agreement. Accordingly, the data rights clauses may be tailored to fit the circumstances. Where conflicting goals of the parties result in incompatible data provisions, grant officers for the Government must recognize that private companies entering into cooperative agreements bring resources to that relationship and must be allowed to reap an appropriate benefit for the expenditure of those resources. However, since serving a public purpose is a major objective of a cooperative agreement, care must be exercised to ensure the Recipient is not established as a long term sole source supplier of an item or service and is not in a position to take unfair advantage of the results of the cooperative agreement. Therefore, a reasonable time period (two to seven years depending on the technology) should be established after which the data rights will be made public. (3) Data can be generated from different sources and can have various restrictions placed on its dissemination. Recipient data furnished to NASA can exist prior to, or be produced outside of, the agreement or be produced under the agreement. NASA can also produce data in carrying out its responsibilities under the agreement. Each of these areas need to be covered. (4) For data, including software, first produced by the Recipient under the agreement, the Recipient may assert copyright. Data exchanged with a notice showing that the data is protected by copyright must include appropriate licenses in order for NASA to use the data as needed. (5) Recognizing that the dissemination of the results of NASA's activities is a primary objective of a cooperative agreement, the parties should specifically delineate what results will be published and under what conditions. This should be set forth in the clause of the cooperative agreement entitled ``Publication and Reports.'' Any such agreement on the publication of results should be stated to take precedence over any other clause in the cooperative agreement. (6) In accordance with section 303(b) of the Space Act, any data first produced by NASA under the agreement which embodies trade secrets or financial information that would be privileged or confidential if it had been obtained from a private participant, will be marked with an appropriate legend and maintained in confidence for an agreed to period of up to five years (the maximum allowed by law). This does not apply to data other than that for which there has been agreement regarding publication or distribution. Also, NASA itself may use the marked data (under suitable protective conditions) for agreed-to purposes. Sec. 1274.204 Evaluation and selection. (a) A single technical evaluation factor is typically used for CANs. That evaluation factor may be one of the following: providing research and development or technology transfer, enhancing U.S. competitiveness, or developing a capability among U.S. firms. Award to foreign firms is not precluded if the evaluation factor is satisfied. Subfactors could include such things as fostering U.S. leadership, potential to advance technologies anticipated to enhance U.S. competitiveness, timeliness of proposed accomplishments, private sector commitment to commercialization, identification of specific potential commercial markets, appropriateness of business risk, potential for broad impact on the U.S. technology and knowledge base, level of commitment (contribution of private resources to the project), appropriateness of team member participation and relationships, appropriateness of management planning, relevant experience, qualifications and depth of management and technical staff, quality and appropriateness of resources committed to the project, performance bench marks, technical approach, business approach/resource sharing, past performance, the articles of collaboration, etc. (b) Technical evaluation. (1) The technical officer will evaluate proposals in accordance with the criteria in the CAN. Proposals selected for award will be supported by documentation as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. When evaluation results in a proposal not being selected, the proposer will be notified in accordance with the CAN. (2) The technical evaluation of proposals may include peer reviews. Since the business sense of a cooperative agreement proposal is critical to its success, NASA should reserve the right to utilize appropriate outside evaluators to assist in the evaluation of such proposal elements as the business base projections, the market for proposed products, and/or the impact of anticipated product price reductions. The use of outside evaluators shall be approved in accordance with 48 CFR (NFS) 1815.413-2(c)(2). It is strongly recommended that a numerical scoring system be established to rank proposals. (3) Unsolicited proposals. Evaluation of unsolicited proposals must consider whether: the subject of the proposal is available to NASA from another source without restriction; the proposal closely resembles a pending competitive acquisition; and the research proposed demonstrates an innovative and unique method, approach, or concept. Organizations submitting unaccepted proposals will be notified in writing. (c) Documentation requirements. For proposals selected for award, the technical officer will prepare and furnish to the grant officer the following documentation: (1) For a competitively selected proposal, a signed selection statement and technical evaluation based on the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. (2) For an unsolicited proposal, a justification for acceptance of an unsolicited proposal (JAUP) prepared by the cognizant technical office. The JAUP shall be submitted for the approval of the grant officer after review and concurrence at a level above the technical officer. The evaluator shall consider the following factors, in addition to any others appropriate for the particular proposal: (i) Unique and innovative methods, approaches or concepts demonstrated by the proposal. (ii) Overall scientific or technical merits of the proposal. (iii) The offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposal objectives. (iv) The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed key personnel who are critical in achieving the proposal objectives. (v) Current, open solicitations under which the unsolicited proposal could be evaluated. (d) Cost evaluation. (1) The grant officer and technical team will determine whether the overall proposed cost of the project is reasonable and that the Recipient's contribution is valid, verifiable, and available. Commitments should be obtained and verified to the extent practical from the offeror or members of the consortia that the proposed contributions can and will be made as specified in the proposal or statement of work. (i) If the Recipient's verified share on a cooperative agreement equals or exceeds 50% of the total cost of the agreement and the total value of the agreement is less than $5 million, the cost evaluation of the offeror's proposal should focus on the overall reasonableness and timing of the proposer's contribution. Cost and pricing data should not normally be required. (ii) If the Recipient's share is projected to be less than 50% or the total value of the agreement is more than $5 million, a more in- depth analysis of the proposed costs should be undertaken. Cost and pricing data should be required although certification is not required. An analysis consistent with 48 CFR (FAR) 15.805-3 through 15.805-5 should be performed. (e) If the cooperative agreement is to be awarded to a consortium, a completed, formally executed Articles of Collaboration is required prior to award. (f) Printing, binding, and duplicating. Proposals for effort which involve printing, binding, and duplicating in excess of 25,000 pages are subject to the regulations of the Congressional Joint Committee on Printing. The technical office will refer such proposals to the Installation Central Printing Management Officer (ICPMO) to ensure compliance with NMI 1490.1. The grant officer will be advised in writing of the results of the ICPMO review. Sec. 1274.205 Award procedures. (a) General. Multiple year cooperative agreements are encouraged, but normally they should not extend beyond two years. (b) Award above proposed amount. Awards of cooperative agreements in response to competitive solicitations will not result in providing more NASA funds or resources than was anticipated in the Recipient's proposal. If additional funds or resources are deemed necessary, they will be provided by the Recipient and the Government cost share will be adjusted downward. (c) Changes to cooperative agreements. Cost growth or in-scope changes shall not increase the amount of NASA's contribution. Additional costs which arise during the performance of the cooperative agreement are the responsibility of the Recipient. Funding for work required beyond the scope of the cooperative agreement must be sought through the submission of a proposal which will be treated as an unsolicited proposal. (d) Bilateral award. All cooperative agreements awarded under this regulation will be awarded on a bilateral basis. (e) Certifications and representations. (1) Unless prohibited by statute or codified regulation, Recipients will be encouraged to submit certifications and representations required by statute, executive order, or regulation on an annual basis, if the Recipients have ongoing and continuing relationships with the agency. Annual certifications and representations shall be signed by responsible officials with the authority to ensure Recipients' compliance with the pertinent requirements. (2) Civil rights requirements--nondiscrimination in certain Federally-funded programs. Recipients must furnish assurances of compliance with civil rights statutes specified in 14 CFR parts 1250 through 1252. Such assurances are not required for each cooperative agreement, if they have previously been furnished and remain current and accurate. Certifications to NASA are normally made on NASA Form 1206, which may be obtained from the grant officer. Upon acceptance, the grant officer will forward assurances to the NASA Office of Equal Opportunity Programs for recording and retention purposes. (3) NASA cooperative agreements are subject to the provisions of 14 CFR part 1265, Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants), unless excepted by Secs. 1265.110 1265.610. (4) Lobbying Certification. A Lobbying Certification in accordance with 14 CFR part 1271 will be obtained prior to award. (f) Indemnification under Pub. L. 85-804 is not authorized for cooperative agreements. Sec. 1274.206 Document format and numbering. (a) Formats. Grant officers are authorized to use the format in Exhibit A of Appendix C to this part 1274 for the award of all cooperative agreements. Computer-generated versions and omission of inapplicable items are allowed. (b) Cooperative agreement numbering. The identification numbering system for all cooperative agreements shall conform to 48 CFR (NFS) 1804.7102-3, except that a NCC prefix will be used in lieu of the NAS prefix. Sec. 1274.207 Distribution of cooperative agreements. Copies of cooperative agreements and modifications will be provided to: Payment office, technical officer, administrative grant officer when delegation has been made, NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI), Attn: Document Processing Subpart, 800 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum Heights, Maryland 21090-2934, and any other appropriate recipient. Copies of the statement of work, contained in the Recipient's proposal and accepted by NASA, will be provided to the administrative grant officer and CASI. The cooperative agreement file will contain a record of the addresses for distributing agreements and supplements. Subpart C--Administration Sec. 1274.301 Delegation of administration. Normally, cooperative agreements will be administered by the awarding activity. Sec. 1274.302 Transfers, novations, and change of name agreements. (a) Transfer of cooperative agreements. Novation is the only means by which a cooperative agreement may be transferred from one Recipient to another. (b) Novation and change of name. All novation agreements and change of name agreements of the Recipient, prior to execution, shall be reviewed by NASA legal counsel for legal sufficiency prior to approval. Subpart D--Government Property Sec. 1274.401 Government property. The accomplishment of a cooperative agreement may require the purchase of equipment for a wide range of purposes. If this equipment is purchased with Government funds, i.e., as part of the Government contribution to the cooperative agreement, it becomes Government property and must be disposed of in accordance with 48 CFR (FAR) Part 45 at the conclusion of the cooperative agreement. In some cases, this may meet the needs of the parties. If, however, the Recipient may need the equipment to continue commercial efforts following the cooperative agreement, it should be purchased by the Recipient and included as an in-kind contribution of the Recipient. In this way, it is not procured, not even in part, with Government funds and the Government acquires no ownership interest. Procurement by the Recipient may be before or during the performance of the cooperative agreement. Subpart E--Procurement Standards Sec. 1274.501 Subcontracts. All contracts, including small purchases, awarded by Recipients and their contractors shall contain the procurement provisions of Appendix A to this part, as applicable. Subpart F--Reports and Records Sec. 1274.601 Retention and access requirements for records. (a) This Subpart sets forth requirements for record retention and access to records for awards to Recipients. (b) Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to an award shall be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final invoice. The only exceptions are the following: (1) If any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken. (2) Records for real property and equipment acquired with Federal funds shall be retained for 3 years after final disposition. (3) When records are transferred to or maintained by NASA, the 3- year retention requirement is not applicable to the Recipient. (4) Indirect cost rate proposals, cost allocations plans, etc. as specified in paragraph (g) of this section. (c) Copies of original records may be substituted for the original records if authorized by NASA. (d) NASA shall request transfer of certain records to its custody from Recipients when it determines that the records possess long term retention value. However, in order to avoid duplicate record keeping, NASA may make arrangements for Recipients to retain any records that are continuously needed for joint use. (e) NASA, the Inspector General, Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, have the right of timely and unrestricted access to any books, documents, papers, or other records of Recipients that are pertinent to the awards, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, transcripts and copies of such documents. This right also includes timely and reasonable access to a Recipient's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents. The rights of access in this paragraph are not limited to the required retention period, but shall last as long as records are retained. (f) Unless required by statute, NASA shall not place restrictions on Recipients that limit public access to the records of Recipients that are pertinent to an award, except when NASA can demonstrate that such records shall be kept confidential and would have been exempted from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552 ) if the records had belonged to NASA. (g) Indirect cost rate proposals, cost allocations plans, etc. This paragraph applies to the following types of documents, and their supporting records: indirect cost rate computations or proposals, cost allocation plans, and any similar accounting computations of the rate at which a particular group of costs is chargeable (such as computer usage chargeback rates or composite fringe benefit rates). (1) If submitted for negotiation. If the Recipient submits to NASA or the subrecipient submits to the Recipient the proposal, plan, or other computation to form the basis for negotiation of the rate, then the 3-year retention period for its supporting records starts on the date of such submission. (2) If not submitted for negotiation. If the Recipient is not required to submit to NASA or the subrecipient is not required to submit to the Recipient the proposal, plan, or other computation for negotiation purposes, then the 3-year retention period for the proposal, plan, or other computation and its supporting records starts at the end of the fiscal year (or other accounting period) covered by the proposal, plan, or other computation. Subpart G--Suspension or Revocation Sec. 1274.701 Suspension or revocation. A cooperative agreement provides both NASA and the Recipient the ability to revoke the agreement if it is in their best interests to do so. For example, NASA may revoke the agreement if the Recipient is not making anticipated technical progress or if the Recipient materially fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. Similarly, the Recipient may revoke the agreement if technical progress is not being made, if the firms are shifting their technical emphasis, or if other technological advances have made the effort obsolete. NASA may also suspend the cooperative agreement for a short period of time if an assessment needs to be made as to whether the agreement should be revoked or not. Subpart H--After-the-Award Requirements Sec. 1274.801 Purpose. Sections 1274.802 and 1274.803 contain closeout procedures and other procedures for subsequent disallowances and adjustments. Sec. 1274.802 Closeout procedures. (a) Recipients shall submit, within 90 calendar days after the date of completion of the cooperative agreement, all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms and conditions of the award. Extensions may be approved when requested by the Recipient. (b) The Recipient shall account for any real and personal property acquired with Federal funds or received from the Federal Government in accordance with Subpart D of this part. Sec. 1274.803 Subsequent adjustments and continuing responsibilities. The closeout of an award does not affect any of the following: (a) Audit requirements in Sec. 1274.933. (b) Property management requirements in subpart D of this part. (c) Records retention as required in Sec. 1274.601. Subpart I--Other Provisions and Special Conditions Sec. 1274.901 Other provisions and special conditions. The provisions set forth in this subpart are to be incorporated in and made a part of all cooperative agreements. The provisions at Secs. 1274.902 through 1274.909 are to be incorporated in full text substantially as stated in this regulation. The provisions at Secs. 1274.910 through 1274.933 will be incorporated by reference in an enclosure to each cooperative agreement (see Exhibit A as listed in Appendix C to this part). For inclusion of provisions in subcontracts, see Subpart E--Procurement Standards of this part. Sec. 1274.902 Purpose (XXX 1995) The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to conduct a shared resource project that will lead to ____________. This cooperative agreement will advance the technology developments and research which have been performed on ____________. The specific objective is to ____________. This work will culminate in ____________. Sec. 1274.903 Responsibilities (XXX 1995). (a) This cooperative agreement will include substantial NASA participation during performance of the effort. NASA and the Recipient agree to the following Responsibilities, a statement of cooperative interactions to occur during the performance of this effort. NASA and the Recipient shall exert all reasonable efforts to fulfill the responsibilities stated below. (b) NASA Responsibilities. Since NASA contractors may obtain certain intellectual property rights arising from work for NASA in support of this agreement, NASA will inform Recipient whenever NASA intends to use NASA contractors to perform technical engineering services in support of this agreement. The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (c) Recipient Responsibilities. The Recipient shall be responsible for particular aspects of project performance as set forth in the technical proposal dated ____________, attached hereto (or Statement of Work dated ____________, attached hereto.) The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 1274.904 Resource Sharing Requirements (XXX 1995). (a) NASA and the Recipient will share in providing the resources necessary to perform the agreement. NASA funding and non-cash contributions (personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.) and the dollar value of the Recipient's cash and/or in-kind contribution will be on a ________ (NASA)-________ (Recipient) basis. Criteria and procedures for the allowability and allocability of cash and in-kind contributions shall be governed by Section 23, ``Cost Sharing or Matching,'' of the Attachment to OMB Circular A-110 (58 FR 62992, November 29, 1993). The ``applicable federal cost principles'' cited in OMB Circular A-110 are 48 CFR (FAR) Part 31, entitled ``Contract Cost Principles and Procedures.'' (b) The Recipient's share shall not be charged to the Government under this agreement or under any other contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, except that the Recipient's contribution may be considered as allowable IR&D costs pursuant to 48 CFR (NFS) 1831.205-18. Sec. 1274.905 Rights in Data (XXX 1995) (a) Definitions. Data means recorded information, regardless of form, the media on which it may be recorded, or the method of recording. The term includes, but is not limited to, data of a scientific or technical nature, computer software and documentation thereof, and data comprising commercial and financial information. (b) Data Categories. (1) General: Data exchanged between NASA and Recipient under this cooperative agreement will be exchanged without restriction as to its disclosure, use or duplication except as otherwise provided below in this provision. (2) Background Data: In the event it is necessary for Recipient to furnish NASA with Data which existed prior to, or produced outside of, this cooperative agreement, and such Data embodies trade secrets or comprises commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential, and such Data is so identified with a suitable notice or legend, the Data will be maintained in confidence and disclosed and used by NASA and its contractors (under suitable protective conditions) only for the purpose of carrying out NASA's responsibilities under this cooperative agreement. Upon completion of activities under this agreement, such Data will be disposed of as requested by Recipient. (3) Data first produced by Recipient: In the event Data first produced by Recipient in carrying out Recipient's responsibilities under this cooperative agreement is furnished to NASA, and Recipient considers such Data to embody trade secrets or to comprise commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential, and such Data is so identified with a suitable notice or legend, the Data will be maintained in confidence and disclosed and used by [``NASA'' or ``the Government,'' as appropriate] and its contractors (under suitable protective conditions) only for [insert appropriate purpose; for example: experimental; evaluation; research; development, etc.] by or on behalf of [``NASA'' or ``the Government'' as appropriate]. In order that [``NASA'' or the ``Government'', as appropriate] and its contractors may exercise the right to use such Data for the purposes designated above, NASA, upon request to the Recipient, shall have the right to review and request delivery of Data first produced by Recipient. Delivery shall be made within a time period specified by NASA. (4) Data first produced by NASA: As to Data first produced by NASA in carrying out NASA's responsibilities under this cooperative agreement and which Data would embody trade secrets or would comprise commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential if obtained from the Recipient, such Data will, to the extent permitted by law, be appropriately marked with a notice or legend and maintained in confidence for a period of ( ) years [INSERT A PERIOD UP TO 5 YEARS] after development of the information, with the express understanding that during the aforesaid period such Data may be disclosed and used (under suitable protective conditions) by or on behalf of the Government for Government purposes only, and thereafter for any purpose whatsoever without restriction on disclosure and use. Recipient agrees not to disclose such Data to any third party without NASA's written approval until the aforementioned restricted period expires. (5) Copyright. In the event Data is exchanged with a notice indicating the Data is protected under copyright as a published copyrighted work, or are deposited for registration as a published work in the U.S. Copyright Office, the following paid-up licenses shall apply: (i) If it is indicated on the Data that the Data existed prior to, or was produced outside of, this agreement, the receiving party and others acting on its behalf, may reproduce, distribute, and prepare derivative works for the purpose of carrying out the receiving party's responsibilities under this cooperative agreement; and (ii) If the furnished Data does not contain the indication of parag



The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a
matter of statewide concern.
(b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing
to the senses and intellect of man.
(c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality
ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their enjoyment
of the natural resources of the state.
(d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the
government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health
and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such
thresholds being reached.
(e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
(f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and
waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to
enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution.
(g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate
activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the
quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to
preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living
environment for every Californian.
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to:
Association of Environmental Professionals 2009 CEQA Statute
(a) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action
necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.
(b) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment
of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive
(c) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and
wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future
generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major
periods of California history.
(d) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a
decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding
criterion in public decisions.
(e) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to
fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations.
(f) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to
protect environmental quality.
(g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic
and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and
costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment.
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that projects to be carried
out by public agencies be subject to the same level of review and consideration under this division
as that of private projects required to be approved by public agencies.
The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures
available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects,
and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant
effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or
other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual
projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.
In order to achieve the objectives set forth in Section 21002, the Legislature hereby finds and
declares that the following policy shall apply to the use of environmental impact reports prepared
pursuant to this division:
(a) The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the
environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in
which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.
(b) Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of
projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.
(c) If economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant
effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved
Association of Environmental Professionals 2009 CEQA Statute
at the discretion of a public agency if the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws
and regulations.
(d) In applying the policies of subdivisions (b) and (c) to individual projects, the responsibility of the
lead agency shall differ from that of a responsible agency. The lead agency shall be responsible
for considering the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in a project.
A responsible agency shall be responsible for considering only the effects of those activities
involved in a project which it is required by law to carry out or approve. This subdivision
applies only to decisions by a public agency to carry out or approve a project and does not
otherwise affect the scope of the comments that the public agency may wish to make pursuant
to Section 21104 or 21153.
(e) To provide more meaningful public disclosure, reduce the time and cost required to prepare an
environmental impact report, and focus on potentially significant effects on the environment of
a proposed project, lead agencies shall, in accordance with Section 21100, focus the discussion
in the environmental impact report on those potential effects on the environment of a proposed
project which the lead agency has determined are or may be significant. Lead agencies may
limit discussion on other effects to a brief explanation as to why those effects are not
potentially significant.
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that:
(a) Local agencies integrate the requirements of this division with planning and environmental
review procedures otherwise required by law or by local practice so that all those procedures, to
the maximum feasible extent, run concurrently, rather than consecutively.
(b) Documents prepared pursuant to this division be organized and written in a manner that will be
meaningful and useful to decision makers and to the public.
(c) Environmental impact reports omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible
mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to projects.
(d) Information developed in individual environmental impact reports be incorporated into a data
base which can be used to reduce delay and duplication in preparation of subsequent
environmental impact reports.
(e) Information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be
incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental
environmental determinations.
(f) All persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible
for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the
available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those
resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5

in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble
(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people”
will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
to anything other than an individual right.6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution
that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-
Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279 , 194 U. S. 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words

Page 494 U. S. 266

"person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.

What we know of the history of the drafting of the Fourth Amendment also suggests that its purpose was to restrict searches and seizures which might be conducted by the United States in domestic matters. The Framers originally decided not to include a provision like the Fourth Amendment, because they believed the National Government lacked power to conduct searches and seizures. See C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 508-509 (1928); The Federalist No. 84, p. 513 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); 1 Annals of Cong. 437 (1789) (statement of J. Madison). Many disputed the original view that the Federal Government possessed only narrow delegated powers over domestic affairs, however, and ultimately felt an Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures was necessary. Madison, for example, argued that

"there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all of the powers vested in the Government of the United States,"

and that general warrants might be considered "necessary" for the purpose of collecting revenue. Id. at 438. The driving force behind the adoption of the Amendment, as suggested by Madison's advocacy, was widespread hostility among the former Colonists to the issuance of writs of assistance empowering revenue officers to search suspected places for smuggled goods, and general search warrants permitting the search of private houses, often to uncover papers that might be used to convict persons of libel. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 , 116 U. S. 625 -626 (1886). The available historical data show, therefore, that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government; it was never suggested that the provision was intended to restrain the actions of the Federal Government against aliens outside of the United States territory.

Page 494 U. S. 267

There is likewise no indication that the Fourth Amendment was understood by contemporaries of the Framers to apply to activities of the United States directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters. Only seven years after the ratification of the Amendment, French interference with American commercial vessels engaged in neutral trade triggered what came to be known as the "undeclared war" with France. In an Act to "protect the Commerce of the United States" in 1798, Congress authorized President Adams to

"instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels which are, or which shall be employed in the service of the United States, to subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas."

§ 1 of An Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States, Ch. 68, 1 Stat. 578. This public naval force consisted of only 45 vessels, so Congress also gave the President power to grant to the owners of private armed ships and vessels of the United States "special commissions," which would allow them

"the same license and authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing any armed French vessel, and for the recapture of the vessels, goods and effects of the people of the United States, as the public armed vessels of the United States may by law have."

§ 2, 1 Stat. 579; see U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 11 (Congress has power to grant letters of marque and reprisal). Under the latter provision, 365 private armed vessels were commissioned before March 1, 1799, see G. Allen, Our Naval War with France 59 (1967); together, these enactments resulted in scores of seizures of foreign vessels under congressional authority. See M. Palmer, Stoddert's War: Naval Operations during the Quasi-War with France 1798-1801, p. 235 (1987). See also An Act further to suspend the Commercial Intercourse between the United States and France, Ch. 2, 1 Stat. 613. Some commanders were held liable by this Court for unlawful seizures because their actions were beyond the scope of the congressional

Page 494 U. S. 268

grant of authority, see, e.g., 6 U. S. 177 -178 (1804); cf. 5 U. S. 31 , (1801) (seizure of neutral ship lawful where American captain had probable cause to believe vessel was French), but it was never suggested that the Fourth Amendment restrained the authority of Congress or of United States agents to conduct operations such as this.

The global view taken by the Court of Appeals of the application of the Constitution is also contrary to this Court's decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not every constitutional provision applies to governmental activity even where the United States has sovereign power. See, e.g., Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298 (1922) (Fifth Amendment right to jury trial inapplicable in Puerto Rico); Ocampo v. United States, 234 U. S. 91 (1914) (Sixth Amendment grand jury provision inapplicable in Philippines); Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 (1904) (jury trial provision inapplicable in Philippines); Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197 (1903) (provisions on indictment by grand jury and jury trial inapplicable in Hawaii); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901) (revenue clauses of Constitution inapplicable to Puerto Rico). In Dorr, we declared the general rule that in an unincorporated territory -- one not clearly destined for statehood -- Congress was not required to adopt

"a system of laws which shall include the right of trial by jury, and that the Constitution does not without legislation and of its own force, carry such right to territory so situated. "

195 U.S. at 195 U. S. 149 (emphasis added). Only "fundamental" constitutional rights are guaranteed to inhabitants of those territories. Id. at 148; Balzac, supra, 258 U.S. at 258 U. S. 312 -313; see Examining Board of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572 , 426 U. S. 599 , n. 30 (1976). If that is true with respect to territories ultimately governed by Congress, respondent's claim that the protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to aliens in foreign nations is even weaker. And certainly, it is not open to us in light of the Insular Cases to endorse the

Page 494 U. S. 269

view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the United States Government exercises its power.

Indeed, we have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950), the Court held that enemy aliens arrested in China and imprisoned in Germany after World War II could not obtain writs of habeas corpus in our federal courts on the ground that their convictions for war crimes had violated the Fifth Amendment and other constitutional provisions. The Eisentrager opinion acknowledged that in some cases constitutional provisions extend beyond the citizenry; "[t]he alien . . . has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society." Id. at 339 U. S. 770 . But our rejection of extraterritorial application of the Fifth Amendment was emphatic:

"Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have been so significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, if intended or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment. Not one word can be cited. No decision of this Court supports such a view. Cf. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901). None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has even hinted at it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it."

Id. at 339 U. S. 784 . If such is true of the Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the relatively universal term of "person," it would seem even more true with respect to the Fourth Amendment, which applies only to "the people."

To support his all-encompassing view of the Fourth Amendment, respondent points to language from a plurality opinion in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 (1957). Reid involved an attempt by Congress to subject the wives of American servicemen to trial by military tribunals without the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court held that it was unconstitutional to apply the Uniform Code of Military

Page 494 U. S. 270

Justice to the trials of the American women for capital crimes. Four Justices "reject[ed] the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights." Id. at 354 U. S. 5 (emphasis added). The plurality went on to say:

"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land."

Id. at 354 U. S. 5 -6 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). Respondent urges that we interpret this discussion to mean that federal officials are constrained by the Fourth Amendment wherever and against whomever they act. But the holding of Reid stands for no such sweeping proposition: it decided that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The concurring opinions by Justices Frankfurter and Harlan in Reid resolved the case on much narrower grounds than the plurality and declined even to hold that United States citizens were entitled to the full range of constitutional protections in all overseas criminal prosecutions. See id. at 354 U. S. 75 (Harlan, J., concurring in result) ("I agree with my brother FRANKFURTER that . . . we have before us a question analogous, ultimately, to issues of due process; one can say, in fact, that the question of which specific safeguards of the Constitution are appropriately to be applied in a particular context overseas can be reduced to the issue of what process is due' a defendant in the particular circumstances of a particular case"). Since respondent is not a United States citizen, he can derive no comfort from the Reid holding.

Verdugo-Urquidez also relies on a series of cases in which we have held that aliens enjoy certain constitutional rights.

Page 494 U. S. 271

See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202 , 457 U. S. 211 -212 (1982) (illegal aliens protected by Equal Protection Clause); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590 , 344 U. S. 596 (1953) (resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135 , 326 U. S. 148 (1945) (resident aliens have First Amendment rights); Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481 (1931) (Just Compensation Clause of Fifth Amendment); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228 , 163 U. S. 238 (1896) (resident aliens entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 , 118 U. S. 369 (1886) (Fourteenth Amendment protects resident aliens). These cases, however, establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country. See, e.g., Plyler, supra, 457 U.S. at 457 U. S. 212 (The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment " are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction. . . . '") (quoting Yick Wo, supra, 118 U.S. at 118 U. S. 369 ); Kwong Hai Chew, supra, 344 U.S. at 344 U. S. 596 , n. 5 ("The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.") (quoting Bridges, supra, 326 U.S. at 326 U. S. 161 (concurring opinion) (emphasis added)). Respondent is an alien who has had no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States, so these cases avail him not.

Justice STEVENS' concurrence in the judgment takes the view that, even though the search took place in Mexico, it is nonetheless governed by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment because respondent was "lawfully present in the United States . . . even though he was brought and held here against his will." Post at 494 U. S. 279 . But this sort of presence -- lawful but involuntary -- is not of the sort to indicate any substantial connection with our country. The extent to which respondent might claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment

Page 494 U. S. 272

if the duration of his stay in the United States were to be prolonged -- by a prison sentence, for example -- we need not decide. When the search of his house in Mexico took place, he had been present in the United States for only a matter of days. We do not think the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to the search of premises in Mexico should turn on the fortuitous circumstance of whether the custodian of its nonresident alien owner had or had not transported him to the United States at the time the search was made.

The Court of Appeals found some support for its holding in our decision in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032 (1984), where a majority of Justices assumed that the Fourth Amendment applied to illegal aliens in the United States. We cannot fault the Court of Appeals for placing some reliance on the case, but our decision did not expressly address the proposition gleaned by the court below. The question presented for decision in Lopez-Mendoza was limited to whether the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule should be extended to civil deportation proceedings; it did not encompass whether the protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to illegal aliens in this country. The Court often grants certiorari to decide particular legal issues while assuming without deciding the validity of antecedent propositions, compare, e.g., Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1 (1980) (assuming State is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983) with Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58 (1989) (State is not a "person"), and such assumptions -- even on jurisdictional issues -- are not binding in future cases that directly raise the questions. Id. at 491 U. S. 63 , n. 4; Hagans v. Levine, 415 U. S. 528 , 415 U. S. 535 , n. 5 (1974). Our statements in Lopez-Mendoza are therefore not dispositive of how the Court would rule on a Fourth Amendment claim by illegal aliens in the United States if such a claim were squarely before us. Even assuming such aliens would be entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, their situation is

Page 494 U. S. 273

different from respondent's. The illegal aliens in Lopez-Mendoza were in the United States voluntarily and presumably had accepted some societal obligations; but respondent had no voluntary connection with this country that might place him among "the people" of the United States.

Respondent also contends that to treat aliens differently from citizens with respect to the Fourth Amendment somehow violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He relies on Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365 (1971), and Foley v. Connelie, 435 U. S. 291 (1978), for this proposition. But the very cases previously cited with respect to the protection extended by the Constitution to aliens undermine this claim. They are constitutional decisions of this Court expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens, based on our conclusion that the particular provisions in question were not intended to extend to aliens in the same degree as to citizens. Cf. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67 , 426 U. S. 79 -80 (1976)