EFO ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY NEWSREEL -- 2009

1. EFO ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY NEWSREEL -- 2009 June 26, 2009 Oklahoma City Zoo Jon L. Craig

2. S-531 “ENERGY AND WATER INTEGRATION ACT OF 2009”

3. PURPOSE: To provide for the analysis of energy development and production on water resources.

4. BACKGROUND: Energy production requires substantial amounts of water. Acquiring, treating, and delivering water consumes a large amount of energy.Water use efficiencies can reduce water demand and reduce energy consumption.

5. PROVISIONS OF THE ACT: Requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an analysis of energy development and production on water resources.

6. . • The study would evaluate: • 1) Water consumed in producing transportation fuels. • 2) Water consumed in the production of electricity. • 3) Water impacts from extraction or mining, transportation of the fuel for processing, and consumption.

7. Requires a study to protect water supplies and efficient use of water in the production of electricity. • Requires evaluation of energy used in water storage and delivery. • Requires research to promote brackish ground water desalinization. • Directs DOE to address water-related challenges of energy production.

8. SUPREME COURT ALLOWS USE OF “COST BENEFIT” IN COOLING INTAKE STRUCTURE RULE

9. CWA requires that cooling water intake structures reflect the “best technology available” for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

10. EPA issued three rules: • Phase I rules for new power plants. • Phase II rules for large, existing power plants. • Phase III rules for smaller, existing power plants.

11. EPA rules allowed owners to utilize "cost benefit" in selecting an alternative. • Federal court ruling: • The CWA did not specifically authorize EPA to allow the use of "cost benefit" in the selection of an alternative.

12. Industry appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. • Supreme Court ruled that CWA did not say that "cost benefit" could not be a consideration in selecting an alternative.

13. EPA is evaluating how to revise regulations.

14. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PERMIT

15. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA must better regulate stormwater runoff from construction sites. • EPA is under a deadline to set effluent limit guidelines (ELG) for the construction sector.

16. One option would require non-numeric erosion and sediment control measures utilizing the best practicable control technology currently available.

17. A second option would establish a numeric turbidity limit of 200 NTU’s for sites of one to 30 acres and require passive treatment technologies.

18. A third option would impose numeric turbidity limit of 13 NTUsfor sites of 30 acres or larger.

19. EPA sought approval from OMB to require permittees to perform turbidity monitoring before the stormwater could be discharged.

20. EPA would use the data to justify choosing the more stringent stormwater control option.

21. OMB rejected EPA’s request to collect data. OMB’s rejection may hinder EPA’s efforts to establish numeric effluent limits for discharges of stormwater from construction sites.

22. WITHDRAWAL OF NPDES FEE RULE

23. EPA issued a rule for states to implement NPDES permit fees to pay for NPDES program.

24. The rule established that if additional 106 funds were appropriated by congress above the established “base amount,” the additional funds would only be available to those states with NPDES fees that were “adequate” to pay the state’s costs to administer the program.

25. On April 9, 2009, EPA officially withdrew the NPDES Fee Incentive Rule.

26. “CLEAN WATER RESTORATION ACT OF 2009”

27. PURPOSE: To clarify the jurisdiction over waters of the United States.

28. Two Supreme Court decisions limited the basis for asserting jurisdiction over solely intrastate waters and narrowed the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) over isolated wetlands.

29. THE BILL Eliminates the law’s current application to navigable waters only;

30. Clarifies that Congress did not intend that the Clean Water Act applies to prior converted croplands and wastewater treatment lagoons;

31. The intent is to return jurisdiction to pre-SWANCC, pre-Rapanos court decisions;

32. Defines “waters of the United States” to include: • all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; • all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; • all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or national ponds;

33. all impoundments of water of the United States; • tributaries of the aforementioned waters; • the territorial seas, and • wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters.

34. Thank You