• EPA Reconsiders New Source Review Revisions
  
• ExxonMobil Sued for Brooklyn Oil Spill
  
• Challenges to New Ozone Standards Arise
  
• Yellowstone Cell Tower May Be Modified
  
• Rare Frogs Reintroduced in Arizona
  
• Proposal Permits Continued Beluga Caviar Imports
  
• New England Cottontail Merits Endangered Assessment
  
• Maryland Revs Up Clean Car Proposal
  

EPA Reconsiders New Source Review Revisions

Specifically, the agency will take comments on several aspects of the equipment replacement provision (ERP).

The ERP was finalized last August, but a legal challenge prompted a federal court to stay the changes until the merits of the case have been determined.

The New Source Review program was established in 1977 to ensure that older facilities - in particular coal-fired power plants - built before the Clean Air Act took effect in 1970 would not hamper the nation's progress toward cleaner air.

The program required owners of industrial facilities to install the best pollution control equipment available when they made a major modification to an existing facility that increased emissions.

But the New Source Review was written with an exemption for activities that qualified as "routine maintenance" - and it is this loophole that the Bush administration has sought to change.

The final rule announced in August exempted facility modifications that cost less than a certain percentage of the entire facility or specific equipment, as much as 20 percent for some industries.

If the modification is more than 20 percent, a facility could still find exemption from New Source Review if it is replacing pieces of equipment with other pieces that serve the same function.

In response to petitions to reconsider portions of the ERP, the agency is soliciting additional public comment on whether the provision was allowed under the Clean Air Act and if the cost threshold is appropriate to determine if a replacement was routine.

In addition, the agency will reconsider its revised procedure for how states implement air pollution plans to accommodate changes to the New Source Review rules.

The New Source Review program has become a lightening rod for the administration, which developed its changes to meet industry complaints that the program creates uncertainty and is unfair.

Although 12 states have expressed support for the revisions, the same number filed suit to block the changes, which have also drawn the ire of environmentalists, public health advocates and state pollution control officials.

Critics of the administration's New Source Review revisions contend the Bush administration move to reconsider reflects an attempt to firm up a weak legal position ahead of the court challenge.

"The EPA is trying to give itself immunity from charges that it did not follow proper procedures, but this gambit will not wash," says Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust. "The EPA has made it clear that it does not plan to change the rule and those Bush administration rule changes will be overturned in court."

Scott Segal, executive director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, says the EPA "has taken another step in moving to implement a sensible approach to replacing aging equipment at power plants."

"We are confident that the court will uphold clarification of New Source Review," Segal said. "If opponents of a clear New Source Review policy continue to push for delay, however, they will only risk diminished emissions control, energy efficiency, workplace safety."

The EPA will take comments through July 29, 2004.

ExxonMobil Sued for Brooklyn Oil Spill

The plaintiffs say the massive spill - one of the world's largest - is contaminating the groundwater and constantly seeping into Newtown Creek and affecting the shorelines of two New York City boroughs - Brooklyn and Queens.

Newtown Creek is one of the dirtiest water bodies in North America. Oil slicks constantly seep from the shoreline and often extend hundreds of yards with the tide.

The 17 million gallon plume of oil that plagues the creek and the community of Greenpoint, Brooklyn is the product of a series of major spills in the 1940s and 1950s and nearly half a century of neglect.

Riverkeeper filed its intent to sue in January and proceeded into negotiations with the oil giant. But the environmental organization says these negotiations proved unsuccessful because ExxonMobil refused to admit responsibility.

"This lawsuit aims to remedy one of the worst environmental crimes in the country," said Riverkeeper Executive Director Alex Matthiessen. "Exxon has profited for five decades by neglecting this massive spill, at great cost to our waterways and the people of this city. A comprehensive cleanup of this neglected waterway is long overdue and the time of reckoning has come."

Marking their formal involvement, New York Councilmembers David Yassky, whose district includes Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and Eric Gioia, who represents western Queens, filed notice of their intent to join the suit later this year.

Although other ChevronTexaco and other oil companies are cited in the suit, the plaintiffs believe ExxonMobil holds prime responsibility for the pollution.

ExxonMobil says it has complied with regulatory requirements and is committed to clean up the pollution, but the plaintiffs contend a 1990 consent order with New York State has let the oil company drag its feet.

That order demanded no penalties, set no benchmarks for cleanup, and allowed ExxonMobil to conduct the most rudimentary remediation, according to the plaintiffs, who contend that only three million gallons have been removed since operations started and progress is slowing now.

"ExxonMobil must take responsibility for this terrible ecological disaster," said Councilman Yassky. "Every day they do nothing, Brooklyn waterways become more polluted. This spill is a crime against the environment, and it must be remedied."

Challenges to New Ozone Standards Arise

Yellowstone Cell Tower May Be Modified

The silvery phone tower and its three antennas are unshielded by trees, without camouflage, and clearly visible from almost every part of the Old Faithful Historic District.

The tower has drawn the ire of conservationists and the Park Service is under investigation by the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for its decision to erect the structure.

In a letter dated June 18, 2004, Yellowstone Superintendent Suzanne Lewis informed the council that the park was considering "removing an additional 20 feet of the tower" as well as "whether or not to camouflage the tower to improve the visual quality of the site."

The letter was released Tuesday by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). It was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In the letter, Lewis writes that the conditions "that exist today at the location are different than those that existed in November 1999," when the decision was made to construct the tower.

"In reviewing the administrative record, it would appear that the 'surrounding burned tree snags' have been blown or fallen down and additional trees that may have been in the area were removed during maintenance work," Lewis wrote.

The Park Service will consider the effects of removing an additional 20 feet from the tower on the visual impact of the site and the health and safety service levels for the park and the public, as well as the possibility of camouflaging the tower, according to the letter.

Lewis denied the structure was constructed inconsistent with the original proposal.

The letter has done little to satisfy critics of the tower, which has also drawn the interest of the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office.

Prompted by a complaint filed by PEER, the Wyoming office found the National Park Service changed the size and contours of the structure from what had been submitted to the state for review.

In addition, the Park Service failed to file a notice in the Federal Register as required by law that it was even considering approving the tower.

"Shortening the tower at Old Faithful by 20 feet will not make it any less ugly, less inappropriate or less illegal," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "The superintendent is stepping around the central issue - should there be a cell tower at Old Faithful in the first place?"

"The most disturbing part of this after the fact public safety justification is that it implies that Yellowstone is willing to provide cell coverage throughout the entire park and especially in the backcountry," Ruch said.

In part because of the criticism of the Yellowstone cell tower, the National Park Service last month asked all its superintendents to report where existing wireless communication facilities are located in national parks.

The park service acknowledged in April that it does not have a database or inventory of cell sites or telecommunication equipment permitted in the national park system.

Rare Frogs Reintroduced in Arizona

Last weekend biologists released more than 400 Tarahumara frogs and tadpoles in the Santa Rita Mountains, some 50 miles south of Tucson.

"Returning these frogs to the wilds of Arizona is one milestone," said Arizona Game and Fish Department herpetologist Michael Sredl. "The real achievement will come when we establish reproducing populations of Tarahumara frogs in Arizona."

The Tarahumara frog is a 2.5 to 4.5 inch greenish-brown frog with small brown and black spots on its body. It prefers deep plunge pools in the rugged canyons of southeastern Arizona.

Although wild populations of these frogs are still found in Mexico, biologists believe the last Tarahumara frogs in the United States died out in the early 1980s.

Thousands of the frogs lived in Arizona's Santa Cruz County in the 1970s, but biologists believe they disappeared because of disease, winter cold, flooding, and toxic fallout from copper smelters.

The released frogs were collected as eggs in Mexico in 2000 and reared at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service facilities, Kofa and San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuges, and the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum.

"Planning, permitting, collecting, rearing, and releasing are complete," said Jim Rorabaugh, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service herpetologist, "but the success of this project relies on monitoring this population to determine whether the threats they faced in the past are still present, and if necessary, addressing them."

The released frogs were treated against a fungal disease that has been killing off frogs around the world since the Tarahumara frog died out in the United States years ago.

Bullfrogs, which are predators of Arizona native frogs, have not been found in surveys of the release area.

Proposal Permits Continued Beluga Caviar Imports

In April the agency officially listed all populations of beluga sturgeon as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, citing threats of unregulated overfishing, spawning habitat loss and poaching to supply the black market beluga caviar trade.

The listing requires strict limitations and permits for U.S. importers of beluga caviar and other beluga sturgeon products.

The rule proposed Tuesday would conditionally exempt the import, re-export, and foreign or interstate commerce in beluga caviar and meat from the Act's permit requirements.

The agency says its proposed exemption is limited to economically valuable beluga caviar and by-products such as cosmetics, and to beluga sturgeon meat harvested either from the wild or from hatcheries in the countries around the Black and Caspian Seas.

"Our proposal is to allow continued trade in these products contingent upon Black and Caspian Sea countries developing cooperative management plans, sharing information concerning policy decisions, and reducing the illegal trade," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams

The countries affected include Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.

The proposed special rule would not exempt the trade in live or commercially raised beluga sturgeon.

In order for U.S. importers to use this exemption, these countries must provide written management plans, annual reports, and copies of national fishing laws on a specified schedule.

If a country with native beluga sturgeon populations does not meet that schedule, then U.S. importers would have to comply with all the permitting requirements under the Act.

As proposed, the listed countries would have six months from the special rule's effective date to submit their beluga sturgeon conservation and management plans to the Fish and Wildlife Service for review.

During this time, imports, re-exports, and interstate and foreign commerce of certain beluga sturgeon products would not require threatened species permits, but must have legal documentation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES.)

In 1998, beluga and all other previously unlisted sturgeons and paddlefish were included in CITES Appendix II, which allows sustainable and controlled international trade for commercial and noncommercial purposes through a system of permits.

All sturgeon and paddlefish and their byproducts must be accompanied by valid CITES documentation to be legally imported into or exported from the United States.

Historically, beluga sturgeon inhabited a wide range throughout eastern Europe and central Asia. Now remaining wild beluga sturgeon populations are found only in the Black and Caspian Sea Basins.

New England Cottontail Merits Endangered Assessment

The decision is in response to a petition filed in 2000 by four conservation organizations requesting protection for the rabbit under the Endangered Species Act.

Although the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to respond to petitions within 90 days, the agency blames budget constraints for frequent delays.

The four petitioners, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Conservation Action Project, Endangered Small Animals Conservation Fund and Defenders of Wildlife, believe the main factors in the New England cottontail's decline are widespread land use changes and competition with an introduced species, the eastern cottontail.

The Eastern cottontail was introduced to the area in the 1930s - the New England cottontail's historic range has declined by some 80 percent since 1960.

The available habitat for the species has been reduced to small, disconnected patches of land along highways, wetlands and railroad tracks.

Lack of available cover leaves the species more vulnerable to predators and often without adequate forage.

Today, small populations of the rabbit may be found in eastern New York and in several counties in Connecticut, Rhode Island, western Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire and southern coastal Maine.

Although they once occurred in Vermont, New England cottontails have not been reported there since 1990.

The announcement, known as a 90 day finding, does not mean the agency has decided it is appropriate to list the New England cottontail rabbit as an endangered species.

It is the first step in a process that triggers a more thorough review of all the biological information available.

This process, which includes a request for input from the public, should be completed within 12 months of receiving the petition.

Maryland Revs Up Clean Car Proposal

The report documents the severe air pollution that threatens much of the state. Maryland has 14 times more benzene and 15 times more formaldehyde than standards allow; it has third highest cancer risk in the country for breathing benzene and the fifth highest for formaldehyde.

Smog is a major problem for the state - during the summer of 2002, air pollution monitors in Maryland registered 275 instances on 40 separate days when smog levels exceeded federal health standards, the fourth worst in the country.

"With the levels of air pollution we suffer in Maryland, we need to do what we can to get cleaner cars on the road," said MaryPIRG Director Brad Heavner, a co-author of the report.

The new report, "Ready to Roll: The Benefits of Today's Advanced Technology Vehicles for Maryland," documents new vehicle technology available today and currently under development.

Cars with traditional gasoline powered internal combustion engines can be made more than 90 percent cleaner with about $300 worth of better components, the report says.

Hybrid vehicles, combining gas and electric power elements, are on the market too.

"The good news is that automakers are already gearing up to mass produce cleaner cars for the states that require increasing sales of low-emission vehicles," Heavner said. "We would get a lot of bang for the buck by adopting the same requirements here."

Heavner's group has thrown its support behind proposed state legislation to require 10 percent of new cars sold to be low-emission vehicles.

Six percent of new car sales would be clean conventional vehicles under the "Clean Cars Act," which Maryland State Senator Sharon Grosfeld plans to introduce in the next session of the General Assembly in January.

"Cleaner car technology is ready, but consumers do not have many options to buy cleaner cars," said Maryland State Senator Sharon Grosfeld. "People should not have to go on a six month waiting list to buy a hybrid. All car companies should be offering a variety of hybrids."

Eight other states have vehicle emission standards that are stronger than the federal standards Maryland now uses. Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, Maine and California have had clean car standards on the books for years.

New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island moved to adopt the standards within the past year.