Source: http://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2010/06/index.html
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 20:31:25
Document Index: 51697636

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 260', '§33', '§262', '§262', '§262', '§266', '§ 262', '§ 262', '§261', '§47', '§47', '§404', '§404']

Energy and Environment Monitor: June 2010
DEP Proposes Revisions to Three Waste-Related Rules for 2011 Legislative Session
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has announced the public hearing schedule for its proposed 2011 legislative rules. The proposed rules include revisions to the West Virginia Hazardous Waste Management System Rule, 33 CSR 20, and revisions to two rules impacting remediation activities -- Regulations Governing Groundwater Standards, 47 CSR 12; and Monitoring Well Design Standards, 47 CSR 60. The public hearing for these rules will take place on Thursday, July 15, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at DEP’s Headquarters located at 601 57th Street S.E. in Charleston, West Virginia. Comments are due by the close of the public hearing on July 15, 2010. The proposed revisions are discussed below.
Ø Hazardous Waste Management System Rule, 33 CSR 20: The proposed revisions to the state Hazardous Waste Management System Rule would adopt the federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 279 that are in effect as of June 1, 2010, with the exception of two federal amendments. One exception is the federal amendment titled “Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste” Rule. 73 Fed. Reg. 64,668 (Oct. 30, 2008) that is currently being reconsidered by U.S. EPA. See Energy & Environment Monitor articles titled “Obama Administration EPA Reversing Bush Administration Relaxation of RCRA Rules by Considering Sierra Club Petition to Reconsider,” posted June 8, 2009, and “Sierra Club Takes U.S. EPA to Court on Its Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste,” posted March 18, 2009. The other exception is the federal amendment titled “Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion” that was adopted at the end of the Bush Administration (73 Fed. Reg. 77,954, December 19, 2008) and that was withdrawn by the Obama EPA effective June 15, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 33,712 (June 15, 2010). The federal amendment would have classified as non-hazardous waste fuels produced from hazardous secondary materials which, when burned in industrial boilers under specified conditions, generate emissions that are comparable to emissions from burning fuel oil in those boilers. See Energy & Environment Monitor article titled “New Emission-Comparable Fuel Exemption from Classification as Hazardous Waste,” posted January 23, 2009. Because U.S. EPA was reconsidering both the “Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste” and “Expansion to [sic] RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion” last year, the current state Hazardous Waste Management System Rule expressly excludes both federal rules from incorporation by reference. Now that U.S. EPA has withdrawn the “Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion,” the proposed revisions would strike the reference to “Expansion to [sic] RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion” from the exclusion provision of the final rule at §33-20-1.10.
In addition, DEP’s proposed revisions would also adopt two new federal rules: (1) “Revisions to the Requirements for Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Waste Between OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] Member Countries” that was published January 8, 2010 (75 Fed Reg. 1236); and (2) “Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule” that was published March 18, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 12,989). However, on June 4, 2010, U.S. EPA published a partial withdrawal of its March 18, 2010 “Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule” (75 Fed. Reg. 31,716). The technical corrections and clarifications that were not withdrawn took effect June 16, 2010.
In the June 4, 2010 partial withdrawal, U.S. EPA withdrew six of the original amendments from the March 18, 2010 direct final rule that DEP is proposing to adopt. U.S. EPA received adverse comment on four specific amendments and therefore withdrew them effective June 4, 2010. The four specific amendments are: (1) 40 CFR §262.34(a) related to the applicability of the 90-day hazardous waste accumulation time only to large quantity generators who are defined as including generators who generate “greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste…in a calendar month.”; (2) 40 CFR §262.34(a)(2) related to a new requirement that the accumulation start date be clearly marked and visible for inspection on each tank; (3) 40 CFR §262.34(a)(5) related to the closure requirements for tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings; (4) 40 CFR §266.20(b) concerning a new requirement that recyclers submit a one-time certification and a one-time notification for the initial shipment (as opposed to each shipment) of certain recyclable materials (i.e., hazardous waste-derived products) used in a manner constituting disposal. As a result of withdrawing 40 CFR § 262.34(a)(5), U.S. EPA also withdrew a related amendment at 40 CFR § 262.34(a)(1)(iv)(B), which previously applied only to containment buildings, because the Agency had deleted the latter part of this particular regulatory citation in the March 18, 2010 direct final rule in an effort to clarify the closure requirements for tanks, containers, drip pads and containment buildings. Additionally, there was a typographical error related to the entry for U.S. EPA hazardous waste K107 in the Table at 40 CFR §261.32(a).
Ø Regulations Governing Groundwater Standards Rule, 47 CSR 12: West Virginia’s Regulations Governing Groundwater Standards Rule establishes minimum standards of purity and quality for groundwater located within the State. The proposed revision would remove the numeric standard for radon of 300 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) that was proposed by DEP last year and adopted by the West Virginia Legislature during the 2010 legislative session. The radon standard that was adopted, however, had only been proposed and not finalized by U.S. EPA. This year’s proposed revision reflects U.S. EPA’s 2009 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories.
Ø Monitoring Well Design Standards Rule, 47 CSR 60: West Virginia’s Monitoring Well Design Standards Rule was first promulgated during the 1996 legislative session and revised during the 2010 legislative session. The proposed revisions to 47 CSR 60 would correct requirements for documentation submittals to DEP. The current rule requires reporting of all borehole abandonment, which DEP acknowledges in its briefing document is “unenforceable and unnecessary”. The proposed revisions would change §47-60-19.5 to require abandonment documentation only for “high risk” boreholes and permanent monitoring wells. The minutes of the June 3, 2010 meeting of DEP’s Environmental Protection Advisory Council indicate that this “was the original intention of the 2010 amendments recommended by the Monitoring Well Advisory Council.” “High risk” boreholes are defined in §47-60-19.2.a of the current rule as “those boreholes on sites containing or formerly containing solid or hazardous waste, hazardous materials or their by-products, or that may be affected by solid or hazardous waste, hazardous materials or their by-products in the future; or at sites of known or suspected contamination unless otherwise determined to be innocuous; or in situations where water quality in one water bearing zone may be detrimental to another water bearing zone.”
The marked-up version of the 2010 rules, including DEP’s notice of public hearing and briefing document, and minutes of the June 3, 2010 Environmental Protection Advisory Council meeting, are available on the Secretary of State’s web site up until the close of the comment period by clicking here. Once the comment period has closed the marked-up version of the rules will no longer be available on the Secretary of State’s web site. After the close of the comment period, the marked-up version of the rules may be obtained from DEP or the Secretary of State through a Freedom of Information Act Request.
6/20/10: Climate Scientists Awarded Prestigious Blue Planet Prize
6/20/10: Oceans choking on CO2, study finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37812221/ns/us_news-environment/
6/21/10: Navy Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy
6/22/10: LIVE FROM G8: G8 Statement Leaves Climate Change Groups Cold
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/live-from-g8-g8-statement-leaves-climate-change-groups-cold-1007592.html
6/22/10: Australia Will Maintain 20% Renewable Energy Target, Wong Says
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-22/australia-will-maintain-20-renewable-energy-target-wong-says.html
6/23/10: UN climate chief departs an optimist despite setbacks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/un-climate-chief-optimist
6/23/10: Obama to renew push for climate change action from Senate
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8f4da8a6-7e60-11df-94a8-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F8f4da8a6-7e60-11df-94a8-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=
6/26/10: UPDATE: Canada To Invest Added C$400M On International Climate Change
6/27/10: Australian voters want more actions on climate change: poll
http://world.globaltimes.cn/asia-pacific/2010-06/545883.html
6/27/10: 'CO2 storage' won't stop global warming: Study
http://www.business24-7.ae/the-business-of-life/environment/co2-storage-won-t-stop-global-warming-study-2010-06-27-1.260056
EPA Supports Reinstating “Polluter Pays” Provision of CERCLA
On June 21, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to Congress in support of reinstating the lapsed Superfund “polluter pays” taxes. Superfund is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), a United States federal law designed to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances.
Advocates of the tax claim it would provide a predictable source of funding and shift the burden of cleanup costs from taxpayers to the parties who benefit from the manufacture or sale of substances that typically cause hazardous waste problems. The Superfund taxes expired on December 31, 1995. Since the expiration of the taxes, Superfund program funding has been largely financed from General Revenue transfers to the Superfund Trust Fund. Congress has appropriated about $1.2 billion a year for hazardous-waste cleanups, but “polluter pays” advocates estimate that $3 billion a year is needed.
Critics of the tax counter that, under current law and practice, polluters already clean polluted sites when the federal government identifies the responsible parties. The "polluter pays" tax simply forces law-abiding companies who practice sound environmental practices (and their customers) to assume responsibility for the actions of others. Even in cases where some of the polluters are no longer around to pay for site cleanup, CERCLA authorizes EPA to collect “orphan shares” from those parties who are financially capable of assuming responsibility. Thus, the necessity of such a tax is questionable. Given the current state of the economy and the desire to keep industrial jobs in the U.S., reinstating “polluter pays” at this time may not be advisable.
Corps of Engineers Suspends Nationwide Permit 21 in Central Appalachia
On June 17, 2010, the Corps announced that it was suspending the use of Nationwide Permit No. 21 for use in portions of six Appalachian states. For those already holding verified NWP 21 authorizations, work can continue through March 2012.
The announcement comes as no surprise to the coal industry. By Memorandum of Understanding among the Departments of the Army, Interior and EPA dated June 11, 2009, the Corps agreed that it would issue a public notice proposing to modify Nationwide Permit 21 to preclude its use to discharge fill material into streams for surface coal mining activities in the Appalachian region. The June 17, 2010 announcement is simply the culmination of that process. Attached are the June 17 public announcement and the Corps' Q & A, which answers some general questions about the timing and impact of the announcement on existing authorizations and permit applications.
Proposed Boiler MACT – Energy Assessment Requirements
On June 4, 2010 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources; Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters – Proposed Rule [Major Source Boiler/Process Heater MACT - Vol. 75, No. 107 page 32006) and National Emission Standards for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers – Proposed Rule [Area Source Boiler MACT - Vol. 75, No. 107 page 31896] were published in the Federal Register. One feature of both proposed rules is the requirement that facilities conduct an energy assessment to identify cost-effective energy conservation measures.
US EPA identifies the energy assessments as a beyond-the-floor standard for existing sources. The energy assessment will be required for all boilers at major sources and boilers greater than 10 million Btu per hour for affected area sources. In the preamble to the Major Source MACT, US EPA indicates that boilers and/or process heaters are required to conduct this energy assessment, but the proposed language of the rule applies to boilers only.
The Department of Energy has conducted energy assessments at selected manufacturing facilities and reports that facilities can reduce fuel/energy use by 10 to 15 percent by using best practices to increase their energy efficiency. The most common best practice is simply tuning the boiler to the manufacturer’s specification.
The procedures for an energy assessment are:
a.	Conduct a visual inspection of the boiler system.
b.	Establish operating characteristics of the facility, energy system specifications, operating and maintenance procedures, and unusual operating constraints,
c.	Identify major energy consuming systems,
d.	Review available architectural and engineering plans, facility operation and maintenance procedures and logs, and fuel usage,
e.	Identify a list of major energy conservation measures,
f.	Determine the energy savings potential of the energy conservation measures identified, and
g.	Prepare a comprehensive report detailing the ways to improve efficiency, the cost of specific improvements, benefits, and the time frame for recouping those investments.
h.	A facility energy management program developed according to the ENERGY STAR guideline for energy management.
The energy assessment report, along with a signed certification that the assessment is an accurate depiction of your facility must be submitted to US EPA.
US EPA is estimating that the energy assessment cost will range from $2500 to $55,000. The cost will depend on the size of the facility. US EPA estimates that 1,551 major source facilities will need to conduct the energy assessment. US EPA did not provide an estimated number of affected area source facilities. The estimated total cost of implementing the energy assessments is $25 million for major sources and $52 million for area sources. This is only the cost to conduct the energy assessment. The cost for implementing the suggestions is not included.
In the proposed rule, US EPA is defining a cost-effective energy conservation measure to be any measure that has a payback (return on investment) period of 2 years or less. The proposed language defines cost-effective energy conservation but does currently require the implementation of the recommended measures.
The energy assessment must be performed by qualified personnel. US EPA is defining qualified personnel a specialist in evaluating energy systems, such as those who have successfully completed the DOE Qualified Specialist program for all systems, Certified Energy Manager certified by the Association of Energy Engineers or the equivalent.
The Department of Energy qualified specialist program has five areas for certification: steam systems, fan systems, process heater systems, compressed air systems and pump systems. When looking at the qualified specialist website http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/qualified_specialists/, qualified specialists can be searched by name, company or location. There are currently 144 compressed air systems qualified specialists, 170 pump system qualified specialists, 102 process heater systems qualified specialists, 142 steam systems qualified specialists and 32 fan systems qualified specialists in the United States. Currently no individual is a qualified specialist in all 5 areas. There 5 individuals that are qualified specialists in 4 of the 5 programs. The majority of the individuals currently recognized as qualified specialists by DOE are university professors.
The Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) Certified Energy Manager (CEM) program is a certification program for energy engineers. A combination of education and energy experience is required to set for the examination. All CEM candidates must attend AEE’s preparatory CEM training seminars, and complete and pass a four-hour written open-book exam, proctored by an approved exam administrator. There are 17 AEE seminars, candidates must complete at a minimum of eleven, including three seminars that are required.
The preamble does not provide any information on how a facility would determine if another certification program is “equivalent” to the DOE or AEE programs.
US EPA is specifically requesting comment on the following elements of the energy assessment:
1.	Whether estimates of the assessment costs are correct
2.	Is there adequate access to certified assessors
3.	Are there other organizations for certifying energy engineers
4.	Are online tools adequate to inform the facility’s decision to make efficiency upgrades
5.	Is the definition of “cost-effective” appropriate in this context since it refers to payback of energy saving investments without regard to the impact on HAP reduction
6.	What rate of return should be used
7.	Are there other guidelines for energy management beside ENERGY STAR’s that would be appropriate
Public comments must be received on or before July 19, 2010.
6/13/10: Delaware raises $2.1 million from auction of CO2
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100613/NEWS02/6130350
6/13/10: Oil Under the Water May Be Worse Than Thought
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/13/eveningnews/main6578643.shtml
6/14/10: Scotland leads on climate change
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=13234
6/15/10: Climate change sparks political ads
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/climate-change-political-ads-/1
6/15/10: Boxer Declares Climate Change as the Greatest Threat, But Opponents Slam Theory
6/16/10: Modern Agricultural Slows Global Warming
http://news.discovery.com/earth/modern-agricultural-slows-global-warming.html
6/17/10: Warming Up to Climate Change
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704002104575290850451836696.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
6/18/10: Senate Democrats struggle with climate change legislation
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/17/senate.dems.climate.change/
6/18/10: Corals living on edge could escape climate change
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19057-corals-living-on-edge-could-escape-climate-change.html
6/18/10: Eight More Deep Thoughts from Rep. Joe Barton
EPA Moves to Dismiss Mingo Logan’s Challenge to EPA’s Authority to “Veto” a §404 Permit “After the Fact”
In January 2007, the Corps of Engineers issued a Clean Water Act §404 “fill” permit to Mingo Logan Coal Company. The permit authorized the construction of excess spoil valley fills and sediment ponds necessary to operate the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. Mingo Logan had pursued the permit for nearly a decade, which included substantial and lengthy scrutiny by EPA under both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
In the fall of 2009, however, the Obama administration EPA signaled that it might seek to invoke its “veto” authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. That statute authorizes EPA to prohibit the specification of areas for the disposal of fill material. By Federal Register Notice dated April 2, 2010, EPA sought public comment on its proposal “veto” the permit. In response, on April 2, 2010, Mingo Logan sued EPA seeking a declaration that EPA had exceeded its statutory authority in initiating a “veto” for a permit issued over three years earlier. The gravamen of the Complaint is that the Clean Water Act only authorizes EPA to deny specification of a disposal area rather than to veto a permit, and that specification of a disposal area is something which occurs prior to issuance of a permit. Accordingly, Mingo Logan argues that EPA has no authority to deny specification once a permit has been issued. See Mingo Logan Coal Co., Inc. v. USEPA, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-541 (D.C. Dist. Ct.).
On June 7, 2010, EPA filed a motion to dismiss, Mingo Logan’s lawsuit. EPA’s motion argues that its proposed “veto” is not “final agency action” subject to judicial review; that the action is not ripe for review; and that Mingo Logan has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, such as a consultation with U.S. EPA Administrator Jackson should EPA Region III recommend that the permit be vetoed.
Court of Claims Holds Government Contract Requires Reimbursement for CERCLA Clean-up Costs
During World War II, the United States required huge amounts of aviation gas (avgas). The federal government had the authority to require the production of avgas at refineries and to seize refineries, if necessary. Instead the government entered into contracts with oil companies including Shell Oil Company and Atlantic Richfield Company for the production of avgas. Avgas is a blend of chemical elements which produces sulfuric acid waste as a byproduct. Because of the large quantity of avgas required for World War II, much larger quantities of acid were generated than before the War. As a result, Shell and Atlantic Richfield had to send some of the acid waste to a hazardous materials dump (the McColl Site). This site was chosen because of its proximity to the refineries and the shortage of tank cars available to transport the waste elsewhere for reprocessing.
In 1991, the United States and the State of California brought suit against Shell and Atlantic Richfield pursuant to CERCLA for the recovery of costs incurred in cleaning up the acid waste at the McColl Site. Shell and Atlantic Richfield counterclaimed against the United States claiming that it had arranger liability under CERCLA and also that it was contractually required to reimburse the oil companies. In 1994, the parties entered into a partial Consent Decree in which Shell and Atlantic Richfield agreed to pay $18 million for CERCLA costs incurred by the United States and California, but retained the right to recover those costs should the United States ultimately be held liable.
In 1995, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Shell and Atlantic Richfield holding that the United States was an arranger. In addition, the district court allocated 100% of the cost of clean-up to the United States including the $18 million previously paid by Shell and Atlantic Richfield.
The district court decision was reversed by the Ninth Circuit and remanded to the district court. The district court resolved all remaining counterclaims except that it transferred the Shell and Atlantic Richfield claims for breach of contract to the United States Court of Claims. In the Court of Claims, the oil companies contended that the "Taxes" clause in the avgas contracts required the United States to reimburse them for CERCLA expenses. The clause reads as follows:
[The Government] shall pay . . ., any new or additional taxes, fees, or charges, other than income, excess profits, or corporate franchise taxes, which Seller may be required to pay by any municipal, state, or federal law in the United States or any foreign country to collect or pay by reason of the production, manufacture, sale or delivery of the [avgas] . . .
In a May 27 decision, the Court of Claims denied the government's motion to dismiss and granted the oil companies' motions for partial summary judgment. Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 2010 WL 2197741 (Ct. Cl. May 27, 2010). The first issue resolved by the Court was whether the CERCLA clean-up costs are "charges" as the term was used in the contract. The government contended that the "Taxes" clause was a supplemental pricing term not an indemnification clause. The Court rejected this argument relying on the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2004); Black's Law Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1933); American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; The New Century Dictionary; Webster's New Century Dictionary of the English Language. All of these authorities defined "charges" as "costs" or "expenses" in one form or another. Based on this, the Court concluded that the CERCLA clean-up costs attributable to disposing of the acid were "charges" under the contract.
The United States also argued that the Taxes clause did not support an argument that the obligations of the United States for additional charges extended into the indefinite future – many years after the contracts were closed out and that the clause only covered costs imposed during performance of the contract. In addition, the United States argued that the CERCLA costs were not imposed "by reason" of the production, manufacture, sale or delivery of the avgas as required by the "Taxes" clause. The Court of Claims disagreed with these contentions. According to the Court, the only limitation on recoverable costs is that they be incurred "by reason of" the production of avgas in the performance of the contract. The Court found nothing in the language of the contract to support the idea that reimbursement was limited to costs incurred during contract performance. The Court held that the "by reason of" language created a proximate causation or but for causation standard which was met by the showing that the production of avgas to satisfy the oil company's contractual obligations necessarily entailed disposal of hazardous waste.
The Court also rejected the United States' last argument that the clause when read as an indemnity clause as advocated by the plaintiffs violated the Anti-Deficiency Act which prohibits the government from expending in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that year.
Summersville Hydroelectric Project Receives Low Impact Re-Certification
The Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) announced that Gauley River Power Partners, Inc. (GRPP or applicant) has submitted an application for re-certification of the Summersville Hydroelectric Project which is located on the Gauley River, in Nicholas County, West Virginia – five miles south of the City of Summersville. Certification by the Institute also makes the power produced from the Summersville facility eligible for other “green” power certification programs.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a 50-year license to the City on September 25, 1992 to develop, finance, construct, own, and operate the 80-megawatte (MW) project. This project (FERC 10813), as amended and approved by FERC, is the one being considered for low impact hydropower certification. The project reservoir is Summersville Lake, which the ACOE manages for flood control, low-flow augmentation, and recreation. Project operation is entirely dependent upon the ACOEs’ operation of the dam and the hydro project is managed as a run-of-the-river facility.
The Project was certified by LIHI on November 10, 2004 for a five-year term. In the Applicant’s filing for re-certification they state that nothing about the project has changed that would affect the certifiability of the Summersville Project.
6/7/10: Western U.S., Canadian Carbon Market Faces Scaled-Back Start
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-07/western-u-s-canadian-carbon-market-faces-scaled-back-start.html
6/7/10: Green House: Small victories...A greener life
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/06/senate-wrangling-on-climate-change-intensifies/1
6/8/10: Republicans Try Anti-Global Warming Themes Against Sen. Boxer and Other Democrats
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/08/08climatewire-republicans-try-anti-global-warming-themes-a-57457.html
6/8/10: Indian stocks melt in global warming
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Indian-stocks-melt-in-global-warming/630676/
6/8/10: EPA announces $10 million for Communities to Combat Climate Change
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/ab4b07963a36c8318525773c00688333?OpenDocument
6/9/10: Gore draws crowds to climate change lecture
6/9/10: American Concerns About Climate Change Climb
http://news.discovery.com/earth/american-concerns-about-climate-change-climb.html
6/10/10: South Korea loses rocket and climate change satellite
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201023/5718/South-Korea-loses-rocket-and-climate-change-satellite
6/10/10: Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt
Yale Environment 360 (by naomi oreskes and erik m. conway)
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2285
6/11/10: EPA Challenged Over Global Warming Pollution From Ships, Aircraft and Non-road Engines
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/greenhouse-gases-06-11-2010.html