Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The economic well-being of the United States is dependent on the reliability, safety, and security of its physical infrastructure. The nation’s infrastructure is vast and affects the daily lives of virtually all Americans. In total, there are about 4 million miles of roads, 117,000 miles of rail, 600,000 bridges, 79,000 dams, 26,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways, 11,000 miles of transit lines, 500 train stations, 300 ports, 19,000 airports,5 55,000 community drinking water systems, and 30,000 wastewater treatment and collection facilities. Collectively, this infrastructure connects communities, facilitates trade, provides clean drinking water, and protects public health, among other things.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08763t.pdf

my note –

It is missing the natural gas, petroleum facilities and pipelines, the electricity generating facilities – hydroelectric, coal-fired and nuclear / atomic plants, and national parks, preserves and lands

***

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html

EPA – US Emission Inventory System

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqslinks.htm

Related Links

Air Pollution Data Sources is a page that provides a summary (including links) of all EPA data systems with air quality and emissions data (reports, maps, and other summaries).

AIRData access to annual summaries of air pollution data.

AIRNOW is the EPA site with current Air Quality Index (AQI) levels indicating how clean the air is and whether it will affect your health.

AQS Data Mart is a storehouse of air quality information designed to make air quality data more accessible and useful to the scientific and technical community.

Air Explorer is a collection of user-friendly visualization tools for air quality analysts. The tools generate maps, graphs, and data tables dynamically.

CDX (Central Data Exchange) is the EPA’s electronic reporting site.

State and Local Air/Environmental Agencies links to regional, state and local agency pages.

AMTIC (Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center) contains information and files on ambient air quality monitoring programs, details on monitoring methods, relevant documents and articles, information on air quality trends and nonattainment areas, and federal regulations related to ambient air quality monitoring.

CHIEF (Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors) is the EPA site that includes the NEI (National Emissions Inventory) database. The NEI replaces AFS as the EPA’s repository of air emissions information for facilities, area, and mobile sources.

AFS (AIRS Facility Subsystem) formerly a subsystem of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) now operated and maintained by the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).

The following links are pointers to other hosts and locations on the Internet. This information is provided as a service. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not endorse, approve or otherwise support the non-EPA sites. Link to EPA’s External Link Disclaimer

Exchange Network for AQS data exchange (Node to node)

ECOS (Environmental Council of the States)

NACAA (National Association of Clean Air Agencies, formerly STAPPA/ALAPCO, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators / Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials)

IMPROVE (National Park Service visibility data, operated by Colorado State University)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqslinks.htm

***

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/index.htm

The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA’s repository of ambient air quality data. AQS stores data from over 10,000 monitors, 5000 of which are currently active. As discussed in more detail elsewhere, State, Local and Tribal agencies collect the data and submit it to AQS on a periodic basis.

***

***

Information on Unsafe Conditions at Specific Dams Located on Federal Lands
RCED-83-209 August 1, 1983
Full Report (PDF, 13 pages)

Summary

In response to a congressional request, GAO provided information on safety deficiencies identified at four dams on National Park Service and Forest Service lands, the status of agency actions to correct the identified safety deficiencies, and the reasons for failure to take corrective actions.

GAO found that, although Federal officials have been aware of the unsafe conditions at these dams for at least 4 years, only minimal corrective action has been taken to repair the dams. Interim actions have not been taken to diminish the dangers posed by the dams pending their repair. The Park Service has not taken this action because, while it agrees with the assessment of the danger the dams present, it does not believe that the conditions justify immediate repair.Furthermore, it does not believe that interim action, such as lowering the level of the lake, would diminish the dangers enough to justify reducing the benefits provided by the dams. The Forest Service has not required the private owner of one dam to take all of the recommended actions because the regional forester decided in 1980 that it would not be fair to hold owners responsible until Federal or State funding became available to prove the extent of the unsafe conditions. Forest Service officials agreed to review the adequacy of this decision after GAO brought it to their attention.

Related Searches
Related terms:
Dam safety
Maintenance (upkeep)
Public lands
Repairs

http://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-83-209

***

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-763T

***

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08763t.pdf

d08763t.pdf

GAO Physical Infrastructure
Challenges and Investment Options for the Nation’s Infrastructure

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Testimony before the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives

Statement of Patricia a. Dalton, Managing Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues

GAO-08-763T
(37 Pages)

also see –
GAO, Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Action Is Needed to Avoid the Possibility of a Serious Economic Disruption in the Future, GAO-08-411T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29,2008) and Fiscal Stewardship: A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation, GAO-07-362SP (Washington, D.C.: January 2007)

Also –
GAO, State and Local Governments: Persistent Fiscal Challenges Will Likely Emerge within the Next Decade, GAO-07-1080SP (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2007)

**

In the Background Section –
“The economic well-being of the United States is dependent on the reliability, safety, and security of its physical infrastructure. The nation’s infrastructure is vast and affects the daily lives of virtually all Americans. In total, there are about 4 million miles of roads, 117,000 miles of rail, 600,000 bridges, 79,000 dams, 26,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways, 11,000 miles of transit lines, 500 train stations, 300 ports, 19,000 airports, 55,000 community drinking water systems, and 30,000 wastewater treatment and collection facilities. Collectively, this infrastructure connects communities, facilitates trade, provides clean drinking water, and protects public health, among other things.”

“The nation’s infrastructure is primarily owned and operated by state and local governments and the private sector. For example, state and local governments own about 98 percent of the nation’s bridges and the private sector owns almost all freight railroad infrastructure. The federal government owns a limited amount of infrastructure – for instance, the federal government owns and operates the nation’s air traffic control infrastructure. In addition, through its oversight role, the federal government plays an important role in ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the nation’s infrastructure. Table 1 provides information on infrastructure ownership.”

(About 3,400 of these airports are in the national airport system.)

***

Table 1: Physical Infrastructure Ownership

Surface Transportation
* Ninety-seven percent of the nation’s roads and highways are owned by state and local governments, with local governments owning approximately 77 percent of the miles of roadway.

* About 98 percent of the nation’s bridges are owned by state and local governments.

* Most transit systems are owned and operated by public agencies that are created by state and local governments.

* Most freight railroad infrastructure is owned by private freight railroads. The federal government owns about 650 miles of Amtrak’s 22,000-mile rail network.

* The maritime transportation infrastructure, including ports, is generally owned and operated by state and local agencies and private companies. Many ports are publicly owned and privately operated.

Aviation –

* Most commercial service airports are owned by local or state governments, either directly or through an authority, a quasi-governmental body established to operate the airport.

* Air traffic control facilities are owned by the federal government.

Water –

* About half of the nation’s drinking water systems and an estimated 20 percent of the wastewater systems are privately owned. Private owners range from homeowners’ associations, mobile home parks, and other entities whose primary business is unrelated to water supply or wastewater treatment, to larger investor-owned companies. Publicly owned drinking water systems and wastewater utilities are owned by municipalities, townships, counties, water or sewer districts, and water or sewer authorities.

Dams (including levees) –

* The majority of dams in the United States are privately owned. The federal government owns and operates about 5 percent of the nation’s dams.

* Levees are typically constructed by the federal government, and local governments are responsible for their operation and maintenance.

Source: GAO summary of information from the Airport Cooperative Research Program, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Academy of Public Administration, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

***

“Funding for the nation’s infrastructure comes from a variety of federal, state, local, and private sources. For example, the private and local public owners of water infrastructure as well as multiple federal agencies fund drinking water and wastewater capital improvements. As owners of the infrastructure, state and local governments and the private sector generally account for a larger share of funding for infrastructure than the federal government. However, the federal government has played and continues to play an important role in funding infrastructure. For example:

* From 1954 through 2001, the federal government invested over $370 Billion (in 2001 dollars) in the Interstate Highway System.

* Federal Airport Improvement Program grants provided an average of $3.6 Billion annually (in 2006 dollars) for airport capital improvements between 2001 and 2005.

* From fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2000, nine federal agencies provided about $44 Billion (in 2000 dollars) for drinking water and wastewater capital improvements.

* Through the NEW STARTS program, the federal government provided over $10 Billion in capital funds for new fixed-guideway transit (e.g., commuter rail and subway) projects between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2007.

“To increase the nation’s long-term productivity and growth, the federal government invests in various activities and sectors, including infrastructure. While providing long-term benefits to the nation as a whole, much of this spending does not result in federal ownership of the infrastructure assets. For the most part, the federal government supports infrastructure investments through federal subsidies to other levels of government or the private sector. To address concerns about the state of the nation’s infrastructure, Members of Congress have introduced several bills that are intended to increase investment in the nation’s infrastructure by, for example, issuing bonds and providing tax credits for infrastructure investments. (See Table 2)

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08763t.pdf
***

Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the Nation’s Infrastructure
GAO-08-763T May 8, 2008
Highlights Page (PDF)   Full Report (PDF, 34 pages)   Accessible Text

Summary

Physical infrastructure is critical to the nation’s economy and affects the daily life of virtually all Americans–from facilitating the movement of goods and people within and beyond U.S. borders to providing clean drinking water. However, this infrastructure–including aviation, highway, transit, rail, water, and dam infrastructure–is under strain. Estimates to repair, replace, or upgrade aging infrastructure as well as expand capacity to meet increased demand top hundreds of billions of dollars. Calls for increased investment in infrastructure come at a time when traditional funding for infrastructure projects is increasingly strained, and the federal government’s fiscal outlook is worse than many may understand. This testimony discusses (1) challenges associated with the nation’s surface transportation, aviation, water, and dam infrastructure, and the principles GAO has identified to help guide efforts to address these challenges and (2) existing and proposed options to fund investments in the nation’s infrastructure. This statement is primarily based on a body of work GAO has completed for the Congress over the last several years. To supplement this existing work, GAO also interviewed Department of Transportation officials to obtain up-to-date information on the status of the Highway Trust Fund and various funding and financing options and reviewed published literature to obtain information on dam infrastructure issues.

The nation faces a host of serious infrastructure challenges. Demand has outpaced the capacity of our nation’s surface transportation and aviation systems, resulting in decreased performance and reliability. In addition, water utilities are facing pressure to upgrade the nation’s aging and deteriorating water infrastructure to improve security, serve growing demands, and meet new regulatory requirements. Given these types of challenges and the federal government’s fiscal outlook, it is clear that the federal government cannot continue with business as usual. Rather, a fundamental reexamination of government programs, policies, and activities is needed. Through prior analyses of existing programs, GAO identified a number of principles that could guide a reexamination of federal infrastructure programs. These principles include: (1) creating well-defined goals based on identified areas of national interest, (2) establishing and clearly defining the federal role in achieving each goal, (3) incorporating performance and accountability into funding decisions, (4) employing the best tools and approaches to emphasize return on investment, and (5) ensuring fiscal sustainability. Various options are available to fund infrastructure investments. These options include altering existing or introducing new funding approaches and employing various financing mechanisms, such as bonds and loans. For example, a variety of taxes and user fees, such as tolling, can be used to help fund infrastructure projects. In addition, some have suggested including an infrastructure component in a future economic stimulus bill, which could provide a one-time infusion of funds for infrastructure projects. Each of these options has different merits and challenges, and choosing among them will likely involve trade-offs among different policy goals. Furthermore, the suitability of the various options depends on the level of federal involvement or control that policymakers desire. However, as GAO has reported, when infrastructure investment decisions are made based on sound evaluations, these options can lead to an appropriate blend of public and private funds to match public and private costs and benefits. To help policymakers make explicit decisions about how much overall federal spending should be devoted to investment, GAO has previously proposed establishing an investment component within the unified budget.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-763T

***

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/data.html#Emissions

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): human health effects from chemical exposure.

Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk (ASTER): Developed to assist regulators in performing ecological risk assessments by providing high quality data for discrete chemicals.

Sector Facility Indexing Project: Provides comprehensive information on the environmental performance of hundreds of facilities in five major industries.

Envirofacts: National information system that provides an integrated single point of access to data on Superfund sites, drinking water, toxic and air releases, hazardous waste, water discharge permits, and grants.

Toxic Release Inventory: Reports by industry of release of more than 650 chemicals.
Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division – Part of NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory, contains atmospheric emission models.

Reporting on Municipal Solid Waste: A Local Issue – Presents background information to assist print and broadcast media in understanding municipal solid waste (MSW) issues, including information sources, major laws affecting MSW management, MSW management state-by-state, and compounds and metals for groundwater detection monitoring.

Hazardous Waste Data – Access to information from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS).

REACH IT – This database contains information on over 500 remediation or site characterization technologies and over 900 technology applications in the Superfund and other Federal programs.

Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System – The Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System is a database management system containing EPA’s recommended emission estimation factors for criteria and hazardous air pollutants. FIRE includes information about industries and their emitting processes, the chemicals emitted, and the emission factors themselves. FIRE allows easy access to criteria and hazardous air pollutant emission factors obtained from the Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Locating and Estimating (L and E) series documents, and the retired AFSEF and XATEF documents.

Envirofacts – EPA’s Data Warehouse – A national information system that provides a single point of access to data extracted from seven major EPA databases.

Software for Environmental Awareness – This site offers over 40 interactive software programs on environmental topics for free downloading.

Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED) – EPA’s National regulatory database for the drinking water program, available through Envirofacts.

CERCLIS – The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) contains information on hazardous waste sites, site inspections, preliminary assessments, and remediation of hazardous waste sites.

Hazardous Waste Data – Access to information from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo).

National Response Center – Serves as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories, gathering and distributing spill data for Federal On-Scene Coordinators and serving as the communications and operations center for the National Response Team, maintains agreements with a variety of federal entities to make additional notifications regarding incidents meeting established trigger criteria. Data is made available to the general public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and can now be queried on-line via their Web site.

Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) – Contains measurements of ambient concentrations of air pollutants and meteorological data from thousands of monitoring stations operated by EPA, state and local agencies.

AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) – Contains both emissions and compliance data on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies.

AIRSData – Provides easy access to summaries of air monitoring data for the current and five prior years, the latest available estimates of air pollutant emissions from major point sources, the overall regulatory compliance status of those sources, and names of contacts in EPA and state/local air pollution agencies. All these data pertain to the criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, lead).

AIRS – Aerometric Information Retrieval System – AIRS is a computer-based repository of information about airborne pollution in the United States and various World Health Organization (WHO) member countries. Subsystems of AIRS include:

*******

Toxicity Information

* Hazard Information on Toxic Chemicals Added to EPCRA Section 313 Under Chemical Expansion.
This page provides summary hazard information on the 286 chemicals that were added to the Toxics Release Inventory in 1994. EPA has developed information summaries on 40 selected TRI chemicals to describe how you might be exposed to these chemicals, how exposure to them might affect you and the environment, what happens to them in the environment, who regulates them, and whom to contact for additional information.

* TRI Chemical Fact SheetsExit EPA Disclaimer
Chemical fact sheets for many of the TRI chemicals are available from the collection of New Jersey’s Right to Know Hazardous Substance Fact Sheets.

* TRI Chemicals Classified as OSHA Carcinogens
This is a list of TRI chemicals that are classified as carcinogens under the requirements of the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and, the basis of the classifications. OSHA carcinogens have a 0.1% de minimis concentration limit instead of 1%. Amounts of TRI chemicals present below the de minimis concentration limit in mixtures do not have to be included in threshold determinations or release and other waste management calculations.

* ATSDR TOXFAQSExit EPA Disclaimer
These are a series of summaries developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that contain frequently asked questions about the health effect for 60 hazardous substances. About 50 of these chemicals are also TRI chemicals.

Regulatory Program Information

* TITLE III List of Lists  (PDF) (105 pp, 5.3 MB, About PDF)
This is a consolidated list of chemicals subject to reporting requirements under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) with references to their reporting status under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Sections 302 and 313 of The Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA).

* Regulatory Matrix of TRI Chemicals in other Federal Programs  (PDF) (9 pp, 183K, About PDF)
A matrix has been developed for each TRI chemical indicating whether it is regulated under other selected environmental laws.

http://www.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/index.htm

***

http://www.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/chemical%20lists/RY2006ChemicalList.pdf

RY2006ChemicalList.pdf

***

***

Diesel Particulate Matter:
Diesel Particulate Matter (PM) is a mixture of particles that is a component of diesel exhaust. EPA lists diesel exhaust as a mobile source air toxic due to the cancer and noncancer health effects associated with exposure to whole diesel exhaust. EPA believes that exposure to whole diesel exhaust is best described, as many researchers have done over the years, by diesel particulate concentrations.

Dispersion model:
A computerized set of mathematical equations that uses emissions and meteorological information to simulate the behavior and movement of air pollutants in the atmosphere. The results of a dispersion model are estimated outdoor concentrations of individual air pollutants at specified locations.

Emission density:
Represents tons per year within a given area on a per square mile basis. In this assessment, total county emissions are divided by the total square mileage of the county. Emission density is often used to show emissions information graphically because it provides a more consistent basis for comparison than emissions totals alone.

Emissions Modeling System For Hazardous Air Pollutants (EMS-HAP):
This modeling system processes the National Emission Inventory to provide model-ready emissions for input into the ASPEN model. These inputs consist of tract-level emissions and point source emissions for each toxic air pollutant, temporalized into eight 3-hour time blocks for an annually-averaged year. For purposes of this tool, the EMS-HAP temporalized emission outputs are summed into annual emissions.

Exposure assessment:
Identifying the ways in which chemicals may reach individuals (e.g., by breathing); estimating how much of a chemical an individual is likely to be exposed to; and estimating the number of individuals likely to be exposed.

[etc.]

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/gloss1.html#diesel

***

The following conclusions on simultaneous exposure to all air toxics compounds were drawn from the risk characterization

Cumulative Cancer Risks: The EPA added the cancer risks from all air toxics compounds listed as carcinogenic or likely carcinogenic to humans. More than 284 million people live in census tracts where the combined upper bound lifetime cancer risk from these compounds exceeded 10 in one million risk and more than 2 million people live in census tracts where the combined upper bound lifetime cancer risk from these compounds exceeded 100 in one million risk. The overall national average risk in the U.S. is 36 in a million.

Cumulative Noncancer Hazards: Ideally, hazard quotients should be combined for pollutants that cause the same adverse effects by the same toxic mechanism. However, because detailed information on mechanisms was unavailable for most of the substances considered in this assessment, the EPA used a simpler and more conservative method. Many of the pollutants in this assessment cause adverse effects in humans or animals by irritating the lining of the respiratory system or by causing various effects to the nervous system.

Although it is not clear that these respiratory and neurological effects occur by the same mechanisms for all such air toxics compounds, the EPA protectively assumed that these effects could be added. These additive effects were represented by a  hazard index,  which is the sum of the hazard quotients of the air toxics compounds that affect the respiratory or nervous system. The respiratory hazard index was dominated by a single substance, acrolein. The respiratory hazard index exceeded 1.0 for nearly the entire U.S. population, and exceeded 10 for more than 22 million people. The neurological hazard index was similarly dominated by manganese compounds, with minor contributions by cyanide compounds, ethylene oxide, and mercury compounds. The neurological hazard index exceeded 1.0 for fewer than 350,000 people in the U.S.

Summary Risk Maps (Note: Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands are not included on these maps although they were included in this 2002 NATA.)

2HI = The sum of hazard quotients for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. Because different pollutants may cause similar adverse health effects, it is often appropriate to combine hazard quotients associated with different substances to understand the potential health risks associated with aggregate exposures to multiple pollutants.

* National cancer risk driver:
o Benzene:  carcinogenic to humans .
* Regional cancer risk drivers:
o 1,3-butadiene, arsenic compounds, chromium 6, coke oven emissions: All  carcinogenic to human .
o hydrazine, tetrachloroethylene, PAHs:  likely carcinogenic to humans  (Note that the WOE for the PAHs in the 8 groups range from  likely  to  not likely carcinogenic to humans ).
o Naphthalene:  Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity .
* National cancer risk contributors:
o 1,4-dichlorobenzene, acetaldehyde, acryonitrile, carbon tetrachloride, ethylene oxide : All considered  likely carcinogenic to humans .
* Regional cancer risk contributors:
o nickel compounds:  carcinogenic to humans
o 1,3-dichloropropene, beryllium compounds, cadmium compounds, methylene chloride: all  likely carcinogenic to humans
o 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane:  suggestive evidence of human carcinogencicity
o N-nitrosomorpholine, methyl tert-butyl ether: No EPA WOE classifications.
* National noncancer hazard drivers:
o acrolein .
* Regional noncancer hazard drivers:
o 2,4-toluene diisocyanate, chlorine, chromium compounds, diesel engine emissions, formaldehyde, hexamethylene diisocyanate, hydrochloric acid, manganese compounds, nickel compounds. (Note that the capability of the study to find potential hotspots in small regions of the country is limited by the tools used in the study, making it possible that some regional hazard drivers may have been overlooked).

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/risksum.html

***

Estimated County Level Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk (PDF) (1pg, 2.1 MB) – PDF version of map below.

Map of Estimated County Level Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/risksum.html

***

The emissions used in the current assessment are from the 2002 emission inventory which is the most complete and up-to-date available. Working with the states, EPA updates air toxics emission inventories every 3 years. The next national-scale assessment will focus on 2005 emissions and will be available in late 2009 or early 2010.

As part of EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment activities, EPA conducted its first national-scale assessment for the year 1996. That assessment included 33 air pollutants (a subset of 32 air toxics on the Clean Air Act’s list of 187 air toxics plus diesel particulate matter (diesel PM). In February of 2006, EPA released the second of its NATA assessments. This assessment was based on emissions from the 1999 National Emission Inventory and included the assessment of 177 hazardous air toxics plus diesel particulate matter.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/

***

Pollutants & Sources
The Pollutants

Hazardous air pollutants, also known as toxic air pollutants or air toxics, are those pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects. EPA is required to control 187 hazardous air pollutants. Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, which is found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which is used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries. Through appropriate rulemaking, the Clean Air Act list can be modified. A current list of modifications is available. Some clarification on certain pollutant aggregation is also available.

The Sources
Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources (e.g., building materials and activities such as cleaning). There are two types of stationary sources that generate routine emissions of air toxics:

*  Major  sources are defined as sources that emit 10 tons per year of any of the listed toxic air pollutants, or 25 tons per year of a mixture of air toxics. These sources may release air toxics from equipment leaks, when materials are transferred from one location to another, or during discharge through emission stacks or vents
*  Area  sources consist of smaller-size facilities that release lesser quantities of toxic pollutants into the air. Area sources are defined as sources that emit less than 10 tons per year of a single air toxic, or less than 25 tons per year of a combination of air toxics. Though emissions from individual area sources are often relatively small, collectively their emissions can be of concern – particularly where large numbers of sources are located in heavily populated areas.

EPA published the initial list of  source categories  in 1992 (57FR31576 , July 16, 1992) and since that time has issued several revisions and updates to the list and promulgation schedule. For each listed source category, EPA indicates whether the sources are considered to be  major  sources or  area  sources. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments direct EPA to set standards for all major sources of air toxics (and some area sources that are of particular concern).

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.html

***

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
CAS
Number     Chemical
Name
75070     Acetaldehyde
60355     Acetamide
75058     Acetonitrile
98862     Acetophenone
53963     2-Acetylaminofluorene
107028     Acrolein
79061     Acrylamide
79107     Acrylic acid
107131     Acrylonitrile
107051     Allyl chloride
92671     4-Aminobiphenyl
62533     Aniline
90040     o-Anisidine
1332214     Asbestos
71432     Benzene (including benzene from gasoline)
92875     Benzidine
98077     Benzotrichloride
100447     Benzyl chloride
92524     Biphenyl
117817     Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
542881     Bis(chloromethyl)ether
75252     Bromoform
106990     1,3-Butadiene
156627     Calcium cyanamide
105602     Caprolactam(See Modification)
133062     Captan
63252     Carbaryl
75150     Carbon disulfide
56235     Carbon tetrachloride
463581     Carbonyl sulfide
120809     Catechol
133904     Chloramben
57749     Chlordane
7782505     Chlorine
79118     Chloroacetic acid
532274     2-Chloroacetophenone
108907     Chlorobenzene
510156     Chlorobenzilate
67663     Chloroform
107302     Chloromethyl methyl ether
126998     Chloroprene
1319773     Cresols/Cresylic acid (isomers and mixture)
95487     o-Cresol
108394     m-Cresol
106445     p-Cresol
98828     Cumene
94757     2,4-D, salts and esters
3547044     DDE
334883     Diazomethane
132649     Dibenzofurans
96128     1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
84742     Dibutylphthalate
106467     1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)
91941     3,3-Dichlorobenzidene
111444     Dichloroethyl ether (Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)
542756     1,3-Dichloropropene
62737     Dichlorvos
111422     Diethanolamine
121697     N,N-Diethyl aniline (N,N-Dimethylaniline)
64675     Diethyl sulfate
119904     3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine
60117     Dimethyl aminoazobenzene
119937     3,3′-Dimethyl benzidine
79447     Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride
68122     Dimethyl formamide
57147     1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine
131113     Dimethyl phthalate
77781     Dimethyl sulfate
534521     4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts
51285     2,4-Dinitrophenol
121142     2,4-Dinitrotoluene
123911     1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)
122667     1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
106898     Epichlorohydrin (l-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
106887     1,2-Epoxybutane
140885     Ethyl acrylate
100414     Ethyl benzene
51796     Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)
75003     Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
106934     Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)
107062     Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
107211     Ethylene glycol
151564     Ethylene imine (Aziridine)
75218     Ethylene oxide
96457     Ethylene thiourea
75343     Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)
50000     Formaldehyde
76448     Heptachlor
118741     Hexachlorobenzene
87683     Hexachlorobutadiene
77474     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
67721     Hexachloroethane
822060     Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate
680319     Hexamethylphosphoramide
110543     Hexane
302012     Hydrazine
7647010     Hydrochloric acid
7664393     Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid)
7783064     Hydrogen sulfide(See Modification)
123319     Hydroquinone
78591     Isophorone
58899     Lindane (all isomers)
108316     Maleic anhydride
67561     Methanol
72435     Methoxychlor
74839     Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
74873     Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
71556     Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
78933     Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)(See Modification)
60344     Methyl hydrazine
74884     Methyl iodide (Iodomethane)
108101     Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
624839     Methyl isocyanate
80626     Methyl methacrylate
1634044     Methyl tert butyl ether
101144     4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)
75092     Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
101688     Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
101779     4,4’5-Methylenedianiline
91203     Naphthalene
98953     Nitrobenzene
92933     4-Nitrobiphenyl
100027     4-Nitrophenol
79469     2-Nitropropane
684935     N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
62759     N-Nitrosodimethylamine
59892     N-Nitrosomorpholine
56382     Parathion
82688     Pentachloronitrobenzene (Quintobenzene)
87865     Pentachlorophenol
108952     Phenol
106503     p-Phenylenediamine
75445     Phosgene
7803512     Phosphine
7723140     Phosphorus
85449     Phthalic anhydride
1336363     Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)
1120714     1,3-Propane sultone
57578     beta-Propiolactone
123386     Propionaldehyde
114261     Propoxur (Baygon)
78875     Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
75569     Propylene oxide
75558     1,2-Propylenimine (2-Methyl aziridine)
91225     Quinoline
106514     Quinone
100425     Styrene
96093     Styrene oxide
1746016     2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
79345     1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
127184     Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
7550450     Titanium tetrachloride
108883     Toluene
95807     2,4-Toluene diamine
584849     2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
95534     o-Toluidine
8001352     Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene)
120821     1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
79005     1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79016     Trichloroethylene
95954     2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
88062     2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
121448     Triethylamine
1582098     Trifluralin
540841     2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
108054     Vinyl acetate
593602     Vinyl bromide
75014     Vinyl chloride
75354     Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
1330207     Xylenes (isomers and mixture)
95476     o-Xylenes
108383     m-Xylenes
106423     p-Xylenes
0     Antimony Compounds
0     Arsenic Compounds (inorganic including arsine)
0     Beryllium Compounds
0     Cadmium Compounds
0     Chromium Compounds
0     Cobalt Compounds
0     Coke Oven Emissions
0     Cyanide Compounds1
0     Glycol ethers2
0     Lead Compounds
0     Manganese Compounds
0     Mercury Compounds
0     Fine mineral fibers3
0     Nickel Compounds
0     Polycylic Organic Matter4
0     Radionuclides (including radon)5
0     Selenium Compounds

NOTE: For all listings above which contain the word  compounds  and for glycol ethers, the following applies: Unless otherwise specified, these listings are defined as including any unique chemical substance that contains the named chemical (i.e., antimony, arsenic, etc.) as part of that chemical’s infrastructure.
1 X’CN where X = H’ or any other group where a formal dissociation may occur. For example KCN or Ca(CN)2
2 Includes mono- and di- ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol R-(OCH2CH2)n -OR’ where
n = 1, 2, or 3
R = alkyl or aryl groups
R’ = R, H, or groups which, when removed, yield glycol ethers with the structure: R-(OCH2CH)n-OH. Polymers are excluded from the glycol category.(See Modification)
3 Includes mineral fiber emissions from facilities manufacturing or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers (or other mineral derived fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less.
4 Includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring, and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to 100 º C.
5 A type of atom which spontaneously undergoes radioactive decay.

If you are aware of, or participate in, any air toxics emission reduction activities in your community please feel free to contact us.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html

***

Estimated County Level Carcinogenic Risk (PDF) (1pg, 2.1 MB) – PDF version of map below.

Map of Estimated County Level Carcinogenic Risk

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/risksum.html

***
Alaska Petroleum Studies
Landsat image of Alaska North Slope showing USGS study areas.
U.S. Geological Survey study areas: NPRA, ANWR 1002 Area, and Central North Slope.

Alaska Energy Issues
Alaska’s scenic wilderness, its Arctic ecosystems with their unique flora and fauna, and its significant potential for energy and mineral resources are unmatched by any other onshore region of the U.S. Thus, the accurate and unbiased scientific data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey are crucial to the Federal, State, and Native organizations that manage Alaska’s resources to meet the challenge of balancing America’s needs for nonrenewable resources and a clean and healthy environment.

NEW Assessment of Gas Hydrate Resources on the North Slope, Alaska, 2008
Fact Sheet 2008-3073| Podcast (Episode 74)
Slide Show Slide Presentation (Flash document 10.6 MB)
Gas Hydrates Website

There are several energy-related efforts currently under way in Alaska. Geographically, these range from the Alaska Peninsula to the North Slope (see graphic on left) and several are collaborative efforts with Federal and State agencies and Alaska Native villages. A brief description of these projects:

Circum-Arctic Basins Oil & Gas Assessment An ongoing effort of the World Energy Project that includes northern Alaska.

NEW Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle
Fact Sheet 2008-3049| Press Release (7/23/08)
Podcast (Episode 55) | Slide Show Slide Presentation (Flash document 4.39 MB)

Geologic Framework and Assessment Studies, North Slope of Alaska
These studies will increase our understanding of the petroleum geology and improve our estimates of undiscovered oil and gas resources. This is a multi-disciplinary investigation that uses concepts of basin analysis, sequence stratigraphy, fluid-flow modeling, petroleum systems, and structural and geophysical analysis. Assessments of the NPRA and the central North Slope were completed in May 2002 and May 2005, respectively. Current work is focused on assessment of the area west of NPRA and aggregation of all North Slope assessments with an update of the economics, including natural gas.

Gas Hydrate Studies in northern Alaska
These studies will investigate the technical aspects of gas production from gas hydrates, which contain gas trapped with water in ice-like structures. The presence of huge volumes of gas in hydrate form is known in the Prudhoe Bay region from earlier USGS studies. The current work is a collaborative effort involving the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the State of Alaska, the U.S. Department of Energy, and private industry. Collaborative gas hydrate work has also been conducted with the multinational Mallik Drilling Consortium in the Mackenzie Delta region. In 2004, the Alaska State Legislature requested the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide a technical briefing on the energy resource potential of gas hydrates in northern Alaska at a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) technical conference, USGS Open-File Report 2004–1454.

Coalbed Gas Studies
A cooperative project with the State partly funded by the BLM and DOE to evaluate coalbed gas resources near Native villages and on Federal lands in rural Alaska. Coalbed gas may be a viable local energy source for Native villages and a commercial resource in Alaska. Shallow coalbed gas wells have been drilled near Chignik, Fort Yukon, and the Dalton Highway south of Prudhoe Bay. Current work involves continued evaluation of drill sites and collecting and analyzing coal samples for their methane potential from wells drilled for oil and gas in Cook Inlet and the North Slope. A new coal assessment of Alaska was released in 2003.

Digital Geologic Map Compilation
Compilation of existing geologic maps of the northern foothills of the Brooks Range, from the Chukchi Sea eastward to the Canadian border. This work is a collaboration between the USGS and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) and the Division of Oil and Gas. It will result in a synthesis of geologic mapping that was conducted independently over several decades by the USGS and DGGS and will be produced at a fraction of the cost of new, field-based geologic mapping of the same area. A report of revised stratigraphic nomenclature for common use on all maps was completed in 2003, the Umiat quadrangle map was released in 2004, and the Ikpikpuk River quadrangle map, in 2005. A digital compilation of northeastern NPRA surficial geology was completed in 2005 at the request of the BLM.

Interior Alaska Province Review and Yukon Flats Assessment
An effort to provide essential geologic, geophysical, geochemical, and historical information in preparation for the next USGS assessment of the oil and gas resources in this province. Assessment of the Yukon Flats basin was released in 2004. A comprehensive review and compilation of oil and gas related information for the entire province was completed in 2002.

South Alaska Province Review
A new effort initiated in 2003 and focused on Cook Inlet. It is designed to provide essential geologic, geophysical, geochemical, and historical information in preparation for the next USGS assessment of the oil and gas resources in this province.

Collaboration with State of Alaska
Although not a separate project, the Energy Resources Program provides staff, analytical capabilities, and financial support for Alaskan petroleum studies and geologic mapping conducted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys and Division of Oil and Gas.
NASA Landsat photo: Alaska North Slope in Winter     NASA Landsat photo: Alaska North Slope in Spring
A blanket of snow gives the Brooks Range Mountains in northern Alaska an etched appearance in this true-color Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) image from October 15, 2002. (Credit: Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC).     Summertime glows green across Northern Alaska in the true-color Terra MODIS image, which was acquired July 29, 2002. Prominent in the image is the Brooks Range, which stretches all the way across Northern Alaska from the western shore to the border of Canada’s Yukon Territory, a distance of about 600 miles. (Credit: Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC).

Top of Page

spotlightALASKA
SPOTLIGHT

Fact Sheet 2008-3082

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed the first assessment of the undiscovered technically recoverable gas-hydrate resources on the North Slope of Alaska. Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the USGS estimates that there are about 85 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas resources within gas hydrates in northern Alaska.
Factsheet 2008-3073

Recent Publications IconRECENT PUBLICATIONS

The Yukon Flats Cretaceous(?)-Tertiary Extensional Basin, East-Central Alaska: Burial and Thermal History Modeling
Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5281

Sentinel Hill Core Test 1: Facies Descriptions and Stratigraphic Reinterpretations of the Prince Creek and Schrader Bluff Formations, North Slope, Alaska
Professional Paper 1747

Stratigraphy and Facies of Cretaceous Schrader Bluff and Prince Creek Formations in Colville River Bluffs, North Slope, Alaska
Professional Paper 1748

Sedimentology and Sequence Stratigraphy of the Lower Cretaceous Fortress Mountain and Torok Formations Exposed Along the Siksikpuk River, North-Central Alaska
Professional Paper 1739-D

Lithofacies, Age, and Sequence Stratigraphy of the Carboniferous Lisburne Group in the Skimo Creek Area, Central Brooks Range
Professional Paper 1739-B

Oil and Gas Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province
Professional Paper 1732-A

Regional Fluid Flow and Basin Modeling in Northern Alaska
Circular 1319

Color Shaded-Relief and Surface-Classification Maps of the Fish Creek Area, Harrison Bay Quadrangle, Northern Alaska
Scientific Investigations Map 2948
RELATED LINKS

Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) USGS scanning project
Virtually all U.S. Geological Survey Bulletins and Professional Papers for Alaska are now viewable and retrievable online through the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). USGS scanning project press release (PDF 20KB).

USGS Alaska Science Center
Center of Excellence for the Department of the Interior to address important natural resources issues and natural hazards assessments in Alaska and circumpolar regions through long-term data collection and monitoring, research and development, and assessments and applications.

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

Take Pride in America home page. FirstGov button U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/
Page Contact Information: ERP Webmaster
Page Last Modified: 09/27/2009 04:05:18

http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/

***

Assessment of Gas Hydrate Resources on the North Slope, Alaska, 2008
Thumbnail of and link to report PDF (6 MB)

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed the first assessment of the undiscovered technically recoverable gas-hydrate resources on the North Slope of Alaska. Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the USGS estimates that there are about 85 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas resources within gas hydrates in northern Alaska.

Version 1.1

Posted October 2008

* Fact Sheet PDF (6 MB)

For further information:
This factsheet and assessment results are available at the USGS Energy Program website, http://energy.usgs.gov
Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF); the latest version of Adobe Reader or similar software is required to view it. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge.
Suggested citation:

Collett, T.S., Agena, W.F., Lee, M.W., Zyrianova, M.V., Bird, K.J., Charpentier, T.C., Houseknect, D.W., Klett, T.R., Pollastro, R.M., and Schenk, C.J., 2008, Assessment of gas hydrate resources on the North Slope, Alaska, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3073, 4 p.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3073/

frontthb.gif

FS08-3073_508.pdf

***

CONTACT

Ken Bird
Project Chief
650.329.4907

David Houseknecht
Project Chief
703.648.6466

http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3073/

Assessment of Gas Hydrate Resources on the North Slope, Alaska, 2008

Thumbnail of and link to report PDF (6 MB) <!– Thumbnail Image should be the front cover page, about the size of 324.height and 250.width with small shadow/shading around the border. If the publication is just a map, try to keep the thumbnail of the map The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed the first assessment of the undiscovered technically recoverable gas-hydrate resources on the North Slope of Alaska. Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the USGS estimates that there are about 85 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of undiscovered, technically recoverable gas resources within gas hydrates in northern Alaska.

Version 1.1

Posted October 2008

For further information:
This factsheet and assessment results are available at the USGS Energy Program website, http://energy.usgs.gov

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF); the latest version of Adobe Reader or similar software is required to view it. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge.


Suggested citation:

Collett, T.S., Agena, W.F., Lee, M.W., Zyrianova, M.V., Bird, K.J., Charpentier, T.C., Houseknect, D.W., Klett, T.R., Pollastro, R.M., and Schenk, C.J., 2008, Assessment of gas hydrate resources on the North Slope, Alaska, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3073, 4 p.

**

***

Fed’s Strategy Reduces U.S. Bailout to $11.6 Trillion (Update2)

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve decided to keep pumping $1.25 trillion of new money into the mortgage market to focus on rescuing the U.S. economy as the financial system revives and banks ask for less help.

The Fed is allowing some of the 10 support programs it created or expanded after the credit crisis began in August 2007 to expire or shrink. That caused the first decline in the amount of money the U.S. has committed on behalf of taxpayers to end the recession, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The central bank has purchased $694 billion of mortgage- backed securities since January and plans to spend $556 billion more by April 2010 to keep interest rates down. The debt-buying is the biggest program in the Fed’s arsenal.

“The first thing the Fed had to do was stop the bleeding in the banking system,” said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research Corp. in New York. “Now that that seems to have been accomplished, they’re focusing on the economy by buying mortgage-backed securities.”

The purchases were scheduled to stop at the end of December. The Federal Open Market Committee decided on Sept. 23 to continue the program through the first quarter of next year and slow the pace of buying to “promote a smooth transition in markets,” the committee said in a statement. It also said the economy has “picked up.”

9.4 Percent Decline

The debt-buying pushed the average 30-year mortgage interest rate this week to 5.04 percent, its lowest since May, according to McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac. The debt is guaranteed by Freddie Mac and the other government-sponsored home-loan financiers, Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae, both based in Washington.

The U.S. has lent, spent or guaranteed $11.6 trillion to bolster banks and fight the longest recession in 70 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

That’s a 9.4 percent decline since March 31, when Bloomberg last calculated the total at $12.8 trillion.

The tally “ignores the fact that virtually all commitments are backed by assets,” Andrew S. Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman who had the same role at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until earlier this year, said in an e- mail. “The Federal Reserve’s current ‘outlays’ are largely in the form of secured loans. The aggregate value of the collateral backing those loans exceeds the loan value. These are not ‘outlays.’”

Refused to Identify

Spokesmen Calvin A. Mitchell of the New York Fed and David Skidmore of the Fed in Washington declined to comment.

The Fed has refused to identify the collateral backing its loans. Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued the central bank in November to force it to provide the information. U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska gave the Fed until Sept. 30 to appeal her decision requiring more disclosure about the financial institutions that have benefited.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Financials Index has risen 140 percent since its low on March 6, including a 174 percent increase in share price for JPMorgan Chase & Co. to $43.65 and a 137 percent jump for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to $179.50.

Among the U.S. programs that have expired is the Treasury guarantee of money market mutual fund deposits, instituted a year ago to stem an investor run the week after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s collapse. The department said it collected $1.2 billion in fees from funds before the effort concluded on Sept. 18 and never paid out a claim.

Gas Guzzlers
The $3 billion “cash for clunkers,” which gave people rebates for trading in gas-guzzling vehicles, ended in August after 700,000 vehicles were sold, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Fed’s Money Market Investor Funding Facility, or MMIFF, is slated to be closed on Oct. 30, and four other Fed programs with a total limit of $2.5 trillion are scheduled to expire in February. Others have been cut back.

The central bank said Sept. 24 it will reduce the Term Securities Lending Facility to $50 billion from $75 billion and the Term Auction Facility, once $900 billion, will shrink to $50 billion. Support for commercial paper, short-term loans that corporations and banks use to pay everyday expenses, has fallen to $1.2 trillion as the market fell from a one-year peak of $1.8 trillion in January.

64 Percent Higher

Banks have repaid about $70.6 billion of the $204.6 billion in direct aid extended through the Capital Purchase Program of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Congress created the $700 billion fund last October.

The $70.6 billion includes $25 billion from New York-based JPMorgan Chase, one of the biggest recipients, and $28 million from Novato, California-based Bank of Marin Bancorp, one of the smallest, according to the Treasury and regulatory filings.

“Because financial conditions have started to improve, Treasury has already begun the process of exiting from some emergency programs,” the TARP administrator, Herb Allison, told the Senate Banking Committee Sept. 24. “It will, however, be some time before all CPP participants have fully extinguished their obligations to the taxpayers.”

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program has generated more than $9 billion in fees.

The combined commitments of the Fed and government agencies are 57 percent higher than on Nov. 24, when Bloomberg’s first tally was $7.4 trillion.

“We’re not self-sustaining yet,” William O’Donnell, head of Treasury strategy for RBS Securities Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut, said in an interview.

===========================================================
— Amounts (Billions)—
Limit         Current
===========================================================
Total                            $11,563.65     $3,025.27
———————————————————–
Federal Reserve Total            $5,870.65     $1,590.11
Primary Credit Discount           $110.74        $28.51
Secondary Credit                    $1.00         $0.58
Primary dealer and others         $147.00         $0.00
ABCP Liquidity                    $145.89         $0.08
AIG Credit                         $60.00        $38.81
Commercial Paper program        $1,200.00        $42.44
Maiden Lane (Bear Stearns assets)  $29.50        $26.19
Maiden Lane II  (AIG assets)       $22.50        $14.66
Maiden Lane III (AIG assets)       $30.00        $20.55
Term Securities Lending            $75.00         $0.00
Term Auction Facility             $375.00       $196.02
Securities lending overnight       $10.42         $9.25
Term Asset-Backed Loans (TALF)  $1,000.00        $41.88
Currency Swaps/Other Assets       $606.00        $59.12
GSE Debt Purchases                $200.00       $129.21
GSE Mortgage-Backed Securities  $1,250.00       $693.60
Citigroup Bailout Fed Portion     $220.40         $0.00
Bank of America Bailout            $87.20         $0.00
Commitment to Buy Treasuries      $300.00       $289.22
———————————————————–
Treasury Total                    $2,909.50     $1,075.91
TARP                              $700.00       $372.43
Tax Break for Banks                $29.00        $29.00
Stimulus Package (Bush)           $168.00       $168.00
Stimulus II (Obama)               $787.00       $303.60
Treasury Exchange Stabilization    $50.00         $0.00
Student Loan Purchases             $60.00         $0.00
Citigroup Bailout Treasury          $5.00         $0.00
Bank of America Bailout Treasury    $7.50         $0.00
Support for Fannie/Freddie        $400.00       $200.00
Line of Credit for FDIC           $500.00         $0.00
Treasury Commitment to TALF       $100.00         $0.00
Treasury Commitment to PPIP       $100.00         $0.00
Cash for Clunkers                   $3.00         $2.88
———————————————————–
FDIC Total                        $2,477.50       $356.00
Public-Private Investment (PPIP)$1,000.00          0.00
Temporary Liquidity Guarantees* $1,400.00       $301.00
Guaranteeing GE Debt               $65.00        $55.00
Citigroup Bailout, FDIC Share      $10.00         $0.00
Bank of America Bailout, FDIC Share $2.50         $0.00
———————————————————–
HUD Total                           $306.00         $3.25
Hope for Homeowners (FHA)         $300.00         $3.20
Neighborhood Stabilization (FHA)    $6.00         $0.05
———————————————————–
* The program has generated $9.3 billion in income,
according to the agency.

Glossary: ABCP — Asset-backed commercial paper AIG — American International Group Inc. FDIC — Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. FHA — Federal Housing Administration, a division of HUD GE — General Electric Co. GSE — Government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae) HUD — U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development TARP — Troubled Asset Relief Program

Breakout of TARP funds:
===========================================================
— Amounts (Billions)—
Outlay      Returned
===========================================================
Total                              $447.76        $75.33
———————————————————–
Capital Purchase Program           $204.55        $70.56
General Motors, Chrysler            $79.97         $2.14
American International Group        $69.84         $0.00
Making Home Affordable Program      $23.40         $1.13
Targeted Investment Bank of America $20.00         $0.00
Targeted Investment Citigroup       $20.00         $0.00
Term Asset-Backed Loan (TALF)       $20.00         $0.00
Citigroup Bailout                    $5.00         $0.00
Auto Suppliers                       $5.00         $1.50

To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net; Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: September 25, 2009 16:39 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ahys015DzWXc

***

***

Dam Safety Research, Publications & Resources
Home » Publications & Resources » Dam Safety Research, Publications & Resources

Your Information Source for Dam Safety Research & Publications

Click the tabs at left for listings of recently published books and papers from a variety of sources.  (Previously listed references are archived in the ASDSO Bibliography.)
For more information on items listed in these pages, contact Sarah McCubbin-Cain.

ASDSO members may borrow selected items from the ASDSO Library.

These pages updated 9/1/09

* ASDSO Bibliographic Database
* ASDSO Bookstore
* Training Materials
* The Journal of Dam Safety
* ASDSO Speakers Bureau
* Dam Safety Research, Publications & Resources
o Recent Journal & Magazine Articles (August ’09)
o Books & Presentations, August 2009
* ASDSO Peer Review Program
* Download Documents
* Picture Gallery
* ASDSO Information Services
* Links to Other Resources

http://www.damsafety.org/resources/?p=94218cc1-29fa-4df8-9586-0650bcd9d1af

***

Dam Safety Research, Publications & Resources
Home » Publications & Resources » Dam Safety Research, Publications & Resources » Recent Journal & Magazine Articles (August ’09)
ASDSO Resource Center – August 2009

Advances in Water Resources – 08/2009 V. 32 (8)

H. A. Gallegos, J. E. Schubert and B. F. Sanders. Two-dimensional, high-resolution modeling of urban dam-break flooding: A case study of Baldwin Hills, California

Canadian Mining Journal – 05/2009 V. 130 (4)

Tough diggin’

Description of challenges faced by contractor in blasting a 2.9-km transfer tunnel for Hydro-Quebec in Northern Quebec. The transfer tunnel was part of a $5 billion hydroelectric project that involved construction of four dams, a spillway, 74 dikes, two diversion bays, and the transfer tunnel.

CDA/ACB Bulletin – Summer 2009 V. 20 (3)

Annual CDA Conference Overview

Keynotes: Psychology of Safety (Dr. Jacob Groeneweb, Leiden University, Netherlands); Application of Safety-by-Design Principles in Hazardous Industries (Michael A. Prince, BMT Isis Ltd, UK); Adapting to Climate Change (Dr. Stewart j. Cohen, Environment Canada, Vancouver BC).
Technical sessions: Mining dams, Dam safety reviews, Public safety, Incident investigation & analysis, Reliability-centered maintenance, Flow discharge gate reliability, and Identification, monitoring and repair of piping damage to till core dams.

Anon. A unified river ice breakup model

Progress report, May 2009, for the NSERC strategic grant project prepared in response to Hydro Quebec’s need to simulate the propagation of the dambreak flood wave under winter conditions and its desire to optimize hydroelectric peaking without causing the downstream ice cover to break up.

T. Bennett. A change to make history

The History and Archives Committee of the Engineering Institute of Canada is interested in receiving submissions of papers and archival materials on the history of dams in Canada.  For more information, contact Tony Bennett (tony.bennett[at]opg.com).

Civil Engineering – 08/2009

J. Landers. Climate change is decreasing flows in major rivers, study finds

NSF-sponsored study examined flow in major rivers around the world between 1948-2004.

Engineering News-Record – 08/03/2009 V. 263 (4)

Oroville Dam bulkhead fails

CA DWR investigating failure of a steel bulkhead during routine hydraulic tests on July 22. Five workers were injured when a 6′ x 10′ steel wall collapsed in a diversion tunnel.

P. R. Russell. Studies dispute ash spill’s engineering analysis

Reviews of TVA ash spill come to different conclusions.

Engineering News-Record – 08/17/2009 V. 263 (6)

TVA opts for dry storage after catastrophic coal-ash spill

United Convey Corp to convert Kingston’s ash-handling from wet to dry under a $50- to $70-million contract.

EWRI Currents – Summer 2009

Anon. Pathfinder Dam Centennial Celebration

Pathfinder Dam Centennial celebration held July 15, 2009. The dam is a 214′-high cyclopean masonry thick-arch dam and was the first big dam built by the U.S. Reclamation Service (now Bureau of Reclamation). The arch dam design for Pathfinder Dam was based on the results of analyses performed and reported by consulting engineers George Y. Wisner and Edgar T. Wheeler; that 1905 analysis methodology evolved and became known as the Trial Load Method of analysis that is still used by the Bureau of Reclamation and others worldwide. Pathfinder Dam was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971, was designated a Wyoming Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 1975, and is in the process of being re-nominated by ASCE’s Wyoming Section to become a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark.

Anon. Engineering Societies Agree on Climate Change Action

As leaders of the civil engineering profession gathered in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador to discuss the challenges and risks faced by coastal communities worldwide at the 2009 Triennial Conference, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE) and the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) jointly signed an agreement on Civil Engineering and Climate Change.

Geosynthetics – 08-09/2009 V. 27 (4)

J. Chi. History, development, and future prospects for geosynthetics industries in China

Article describes development of China’s geosynthetics production, applications, testing, and research, and discusses the market supply and demand as well as development trends. Dam applications cited. Part 1 of 2 parts.

D. Leshchinsky. Research and innovation: seismic performance of various geocell earth-retention systems

Overview of research on use of geocells as earth-retention structures.

International Journal of Engineering, Transactions B: Applications – 10/2008 V. 21 (3)

H. Afshin, B. Firoozabadi and M. Rad. Hydrodynamics analysis of Density currents

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering – V. 135 (8)

M.-W. Seo, I. S. Ha, Y.-S. Kim and S. M. Olson. Behavior of concrete-faced rockfill dams during initial impoundment

USSD Newsletter – 07/2009 V. (No. 148)

Anon. Levees workshop to be held in Sacramento

Technical, policy and management issues relating to levees will be the focus of a USSD workshop to be held Oct. 13-15 in Sacramento.

Anon. Cybersecurity issues addressed

Brief overview of a Dams Sector Cybersecurity Summit recently held in Chicago.

D. H. Babbitt and R. G. Charlwood. Wenchuan Quake Report

Report on an International Seminar on Earthquakes and Dam Safety, conducted March 29-April 3, 2009 by the Chinese Committee on Large Dams, to review the performance of large dams affected by the May 12, 2008 Wnnchuan Earthquake. Dam assessed: Zipingpu, Shapai, Futang, Taipingyi, Yingziuwan, Bikou, Baozhusi, Tanjiashan.

R. Barham, P. Shiers, M. McCaffrey and J. Lyon. Repairing an embankment sinkhole

Case study of repairs at Chilhowee Hydroelectric Project on the Little Tennessee River near Knoxville.

R. Bisnett. Use of loess as an embankment dam core material: an investigation into two forms of collapse

Paper by USSD scholarship winner.  Understanding the saturation state and the effect of varying compaction parameters on the one-dimensional consolidation and seismic response of loess is essential to evaluating its use as an engineering material in embankment dams.

P. J. Regan. An examination of dam failures vs. age of dams

Paper addresses 4 questions: (1) How are dam incidents distributed over the life of a dam and what are the implications of longterm satisfactory performance? (2) Is there a difference in longterm performance among different types of dams? (3) Are there particular potential failure modes that contribute significantly to safety inidents over time? (4) Is there a difference in the types of delayed incidents depending on the year the dam was constructed?

D. Shannon. Lake Lenexa Dam and Spillway

J. N. Stateler. Consequence ratings: a streamlined method for developing loss of life estimates

Condensed version of a paper presented at the 2009 USSD Annual Meeting and Conference.

http://www.damsafety.org/resources/?p=8803f043-13e8-492c-bd57-a26867486106

***

***

WASHINGTON, Oct 30, Washington transit agency at risk in AIG fallout:
Reuters
Washington, D.C.’s transit agency won a slight reprieve on Thursday from having to pay millions on a defaulted financing deal, which many fear could escalate and cost U.S. public transportation groups up to $16 billion on exposure to other soured financing.
Read more…
Denver, CO: 09/18/08, A Quiet Crisis Below Ground
,
The Denver Post
The state of Colorado needs to invest at least $2.6 Billion to fix a drinking water system that has been plagued deterioration that has led to parasites, disease, and damages to roadways. Columnist Susan Thornton argues that not nearly enough attention has been given to the issue.
Read more…

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm

***

Association of State Dam Safety Officials

http://www.damsafety.org/

DAMS [D]
Background | Conditions | Policy Options | Specific ASCE recommendations | Sources

Since 1998, the number of unsafe dams has risen by 33% to more than 3,500. While federally owned dams are in good condition, and there have been modest gains in repair, the number of dams identified as unsafe is increasing at a faster rate than those being repaired. $10.1 billion is needed over the next 12 years to address all critical non-federal dams–dams which pose a direct risk to human life should they fail.

Background

Dams provide tremendous benefits, including water supply for drinking, irrigation and industrial uses; flood control; hydroelectric power; recreation; and navigation. However, dams also represent one of the greatest risks to public safety, local and regional economies and the environment. Historically, some of the largest disasters in the United States have resulted from dam failures. In 1889, 2,209 lives were lost when the South Fork Dam failed above Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The 1928 St. Francis Dam failure killed 450. During the 1970s, the failures of the Buffalo Creek Dam in West Virginia, Teton Dam in Idaho and the Toccoa Falls Dam in Georgia collectively cost 175 lives and more than $1 billion in losses. Such dam failures as Silver Lake Dam in Michigan in 2003 ($100 million in damages and economic losses of $1 million per day) and the Big Bay Lake Dam in Mississippi in March 2004 (100 homes destroyed) are current reminders of the potential consequences of unsafe dams.

In order to provide safe, continuing service, dams require ongoing maintenance, monitoring, frequent safety inspections and rehabilitation. Aging dams often require major rehabilitation to assure their safety. Downstream development below dams is increasing dramatically, and continuing scientific research of dam failure mechanisms, such as earthquakes and major flood events, frequently demand repairs to dams constructed long before these advances were realized. Many state dam safety programs do not have sufficient funding or qualified staff to effectively regulate dams under their authority. State programs regulate 95% of the 79,000 dams in the United States, while the federal agencies own or regulate only 5% of the nation’s dams.

Conditions
Like all man-made structures, dams deteriorate. Deferred maintenance accelerates deterioration and causes dams to be more susceptible to failure. As with other critical infrastructure, a significant investment is essential to maintain the benefits and assure the safety that society demands.

In the past two years, more than 67 dam incidents, including 29 dam failures, were reported to the National Performance of Dams program, which collects and archives information on dam performance as reported by state and federal regulatory agencies and dam owners. Dam incidents are such events as large floods, earthquakes or inspections that alert dam safety engineers to deficiencies that threaten the safety of a dam. Due to limited state staff, many incidents are not reported; therefore, the actual number of incidents is likely to be much greater.

The number of high-hazard potential dams (dams whose failure would cause loss of human life) is increasing dramatically. Since 1998, the number of high-hazard-potential dams has increased from 9,281 to 10,213, with 1,046 in North Carolina alone. As downstream land development increases, so will the number of high-hazard potential dams. As these dams often require major repair to accommodate more stringent inspection, maintenance and design standards, financial support for state dam safety programs must keep pace.

Even more alarming, states presently report more than 3,500  unsafe  dams, which have deficiencies that leave them more susceptible to failure. Many states have large numbers of unsafe dams, including Pennsylvania (725), New Jersey (583), and New Hampshire (357). Many state agencies do not report statistics on unsafe dams; therefore the actual number is potentially much higher.

The combined effect of rapid downstream development, aging/non-compliant structures and inadequate past design practices, coupled with a predicted increase in extreme events, demands fully funded and staffed state dam safety programs, as well as substantial and proactive funding for dam repairs.

Some progress is being made through the repair of small watershed dams constructed with assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), beginning in 1948. This is only a small portion of the total number of non-federal dams. On the federal side, federally owned and federally regulated hydropower dams are in good condition; however, continuing budget restrictions and increased attention to security are placing pressure on and limiting many agency dam safety programs.

While the recent passage of the National Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 (Public Law No: 107-310), which provides funding through grants, has improved state dam safety programs, it does not provide funding for needed repairs. It is estimated that $10.1 billion is needed over the next 12 years to address all critical non-federal dams–dams that pose a direct risk to human life should they fail. In the meantime, the 79,000 dams in the U.S. National Inventory of Dams continue to age and deteriorate, yet there is no national funding program to fund the repair of unsafe dams.
Since the last ASCE Report Card, the National Dam Safety Act of 1996 was reauthorized in 2002, increasing the authorization to $8.0 million. To date, however, funding has remained at pre-reauthorization levels of $5.5 million. Under this program, state dam safety agencies have received grants totaling nearly $22 million to assist with improving dam safety regulatory programs by procuring equipment, implementing new technology, and enabling more-frequent inspections. The program also provided opportunities for continuing education to dam safety engineers, and funding for research to advance the technology of investigations, construction, and rehabilitation of dams, but no funding to repair unsafe dams.

According to results of a study by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the total investment to bring U.S. dams into safety compliance or to remove obsolete dams tops $30 billion. Except for a handful of state programs offering low-interest loans to dam owners, there are no funding sources for dam rehabilitation or repair. Private owners have the greatest need for funding. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act addresses less than 10% of the nation’s dams–the remaining 90% demand similar attention.

Representative Sue Kelly introduced HR 5190, the Dam Repair and Rehabilitation Act, in the 108th Congress. The bill would provide $350 million over 4 years for the repair, rehabilitation or removal of non-federal, high-hazard, publicly owned dams. The bill will be re-introduced early in the 109th Congress.

Four years ago, few state dam safety programs were adequately funded or staffed. Today, that situation remains the same. On average nationwide, there are 268 state-regulated dams per full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. In 13 states, this number exceeds 500, and four report more than 1200 dams per FTE staff. In 1998, a Texas House Committee recommended adding 15 staff members to that state’s six-member dam safety team; today, there are still only six staff members responsible for inspecting nearly 7500 dams. One Texas official commented that,  because of inadequate staffing, some dams would not be examined for three centuries.

Since the last Report Card, Delaware has created a dam safety program, leaving Alabama as the last remaining state that has not passed dam safety legislation. As a result, an estimated 2,100 dam structures–perhaps more–are unregulated. At last count, 171 of these structures were classified as high-hazard.

Policy Options

There is still an alarming lack of public support and education about the need for proper maintenance and repair of dams. Unless a dam fails, dam safety is not usually in the public view, although it is an issue that affects the safety of millions of people who could be living and working in the path of a sudden, deadly dam failure.

Specific recommendations supported by ASCE:
* Establishment of comprehensive and fully funded dam safety programs in all 50 states, especially Alabama, the only state without an authorized dam-safety program
* Introduction and passage of legislation to create a loan fund for the repair, rehabilitation and removal of non-federal dams would provide seed money to advance the process of rehabilitating the most critical dams
* Full funding and expansion of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act
* Development of a comprehensive, Internet-based information resources system to support the maintenance and improvement of dam safety in the United States
* Reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program Act in 2006
* Funding program in each state to assist with loans and matching grants

Sources

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2003 National Dam Safety Program Successes and Challenge
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Dams: An Important Part of the U.S. Infrastructure

Federal Emergency Management Administration, Annual Report to Congress, 2003

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, The Cost of Rehabilitating Our Nation’s Dams, 2002

Natural Resource Conservation Service, Aging Watershed Projects: A Growing National Concern, 1998

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Inventory of Dams, 1998

World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making, 2000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Inventory of Dams, 2000

World Commission on Dams, Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making, 2000

Easterling, D.R., et al.  Observed Variability and Trends in Extreme Climate Events: A Brief Review,  Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 81, March 2000

Haurwitz, Ralph,  Dam Inspections Are Years Behind,  The Austin American-Statesman, February 21, 1998

Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Control Infrastructure, National Inventory of Dams, Vol.II, 1992

ASCE Policy Statement 280  Dam Safety,  2003

ASCE Policy Statement 470  Dam Repair and Rehabilitation,  2003

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=23

***

Home » State Map » Georgia

Georgia Dam Safety Program

Contact:
Tom Woosley
Program Manager
GA Department of Natural Resources
Safe Dams Program
4244 International Parkway, Ste. 110
Atlanta, GA 30354
Tel: 404/362-2678
Fax: 04/362-2598
tom_woosley@dnr.state.ga.us
Web:
Dept. of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Div.
http://www.gaepd.org/

2007 National Inventory of Dams – Georgia Dam Statistics

2006 Statistics:Total Number of state-regulated dams: 3874
Number state-regulated high hazard potential dams: 450
Number state-regulated significant hazard potential dams: 0
Number state-regulated low hazard potential dams: 3424
Total Number of dam safety FTE’s: 11
Total Budget: 727,009

2005 Statistics:
Total Number of state-regulated dams: 3861
Number state-regulated high hazard potential dams: 437
Number state-regulated significant hazard potential dams: 0
Number state-regulated low hazard potential dams: 3424
Total Number of dam safety FTE’s: 9

2003 Statistics:
Number of state-regulated dams: 3,412
Number of dams in National Inventory of Dams: 4,977
Number of dam safety FTEs: 10

View Georgia’s report in Successes and Challenges – 2002 National Dam Safety Program (Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2002)

View a summary of Georgia’s dam safety laws and regulations – from Summary of State Laws and Regulations on Dam Safety (Association of State Dam Safety Officials, July 2000)

http://www.damsafety.org/map/state.aspx?s=10

***

wwv_flow_file_mgr.get_file.jpg
Dams in Georgia

total number of dams – 4814
high hazard dams –

https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/apex/f?p=397:3:775767146432274::NO::P3_STATES:GA

In the past two years, more than 67 dam incidents, including 29 dam failures, were reported to the National Performance of Dams program, which collects and archives information on dam performance as reported by state and federal regulatory agencies and dam owners.

The 1928 St. Francis Dam failure killed 450. During the 1970s, the failures of the Buffalo Creek Dam in West Virginia, Teton Dam in Idaho and the Toccoa Falls Dam in Georgia collectively cost 175 lives and more than $1 billion in losses. Such dam failures as Silver Lake Dam in Michigan in 2003 ($100 million in damages and economic losses of $1 million per day) and the Big Bay Lake Dam in Mississippi in March 2004 (100 homes destroyed) are current reminders of the potential consequences of unsafe dams.

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=23

***
Our nation’s dam infrastructure is an important component of the nation’s water control infrastructure, supplying such benefits as water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial uses; flood control; hydroelectric power; recreation; and navigation.14 However, as evidenced by the events of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the failure of dam infrastructure, which includes levees, also represents a risk to public safety, local and regional economies, and the environment. In particular, the aging of dam infrastructure in the United States continues to be a critical issue for dam safety because the age of dams is a leading indicator of potential dam failure.15 According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the number of unsafe dams has risen by more than 33 percent since 1998, to more than 3,500 in 2005.16 In addition, the number of dams identified as unsafe is increasing faster than the number of dams that are being repaired.
To address the challenges facing our nation’s dams, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Dam Safety Review Board identified both short- and long-term goals and priorities for the National Dam Safety Program17 over the next 5 to 10 years. They include identifying and remedying deficient dams, increasing dam inspections, increasing the number of and updating of Emergency Action Plans,

Aging Dam Infrastructure Raises Safety and Funding Challenges
14The term “dam” includes conventional dams, navigation locks, levees, canals (excluding channels), or other similar types of water retention structures.
15A number of factors, including age, construction deficiencies, inadequate maintenance, and seismic or weather events contribute to the likelihood of dam failure.
16American Society of Civil Engineers, 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, March 2005.
17The National Dam Safety Program, which is administered by FEMA, is a partnership of the states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders to encourage individual and community responsibility for dam safety.

Page 12 GAO-08-763T Physical Infrastructure

***

Diesel Particulate Matter:
Diesel Particulate Matter (PM) is a mixture of particles that is a component of diesel exhaust. EPA lists diesel exhaust as a mobile source air toxic due to the cancer and noncancer health effects associated with exposure to whole diesel exhaust. EPA believes that exposure to whole diesel exhaust is best described, as many researchers have done over the years, by diesel particulate concentrations.
Note that in this assessment, the potential carcinogenic risk from diesel PM is not addressed because there currently is no unit risk estimate available. There are noncancer results. Learn more about EPA’s qualitative assessment of diesel PM.

Given its broad scope, this risk characterization is subject to a number of limitations due to gaps in data or in the state of the science for assessing risk. For example, the current assessment does not yet include results for dioxins, compounds that may contribute substantially to risks. In addition, the EPA is reassessing the health effects of many pollutants considered in this study. A status report for all EPA health effect assessments is available at cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/index.cfm. For more details about the limitations in the risk characterization, refer to the limitations section on the Web site.

The 2002 national-scale risk assessment is based on a 2002 inventory of air toxics emissions (the most complete and up-to-date available). It then assumes individuals spend their entire lifetimes exposed to these air toxics. Therefore, it does not account for the reductions in emissions that have occurred since 2002 or those that will happen in the near future due to regulations for mobile and industrial sources (see further details in the Air Toxics Reduction section of the Web site). This risk assessment represents an update and enhancement to EPA’s 1999 national-scale assessment. The next assessment will focus on emissions for the year 2005.  It will be released in late 2009 or early 2010.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2002/risksum.html

***

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2009, the United States provided
approximately $38.6 billion to support Afghanistan’s reconstruction goals,
which can often be characterized as construction (see table 1). Table 1
does not include funding provided for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.4 According to DOD, $22 billion of the $38.6 billion has been
disbursed.

Afghanistan.4 According to DOD, $22 billion of the $38.6 billion has been
disbursed.
Table 1: U.S. Government Funding Provided in Support of Afghan Security, Stabilization, and Development, Fiscal Years
2002-2009
Fiscal Years
Dollars in millions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009a Total
Security $147 $388 $949 $2,307 $1,989 $7,431 $2,763 $5,606 $21,580
— Afghan National Army 86 361 719 1,633 736 4,872 1,778 4,043 14,228
— Afghan National Police 24 0 160 624 1,217 2,523 964 1,512 7,024
— Other security 37 27 70 50 36 36 21 51 328
Governance, rule of law, human rights 110 97 262 244 110 286 517 824 2,450
— Democracy/Governance 103 89 233 223 80 221 391 614 1,954
— Rule of law 7 8 29 21 30 65 126 210 496
Economic and social development 650 498 1,153 1,570 1,007 1,591 2,100 2,448 11,017
— Reconstruction 124 295 855 1,240 706 1,191 1,494 1,871 7,776
— Humanitarian/Other 526 203 298 330 301 400 606 577 3,241
Counternarcotics 40 3 126 775 420 737 617 802 3,520
— Eradication 39 0 50 257 138 177 183 202 1,046
— Interdiction 1 3 76 338 137 323 248 366 1,492
— Alternative development 0 0 0 175 140 229 181 225 950
— Other counternarcotics 0 0 0 5 5 8 5 9 32
Total $947 $986 $2,490 $4,896 $3,526 $10,045 $5,997 $9,680 $38,567
Source: Departments of Defense and State.
Note: Funding provided includes assistance for Afghanistan from a variety of budget accounts, such
as Afghan Security Forces Funding, Economic Support Funds, and Commander’s Emergency
Response Funds, among others; State/USAID operations funding; and use of drawdown authority
contained in legislation such as the Afghan Freedom Support Act. Relevant transfers and
reprogramming also are included.
aAccording to State, fiscal year 2009 numbers include preliminary allocations of funding received in
the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, as well as preliminary funding allocations from the
fiscal year 2009 supplemental request.
4Specific funding figures for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan do not exist because
funding provided to DOD for military operations in support of the GWOT, which includes
Afghanistan, is not appropriated by country or specific contingency operation. Funding for
military operations covers expenses such as personnel costs of mobilized reservists; costs
for housing, food, and fuel; and costs to repair and replace equipment.
Page 4 GAO-09-473SP Afghanistan

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09473sp.pdf

In 2006, the government of Afghanistan, along with the international partners,
adopted the Afghanistan Compact, a political agreement outlining the
international community’s commitment to provide resources and support to
achieve Afghanistan’s security, governance, and reconstruction goals as set out
in the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS). Subsequently, more
than 70 nations pledged over $57 billion in aid toward the achievement of these
goals. The United States alone provided $32 billion. United States efforts to
work with NATO partners and other contributing countries present unique
opportunities in Afghanistan, but also pose some challenges. In March 2009, the
President announced a new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

***

The security situation in Afghanistan, though cyclical in nature, has
deteriorated since 2005. Attacks on civilians as well as Afghan and
coalition forces have increased year after year. Attacks increased from
2,388 in 2005 to 5,087 in 2006, 7,058 in 2007, and 10,889 in 2008. The
majority of the violence is concentrated in the eastern and southern parts
of Afghanistan where the Taliban receives funding from the opium trade
and where U.S. forces operate. In 2008, insurgent activity increased
dramatically, including an increase in improvised explosive device attacks,
as well as attacks focused on infrastructure, development, and
construction projects.

d09473sp.pdf

***

In early 2006, there were over 36,000 U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.
As of February 2009, there are over 65,000 troops with over 35,000 U.S. troops and over 30,000 other troops from more than 40 different countries in Afghanistan. The new administration has indicated that it intends to send up
to approximately 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan in 2009.

The increase in insurgent attacks, especially in the east and the south, has
impeded security and reconstruction efforts in those regions.
• State officials reported that the development of the Afghan National
Security Forces has been impeded by the security situation. For example,
despite the fact that the Afghan National Army is directly charged with
defeating the insurgency and terrorism, the Afghan National Police are
often reassigned from their training to provide immediate help with the
counterinsurgency effort, thus delaying the completion of their training.
• According to USAID, programs ranging from road reconstruction to power
generation, face significant cost increases and were delayed or abandoned
due to a lack of security.

***

Rebuilding Iraq –

Economic Reform and Reconstruction
Building a sustainable market economy in Iraq will likely be a long-term effort. Iraq’s centralized economic and political structure will require fundamental changes similar to those that are taking place in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The most immediate concern is Iraq’s physical reconstruction, including building roads, schools, and power plants. Another immediate concern is Iraq’s external debt and its war reparations resulting from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait—estimated to be as much as $400 billion. Additional concerns are the U.N. sanctions against Iraq and the related oil for food program, which still has more than $3 billion in escrow. Potential issues include oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness of reconstruction; the role and contributions of allies, the United Nations, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund; the pros and cons of forgiving Iraq’s external debt; and resolution of the oil for food program.

[etc.]

The fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental
authorized about $2.5 billion for relief and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq, available through fiscal
year 2004. As of April 24, 2003, the Department of
State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) estimated that they would
provide about $596.5 million in assistance to Iraq in
fiscal year 2003. This amount does not reflect all
estimated assistance to Iraq for fiscal year 2003.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03792r.pdf

***

My Note –

Do you have any idea what I could do with a billion dollars? For one thing, I would design a gizmo that would melt IED ignition / detonation systems within a hundred yards of any of our troops. But, then – that is not the most important thing compared to giving bankers the money to back their bad bets and poor choices or funding the destruction of and then rebuilding of countries who basically hate us. (and always will.)

– cricketdiane

***

***

Russian tanks and rocket systems to boost Latin America’s military potential

14 September, 2009, 18:12

Russia will lend $2.2 billion to Venezuela, says President Hugo Chavez after his visit to Moscow. The money will help Venezuela’s military potential, which Chavez deems crucial as US influence grows in the region.

President Hugo Chavez says his country is buying nearly 100 T-72 tanks and an S-300 air-defense system, using a more than $2 billion loan it got from Russia.

The announcement was made just days after President Chavez’s two-day visit to Moscow, during which he recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Read more

“We have good relations with Venezuela both military, economic and cultural. There is no embargo on the selling of arms to this country so if it wants to buy our military hardware, we are ready to supply it,” explains Vladimir Travkin, editor-in-chief of the, Latin America magazine.

It comes as Colombia is planning to allow the United States access to seven military bases in the country, officially to help it in the war against drugs and left-wing guerillas.

But Venezuela says it’s a threat to its national security as it holds some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

President Chavez stresses the new measures are strictly for protection from the Empire – a term the President often uses when referring to the United States.

“It’s doubtful the US will engage in a war with Venezuela. American soldiers are already fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. But any leader with some self-respect has to think about how to protect his country from potential threats,” says Viktor Litovkin, an analyst from Independent Military Review newspaper.

The S-300 is planned to be the foundation of Venezuela’s air-defense shield.

Developed in the USSR and produced in Russia, it’s designed to knockout planes and ballistic missiles. Its radars can simultaneously track up to one hundred targets while engaging up to twelve.

Chavez says he also plans to buy other air-defense systems from Russia with Venezuela’s military already being the most powerful in Latin America.

http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-09-14/russian-tanks-latin-america.html

***