DOCSLIB.ORG

Consent Decree: Tennessee Valley Authority (Pdf)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consent Decree: Tennessee Valley Authority (Pdf) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE __________________________________________ STATE OF ALABAMA AND THE ) ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, ) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. ) ATTORNEY GENERAL ROY COOPER, ) and STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) JUDGE __________________ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) ) Civil Action No. ____________ ) Defendant ) ) ) __________________________________________) __________________________________________ NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ) ASSOCIATION, INC., SIERRA CLUB, and ) OUR CHILDREN’S EARTH FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) JUDGE __________________ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) ) Civil Action No. ____________ ) Defendant ) __________________________________________) CONSENT DECREE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................. 6 II. PARTIES BOUND .................................................................................................................... 7 III. COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 7 A. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 7 B. NOx EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROLS ........................................................ 21 C. SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROLS ......................................................... 29 D. PM EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROLS ......................................................... 37 E. PROHIBITION ON NETTING OR OFFSETS FROM REQUIRED CONTROLS ........... 44 F. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROJECTS .............................................................. 51 G. CIVIL PENALTY ............................................................................................................... 55 H. RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST TVA .................................................................. 56 I. PERIODIC REPORTING ..................................................................................................... 58 J. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SUBMITTALS ............................................................... 59 K. STIPULATED PENALTIES .............................................................................................. 60 L. PERMITS ............................................................................................................................ 65 IV. COORDINATION OF OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT ........................................... 69 V. FORCE MAJEURE ................................................................................................................ 76 VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..................................................................................................... 81 VII. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ........................................................ 83 VIII. NOTICES ............................................................................................................................ 85 i IX. SALES OR TRANSFERS OF OPERATIONAL OR OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ............. 87 X. EFFECTIVE DATE ................................................................................................................ 90 XI. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................... 90 XII. MODIFICATION ................................................................................................................. 90 XIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................. 90 XIV. SIGNATORIES AND SERVICE ....................................................................................... 94 XV. PUBLIC COMMENT .......................................................................................................... 94 XVI. CONDITIONAL TERMINATION OF ENFORCEMENT UNDER DECREE ................. 95 XVI. FINAL JUDGMENT .......................................................................................................... 96 APPENDIX A – REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX B – EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NEW CC/CT UNITS EXHIBIT 1 – FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT 2 – PROPOSED CONSENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL ORDER ii WHEREAS, the States of Alabama, North Carolina, and Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Kentucky (collectively the “States”), have jointly filed a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties pursuant to Ala. Code § 22-22A-5(18), (19), Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 224.99-010 to -020, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-201-111, -115(b)(5), -117, and Section 304 of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604, alleging that Defendant Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) made major modifications to major emitting facilities, and failed to obtain the necessary permits and install the controls necessary under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Nonattainment New Source Review (“Nonattainment NSR”) provisions of the Act and the federally approved and enforceable State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”) for Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee, to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and/or particulate matter (“PM”); further alleging related claims under the New Source Performance Standards, minor new source review (“minor NSR”), and Title V programs; and further alleging that such emissions damage human health and the environment; WHEREAS, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Our Children’s Earth Foundation (collectively the “Citizen Plaintiffs”) have jointly filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and civil penalties pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 through 7671q, alleging that TVA made major modifications to major emitting facilities and failed to obtain the necessary permits and install the controls necessary under the PSD and Nonattainment NSR provisions of the Act and the EPA-approved SIPs for the States of Alabama and Tennessee, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky to reduce emissions of NOx, SO2, 1 and/or PM and further alleging related claims under the New Source Performance Standards and minor NSR; WHEREAS, on November 10, 2004, the State of North Carolina gave notice to TVA and other required parties, pursuant to Section 304 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604, of its intent to sue TVA regarding the same alleged violations that EPA had alleged in an administrative compliance order that EPA had issued to TVA first on November 3, 1999, and which was subsequently amended several times, including on April 10, 2000, WHEREAS, on October 30, 2000, December 13, 2000, July 21, 2003, and September 30, 2008, to the extent it was necessary, the Citizen Plaintiffs gave notice to TVA and other required parties pursuant to Section 304 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604, of their intent to sue TVA regarding the claims alleged in their complaint; WHEREAS, the States’ complaint alleges, inter alia, claims upon which relief can be granted against TVA pursuant to Ala. Code § 22-22A-5(18), (19), Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 224.99-010 to -020, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 68-201-111, -115(b)(5), -117, Section 304 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 304, and 28 U.S.C. § 1355; WHEREAS, the Citizen Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges claims upon which relief can be granted against TVA pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s PSD program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492, Nonattainment NSR program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7515, New Source Performance Standards, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, NSPS Subparts A and Da, 40 C.F.R. § 60.1 et seq., 40 C.F.R. § 60.40a et seq., minor NSR, the EPA-approved SIPs for the States of Tennessee and Alabama, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and 28 U.S.C. § 1355; 2 WHEREAS, EPA issued an administrative compliance order to TVA pursuant to Sections 113 and 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413, 7477, alleging that TVA violated, inter alia, the PSD and Nonattainment NSR programs of the Act, its implementing regulations, and the relevant SIPs at several of the coal-fired electric generating units that TVA owns and operates when it made certain physical changes without obtaining the necessary permits and installing the controls necessary to reduce emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM; WHEREAS, in the administrative compliance order, EPA directed TVA to come into compliance with the Act; WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) issued a Final Order on Reconsideration in In re Tennessee Valley Auth., 9 E.A.D 357 (EAB 2000), in which it found that TVA had violated the PSD and Nonattainment NSR programs of the Act, its implementing regulations, and the relevant SIPs, and directed TVA to come into compliance with the Act; WHEREAS, TVA petitioned for review of the administrative compliance order and the EAB’s Final Order on Reconsideration in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which concluded that EPA’s administrative proceedings, and the Act provisions under which the order was issued, violated due process, Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Whitman, 336 F.3d 1236, 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1030 (2004); Brief for Respondent in Opposition to a Writ of Certiorari (“Brief for Respondent”) at 4, National Parks Conservation Ass’n et al. v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 554 U.S. 917 (2008) (No. 07-867), and which then held that the unconstitutionality of the Clean Air Act provision meant that EPA’s order was not a 3 “final agency action” and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shawnee Fossil Plant Units 1 and 4 Final Environmental
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Shawnee Fossil Plant Units 1 and 4 Project Number: 2015-2 SHAWNEE FOSSIL PLANT UNITS 1 AND 4 West Paducah, Kentucky FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Knoxville, Tennessee December 2014 For further information, contact: Charles P. Nicholson, PhD NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 Phone: 865-632-3582 E-Mail: [email protected] Final EA – Shawnee Units 1 and 4 This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Table of Contents SYMBOLS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... VI 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Shawnee Fossil Plant ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Related Environmental Reviews and Consultation Requirements .......................................... 3 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 4 Public and Agency Involvement ..................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Necessary Permits or Licenses ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacy Support Person Registration of Respondent
    BEFORE THE IOWA BOARD OF PHARMACY Re: Case No. 2011-172 Pharmacy Support Person Registration of STATEMENT OF CHARGES TYLERANTHONY SMITH Registration No. 792, Respondent COMES NOW, the Complainant, Lloyd K. Jessen, and states: 1. He is the Executive Director ofthe Iowa Board ofPharmacy and files this Statement ofCharges solely in his official capacity. 2. The Board has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Iowa Code Chapters 147,155A and 272C (2011). 3. The Board issued Tyler Anthony Smith (hereinafter, "Respondent") pharmacy support person registration number 792, subject to the laws of the State ofIowa and the rules ofthe Board. Respondent's registration was last renewed on July 12, 2010, and will expire on June 30, 2012. 4. At all times material to this Statement ofCharges, Respondent was employed as a pharmacy support person at Hy-Vee Pharmacy, Perry, Iowa. A. CHARGES COUNT I- UNLAWFUL POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code §§ 124.403, i55A.6B(s) and 155A.21 (2011), and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.i(4)(h), with possession and distribution of a prescription drugs - specifically, controlled substances - for other than lawful purposes. COUNT II - VIOLATING LAWS RELATED TO PHARMACY Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code § 155A.6B(5) (2011) and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.i(4)(j) with violating state laws related to the practice of pharmacy; specifically, laws relating to possession and distribution ofcontrolled substances found at Iowa Code §§ 124.403,155A.21 and 155A.23 (2011). COUNT III - INABILITY TO PRACTICE DUE TO CHEMICAL ABUSE Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code § i55A.6B(s) (2011), and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.1(4X111) with the inability to practice as a pharmacy support person, with reasonable skill and safety, due to chemical abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of VANCOUVER RESOLUTION July 7, 2008
    CITY OF VANCOUVER RESOLUTION July 7, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. fl-&ha A RESOLUTION relating to selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Columbia River Crossing project (CRC), adauthorizing action by the City of Vancouver's delegates to the C-TRAN Board and Regional Transportation Council Board, guided by the principles herein, in support of a regional LPA. WHEREAS, Interstate 5 is a conidor of national significance that serves the entire west coast of the United States, as well as international commerce with Canada, Mexico, and all of the countries of the Pacific Rim that access US west coast sea ports; and WHEREAS, Interstate 5 between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington experiences some of the worst congestion along the entire length of the Interstate 5 corridor; and WHEREAS, the 1-5 Interstate Bridge is one of only two Columbia River crossings between Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon and approximately 138,000 people rely on crossing the 1-5 Bridge daily by car, transit, bicycle and on foot; and WHEREAS, the Vancouver-Portland Metropolitan Area is expected to grow by one million new residents by the year 2030; and WHEREAS, the existing 1-5 bridges ate old and do not meet current seismic hazard avoidance standards; and WHEREAS, the 1-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Final Strategic Plan recommended congestion and mobility improvements within the 1-5 Bridge Influence Area in 2002; and WHEREAS, the Governors of Oregon and Washington initiated the Columbia River Crossing Project (CRC) and appointed a 39
    [Show full text]
  • When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award?
    When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award? June 01, 2021 Timeline to Confirm Arbitration Award BST Ohio Corp. v. Wolgang, 2021-Ohio-1785 In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. The Bullet Point: In this matter, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that trial courts need not wait three months before confirming an arbitration award. In making this determination, the Court analyzed the interplay of the timing requirements of R.C. 2711.09 and 2711.13. Under R.C. 2711.09, a party may file an application to confirm an arbitration award with a court of common pleas within one year after the award is issued. Thereafter, the court must grant an order and issue judgment confirming said award unless it has been vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.11. As compared to said one-year limit to confirm, R.C. 2711.13 mandates that a party seeking to alter the results of arbitration must move to vacate, modify, or correct the award within three months of the award being issued. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (the “trial court”) to confirm the arbitration award the same day it was issued. The following day, the defendant filed a petition to vacate or correct the award in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” Dated April 1995 (1995 SFES-OL-1)
    NUREG-0498 Supplement 2, Vol. 1 Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Supplement 2 Final Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative Copies of industry codes and standards used in a reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are and their attachments. maintained at— The NRC Technical Library NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC Two White Flint North regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of 11545 Rockville Pike Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one Rockville, MD 20852–2738 of these two sources. 1. The Superintendent of Documents These standards are available in the library for reference U.S. Government Printing Office use by the public. Codes and standards are usually Mail Stop SSOP copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating Washington, DC 20402–0001 organization or, if they are American National Standards, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov from— Telephone: 202-512-1800 American National Standards Institute nd Fax: 202-512-2250 11 West 42 Street 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Characteristics
    Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report SECTION 2.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities .............................. 2.2-1 2.2.1 Locations and Routes ................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.2 Descriptions .................................................................................. 2.2-3 2.2.2.1 Descriptions of Facilities ............................................ 2.2-3 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials ....................... 2.2-3 2.2.2.3 Description of Pipelines ............................................. 2.2-6 2.2.2.4 Description of Waterways .......................................... 2.2-6 2.2.2.5 Description of Highways ............................................ 2.2-7 2.2.2.6 Description of Railroads ............................................. 2.2-8 2.2.2.7 Description of Airports, Aircraft, and Airway Hazards ..................................................................... 2.2-8 2.2.2.8 Projections of Industrial Growth .............................. 2.2-11 2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Accidents ............................................... 2.2-12 2.2.3.1 Determination of Potential Accidents ....................... 2.2-12 2.2.3.2 Effects of Design-Basis Events ................................ 2.2-29 2.2.4 References ................................................................................. 2.2-29 2.2-i Revision 0 Clinch River Nuclear Site
    [Show full text]
  • 1- Board Order No. 065 Final Resolution of the Board Of
    BOARD ORDER NO. 065 FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TAXICAB COMMISSIONERS CITY OF LOS ANGELES WHEREAS, the Board, as part of each taxicab franchise ordinance, may adopt vehicle standards and requirements for clean fuel/clean air taxicab vehicle policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 26, 2010, approved the renewal of the existing taxicab franchise agreements to at least December 31, 2015, and that such renewal approval included a “green taxi” provision whereby 80% of each Los Angeles taxicab fleet (not including Wheelchair Accessible vehicle exemptions) must be included as “green” vehicles producing lower smog pollution and Green House Gas emissions by the end of 2015; and WHEREAS, the Board approved Board Order No. 062 on December 16, 2010, establishing the City of Los Angeles Taxicab Greening Program describing “green” vehicle standards and deployment requirements during the taxicab franchising period in order to aide in the reduction of pollutants emitted from taxicab transportation vehicles for both smog pollution and Green House Gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the potential for a temporary taxicab vehicle substitution program whereby vehicles removed from active service (outage) due to unexpected major repairs or replacement issues may be temporarily replaced with a pre-approved substitute green taxicab, lessening the economic effect to vehicle owners and drivers during vehicle outage periods, as well as providing more consistent service capability to the public; and WHEREAS, the Board of Taxicab Commissioners approved Tentative Resolution, Board Order No. 065 on June 16, 2011, and such Tentative Resolution was published on June 23, 2011, for a five-day public review period; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that each taxicab operator (franchisee) shall have the option (if they so desire), to establish an authorized “green” taxicab substitution vehicle pool, for use as temporary taxicab fleet vehicle substitutes during vehicle outage periods of both “green” and other types of taxicabs.
    [Show full text]
  • 26 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition)
    § 301.6511(a)–1 26 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition) otherwise expire with respect to Corporation (5) Computation of 60-day period when P’s 2007 return), a court proceeding is last day of assessment period falls on a brought to enforce the designated summons weekend or holiday. For purposes of issued to Corporation P. On June 6, 2011, the paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, in court orders Corporation P to comply with the designated summons. Corporation P does determining whether a designated sum- not appeal the court’s order. On September 6, mons has been issued at least 60 days 2011, agents for Corporation P deliver mate- before the date on which the period of rial that they state are the records requested limitations on assessment prescribed in by the designated summons. On October 13, section 6501 expires, the provisions of 2011, a final resolution to Corporation P’s re- section 7503 apply when the last day of sponse to the designated summons occurs the assessment period falls on a Satur- when it is determined that Corporation P day, Sunday, or legal holiday. has fully complied with the court’s order. (e) Effective/applicability date. This The suspension period applicable with re- spect to the designated summons issued to section is applicable on July 31, 2009. Corporation P consists of the judicial en- [T.D. 9455, 74 FR 38097, July 31, 2009] forcement period (March 3, 2011, through Oc- tober 13, 2011) and an additional 120-day pe- LIMITATIONS ON CREDIT OR REFUND riod under section 6503(j)(1)(B), because the court required Corporation P to comply with § 301.6511(a)–1 Period of limitation on the designated summons.
    [Show full text]
  • TVA Labor Relation Supplements
    Revised 01-31-2013 PROJECT AGREEMENT LABOR RELATIONS SUPPLEMENTS (LRSs not listed have been deleted) Number Subject Page LRS-2 Arbitrator Limitation Relative to Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................ 1 LRS-3 Call-By-Name ............................................................................................................................. 2 LRS-4 Staffing - Contractor vs. TVA ..................................................................................................... 3 LRS-5 Wage Determination .................................................................................................................. 4 LRS-16 Apprenticeship Programs ........................................................................................................... 5 LRS-17 Defined Incidental Work, Maintenance, & Office Work .............................................................. 8 LRS-21 Certified Apprenticeship Programs Approved to Receive Contributions From Contractors .... 11 LRS-24 Project Agreement Rates of Pay .............................................................................................. 13 LRS-25 Foremen Rates of Pay (Supervising Other Crafts) .................................................................. 14 LRS-26 Definition of First, Second, and Third Shifts (replaced 8/3/99 with Interpretation No. 21) ....... 15 LRS-27 Payroll Deductions for Political Action Committees ................................................................. 16 LRS-32 Injury - Pay
    [Show full text]
  • Reporting Requirements Under the Inspector General Act
    1 TVA Power Generation and Purchased Power Six Months Ended March 31, 2017 (in millions of kilowatt hours) Purchased power Natural gas (non-renewable) and/or oil-fired • Coal-fired - 18,264 Purchased power 1 Hydroelectric (renewable) • Nuclear - 30,185 • Hydroelectric - 4,780 Coal-fired • Natural gas and/or oil-fired - 11,220 • Purchased power (non-renewable) - 5,8672 Nuclear • Purchased power (renewable) - 3,6243 1 The nuclear amount for the six months ended March 31, 2017, includes approximately 799 million kWh of pre-commercial generation at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 and Paradise Combined Cycle Plant. 2 Purchased power (non-renewable) includes generation from Caledonia Combined Cycle Plant, which is currently a leased facility operated by TVA. 3 Purchased power (renewable) includes power purchased from the following renewable sources: hydroelectric, solar, wind, and cogenerations. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from the Inspector General. .....................................................4 Noteworthy Undertaking...............................................................7 Executive Overview ...................................................................9 Organization ....................................................................... 13 Audits ............................................................................ 17 Evaluations ........................................................................23 Investigations ...................................................................... 27 Legislation and Regulations
    [Show full text]
  • IV. Main Achievements
    IV. Main achievements Introduction The 2015 Annual Report contained a State by State overview of main achievements since the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 in 1998 (earlier achievements were summarised in the Court’s Annual Report of that year celebrating the Court’s 40th anniversary). The 2016 Annual Report intends to provide additional insights into problems which have more recently come before the Committee of Ministers and led to more important reforms. The present overview thus focuses on reforms reported since the beginning of the Interlaken process in 2010. The individual measures adopted in order to erase the consequences of the violations for the individual applicants are not presented in this overview. In line with the approach in the overview of activities in 2016 (Appendix 5 – Thematic Overview) and that in the country fact sheets (Appendix 9), the presentation is thematic, indicating with respect to each theme the States and cases concerned. In order to provide as up-to-date information as possible, reforms reported are not limited to those accepted in final resolutions in cases closed, but also includes more important progress made in pending cases; references are here to the presentation of the status of execution in HUDOC-EXEC. Nota Bene: Cases cited under a specific theme do not necessarily raise all the issues mentioned in the heading. Similarly, the mention of the closure of supervision of a specific case does not necessarily mean that all problems in the area concerned have been solved. In a number of instances, the Committee of Ministers recognised major progress with respect to the solution of certain aspects of a larger problem by allowing a closure of certain cases of a group related to the aspects solved (“partial closure”).
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST DAY MORNING SESSION January 24, 2011
    Day 1Monday, January 24, 2011 1 STATE OF UTAH SENATE JOURNAL 2011 GENERAL SESSION of the FIFTY−NINTH LEGISLATURE FIRST DAY MORNING SESSION January 24, 2011 Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Utah, the Senators of the Fifty−Ninth Legislature of the State of Utah convened in General Session in the Senate Chamber on Monday, January 24, 2011 at ten o’clock a.m. The Senate was called to order at 10:00 a.m., with the Honorable Clark Waddoups, presiding. PRAYER BY ELDER L. TOM PERRY, MEMBER OF THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER−DAY SAINTS Oh God, Our Eternal Father in Heaven, As thou knowest, we are gathered here this morning to convene the Utah State Senate in its opening session for this the year of 2011. We ask that thou will bless this noble body who have been selected by the people to represent them in the function of protecting and the making laws by which the people of this state will be governed. We know these elected officials come to this great responsibility at great personal sacrifice of time away from their families, businesses, and other personal responsibilities. We ask that thou will give them the physical and mental strength to endure the pressures of this assignment. We realize the great responsibility they carry to the people, representing the people of this state who have placed their trust in them to be by the people, for the people and of the people, without loyalty of political parties, friends, or personal interests.
    [Show full text]