Preview Newsletter
ACC AM July 8
-
(ACC Mentioned) Oregon Passes Toxic-Free Kids Act
Jul 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Oregon legislature has passed the Toxic-Free Kids Act which will establish a list of 66 chemicals of concern, require registration of children's products and the phase out of listed chemicals in certain applications (CW 2 July 2015). Jennifer Gibbons, senior director of state government affairs for the Toy Industry Association (TIA), said ... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Apparel Companies Oppose Bill Regulating Chemicals in Children’s Apparel
Jul 8, 2015 | Sourcing Journal
By Lainie Lamicella
United States apparel companies have joined forces in opposition of a proposed bill in Rockland County, New York, Referral No. 8894, banning certain chemicals in children’s apparel, claiming it is duplicative of an existing federal law regulating children’s products. A group including the American Apparel and Footwear Association... -
How the Senate and House TSCA reform bills stack up against the Administration’s Principles for TSCA Reform
Jul 8, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In September 2009, the Obama Administration issued its Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation “to help inform efforts underway in Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA.” These principles have guided EPA’s testimony and other statements relating to the Senate and House ... -
Perfluorinated Chemicals Critically Needed, Semiconductor, Other Manufacturers Tell EPA
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Continued access to perfluorinated chemicals is essential for the semiconductor and other industries, according to comments on a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict use of such chemicals. Perfluorinated chemicals covered by the EPA's proposal “provide critical acidity, surfactancy and anti-reflectivity... -
EPA Has Incomplete Picture Of Hazardous Waste Imported Into U.S.
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
The Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to manage imported hazardous waste is “incomplete and ineffective,” the agency's inspector general said in a report released July 6. In its review of a random sample of 211 manifests received by the EPA, the Office of Inspector General found that more than half were not accompanied by an EPA... -
IG, EPA Waste Office Reconcile Dispute Over Hazardous Waste Import Oversight
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA's waste office and the agency's Inspector General (IG) have reached a compromise over recommendations made by the IG aimed at improving what the IG has said is the office's lax oversight of hazardous waste imports and at bolstering enforcement against imports that violate federal waste law. -
PHMSA Excess Flow Valve Proposal's Review Completed by White House; Sent to Agency
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The White House completed its review July 6 of a pipeline safety proposal to require that excess flow valves be installed on certain gas service lines. The proposed rule (RIN 2137-AE71) would require that these valves, which generally detect when pressures hit certain levels and shut off the gas flow, be installed on new and renewed gas... -
House E&C Panel To Hold Pipeline Safety Hearing
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee is holding a hearing next week on pipeline safety that "will examine how the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has progressed, or not, in implementing reforms” laid out in the 2011 pipeline safety bill, according to a committee statement. -
Hearings Planned on House Bills to Lift Ban On Crude Oil Exports as Issue Gains Attention
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House hearings are planned on separate bills to lift the 40-year ban on crude oil exports as the issue begins to gain more attention from House Republicans. The House Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing July 8 on legislation (H.R. 2369) from committee Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) that is nearly identical to legislation (S. 1312) ... -
Barnett Shale Methane Emissions 50% Higher Than EPA-Based Estimates
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Methane emissions from oil and gas operations in the Barnett Shale region of Texas are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas inventory, according to 11 papers published July 7 in Environmental Science and Technology. -
New Research Finds Higher Methane Emissions, Reduction Opportunities in Barnett Shale Region
Jul 7, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Steve Hamburg
Methane emissions from vast oil and gas operations in the densely populated Barnett Shale region of Texas are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory, according to a series of 11 new papers published today in Environmental Science & Technology. -
Oil Industry Defeats Pennsylvania's Bid For Damages in MTBE Contamination Case
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Pennsylvania won't be able to pursue most of its claims against the nation's largest oil companies for allegedly contaminating groundwater with the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, according to a July 2 ruling by the Southern District of New York (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2015 BL 214853... -
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Not A 'Piggy Bank' -- Murkowski
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Geof Koss
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said today that lawmakers should resist the temptation to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for unrelated legislative initiatives. "I'm very worried about any incursions into the SPR that are just meant to fund something else, whether it's related to ... -
$283 Billion of LNG Projects May Not Be Economical, Carbon Tracker Initiative Says
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Longley
About $283 billion of liquefied natural gas projects may be surplus to requirements if the world is to keep carbon emissions below levels aimed at holding global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the Carbon Tracker Initiative said. In the next decade, 16 of the 20 biggest LNG companies are studying major projects that probably won't be... -
House Funding Bill for Interior, EPA Has No Chance to Become Law, White House Says
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
In its strongest language yet, the Obama administration has said the president will not sign pending legislation to fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for the upcoming fiscal year. Just days before the House plans to vote on its bill (H.R. 2822), Shaun Donovan, director of the White House... -
Murkowski Still Aims to Mark Up Energy Bill By August Break, but Plenty of Work Remains
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee still intends to move a broad energy package before the August recess begins, but plenty of work on the bill remains, the chairman and ranking member of the committee told Bloomberg BNA July 7. The bill is still being drafted and was the subject of negotiations between minority.... -
OMB Chief: We’ll Do ‘Everything We Can’ To Stop Policy Riders
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
hite House Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan this afternoon reiterated that the president will veto bills that “lock in” sequestration-level spending or include riders that would block key EPA regulations. “It is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans are attempting to hijack the appropriations process to ... -
Obama Officials Bash EPA Spending Bill
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Two top Obama administration officials Tuesday lambasted House Republicans for a bill they say would have “far-reaching consequences” for federal environmental protections. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Gina McCarthy and White House Office of Management and Budget head Shaun Donovan told reporters Tuesday that ... -
Republicans Aim to Hamper Obama’s Policies With Spending Bills
Jul 7, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jonathan Weisman
From environmental and work force regulations to health care and contraception, congressional Republicans are using spending bills to try to dismantle President Obama’s policies, setting up a fiscal feud this fall that could lead to a government shutdown. Even a planned papal visit to Congress in late September has added to the intrigue... -
House Interior-EPA Funding Debate Continues Slog Through Thorny Amendments
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
The House yesterday accepted several changes to the GOP fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA, as well as set the stage for likely votes today on contentious policy riders in the bill. Policy provisions targeting EPA's review of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone, climate change and -
Republican Senators Urge EPA to Reconsider Proposed Mercury Limit for Brick Industry
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency should reconsider its proposal to require brick-making facilities to install equipment to limit emissions of mercury, three Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said. Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Jeff Sessions... -
McCarthy Sees No Impact to Clean Power Plan After Supreme Court's Mercury Ruling
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
he Supreme Court's recent decision on the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) will have no impact on its soon-to-be-released final carbon pollution limits for existing power plants, Administrator Gina McCarthy said July 7. McCarthy, speaking at a “Christian Science Monitor” event, acknowledged ... -
RGGI Scope Not Likely to Meet Requirements Of Federal Clean Power Plan, CRS Reports
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
It's uncertain if the “scope and stringency” of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan, according to a July 2 report on RGGI from the Congressional Research Service. The report, “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Lessons Learned and Issues for Congress,” cited two... -
Inside The Fight Against Obama's Climate Plan
Jul 7, 2015 | Politico
By Darren Samuelsohn
President Barack Obama’s signature climate change rule is expected to land this summer, imposing the nation’s first-ever greenhouse gas limits on the electric utility industry— and Republicans and industry are already scrambling to kill it any way they can. A handful of governors have already pledged to ignore the rule, heeding the call of... -
Industries Raise Fears Over Pace, Breadth Of EPA NSPS E-Reporting Rule
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Groups representing major industry sectors are raising fears that EPA's plan to require electronic reporting (e-reporting) for new source performance standards (NSPS) air rule compliance does not allow sufficient time to comply, is too broad, lacks sufficient flexibility, and risks imposing duplicative reporting requirements on the sectors. -
McCarthy Defends Major EPA Rules As GOP Eyes FY16 Bill To Bar Policies
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is defending the legality of major EPA rules including its pending revised ozone standard and power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) standards as well as its recently finalized Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, while Republicans look to use fiscal year 2016 funding legislation to block the policies. -
McCarthy lashes out at Congress for targeting agency science
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy yesterday slammed what she called several attempts by Congress to undermine agency science. In a call with reporters, McCarthy singled out legislation to make the agency's science more transparent, reform EPA's scientific advisory board and stipulate that biomass energy is "carbon neutral." -
Bombs in Our Backyards
Jul 8, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Michael Brune
The hospitals prepared for an influx of wounded that never came. People either escaped or died. The youngest victim was 4 years old; the oldest was 93. In all, 47 people died on the night of July 6, 2013, when an out-of-control oil train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed in the small Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic, 22 miles from the U.S. border.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Oregon Passes Toxic-Free Kids Act
Jul 8, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The Oregon legislature has passed the Toxic-Free Kids Act which will establish a list of 66 chemicals of concern, require registration of children's products and the phase out of listed chemicals in certain applications (CW 2 July 2015).
Jennifer Gibbons, senior director of state government affairs for the Toy Industry Association (TIA), said that the measure “unfortunately does nothing to strengthen product safety”.
The Regulation “trigger[s] new reporting and mandatory product reformulation for certain products, based on the mere presence of an identified chemical, not through any determination that the product is harmful,” said written testimony provided by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), on behalf of a coalition of 12 industry groups.
Other issues raised by industry include the fact that Oregon's law has different reporting requirements from other states, that the legislature did not consider the range of other regulations that juvenile products are subject to, and that the costs for testing and reporting would be extremely high.
The Oregon Environmental Council (OEC), an NGO, has been a vocal proponent of the bill. “A growing body of research has shown that even small amounts of hazardous chemicals in consumer products are linked to increased cancer risk, hormone disruption and developmental issues,” said the group. “The Toxic-Free Kids Act addresses these fundamental and avoidable contributors to chronic health conditions.”
Oregon's initial chemicals of concern list will be identical to Washington state's existing list of chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC), which includes several flame retardants, parabens, phthalates and such chemicals as: formaldehyde;benzene;bisphenol A (BPA);toluene;ethylene glycol; andstyrene.
Oregon will evaluate the list every three years and may add up to five chemicals per evaluation.
The law will require the manufacturer of a product, intended for use by children 12 years and younger, to submit a biennial report, detailing the presence of any listed chemicals. For products that are “mouthable”, intended for children younger than three or applied to the skin, listed chemicals must be removed or replaced within six years of the first reporting.
This chemical phase-out provision differs from legislation passed in neighbouring states, including Washington.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) can grant a waiver for complying with phase-out requirements if the manufacturer can present an alternatives assessment demonstrating that it is not technically or financially feasible to remove the chemical, or that the exposure is “not reasonably anticipated to result in exposure, based upon an analysis of leachability and bioavailability” of the chemical.
The OHA maintains the authority to approve or disapprove the waiver, or to order a third-party assessment at the manufacturer's expense, if they deem the submitted alternative assessment “incomplete”.
“OHA could become the sole arbiter of what children's products may be manufactured for use in Oregon. We question whether OHA has the expertise or the resources to determine how products, product components or packaging should be made,” said the ACC coalition in its March testimony.
Having cleared the Senate by an 18-11 margin, the bill (SB 473) passed the House in just two days with a 43-17 majority. Similar legislation has passed the House in recent years, but had not got through the Senate until the current session (CW 11 July 2013 and CW 7 February 2014).
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Apparel Companies Oppose Bill Regulating Chemicals in Children’s Apparel
Jul 8, 2015 | Sourcing Journal
By Lainie Lamicella
United States apparel companies have joined forces in opposition of a proposed bill in Rockland County, New York, Referral No. 8894, banning certain chemicals in children’s apparel, claiming it is duplicative of an existing federal law regulating children’s products.
A group including the American Apparel and Footwear Association, American Chemistry Council, U.S. Fashion Industry Association and the New York Chemistry Council, among others, sent a letter urging Rockland County Executive Ed Day to veto the bill.
“While well-intentioned, this legislation would duplicate regulations already in place for children’s products at the federal level under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FSHA),” the letter read. “Duplication of existing regulations will produce an unnecessary burden on manufacturers and retailers while being devoid of a measurable increase in safety.”
The letter also said that existing restrictions included in the CPSA and the FHSA do not allow state and localities to enact different requirements to address the same issue, describing the law as unnecessary and legally questionable. Further, the bill will not improve the safety of children’s products or children, according to the letter.
The signatories emphasized the belief that assessing product safety is more than simply noting the presence of a chemical substance in a formulation. It must include considerations of product use, user exposure to the chemical and the functionality of the chemical in the formulation. It should also include the consequences of the removal of a chemical from a product.
“With this proposed legislation lacking such consideration, the process would only add uncertainty for New York businesses and would force companies to comply with yet another state regulatory program among an already crowded patchwork of state laws,” the letter noted.
It would be impossible for any company to comply to the bill because it would ban naturally occurring elements that cannot be take out of products and that imposing these regulations on manufacturers and retailers could negatively affect jobs without any increase in consumer safety, according to the letter.
The group is calling for the nation’s federal chemicals management law to be updated to be aligned with scientific advancements and to ensure that chemical products are safe, while also encouraging innovation and protecting jobs. The organizations are also pushing for the introduction and passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), described as a sensible, balanced compromise that will promote safety, innovation, economic growth and job creation.
-
Jul 8, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In September 2009, the Obama Administration issued its Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation “to help inform efforts underway in Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA.” These principles have guided EPA’s testimony and other statements relating to the Senate and House legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Now that the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) has passed the House of Representatives, and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) is expected to come to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, I'll use this post to take a look at how each bill stacks up against the Administration’s principles.
The Administration has itself weighed in on this question in a couple of instances, although it has not provided much detail. A White House statement issued in response to the House’s passage of H.R. 2576 stated:
We are pleased with the ongoing, bipartisan efforts in the House and the Senate to reform TSCA, which seek to address the goals spelled out in the Administration’s Principles. There are provisions in each bill that need modification to better align them with the Administration's principles; as just one example, language in the House bill that could prioritize industry-requested chemical reviews at the expense of EPA’s priorities.
In recent testimony before a Senate committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy responded as follows to a question as to whether S. 697, as amended by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in markup, meets the Administration’s principles (cited in Environment and Energy Daily [subscription required]):
McCarthy replied that Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, had "identified a couple of areas where the bill fell short of the administration's principles, but I also am pleased that the most recent amendments really addressed those issues, and I am encouraged that we're moving forward with a bipartisan bill."
Below is our take on the extent to which each bill aligns with the Administration principles (also attached as a PDF here). For a more detailed comparison of the two bills, see our side-by-sides here and here.
While there are six principles, two of them have several pertinent parts, so we have scored each bill against each of 10 reform elements.
Here’s the overall finding:
Overall score Senate bill: 8.5/10 House bill: 4.0/10
Analysis
How the Senate and House TSCA reform bills stack up against the Administration’s
Principles for TSCA ReformSources:Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management LegislationS. 697: The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century ActH.R. 2576: The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015
Overall score Senate bill: 8.5/10 House bill: 4.0/10
[Note: There are 6 principles, but Principle #2 has 4 parts, and Principle #5 has 2 parts, for a total of 10 individual scores.]
√ = Meets principle (1 point)
+/- = Partially meets principle (0.5 point)
X = Does not meet principle (no points)Principle No. 1: Chemicals Should be Reviewed Against Safety Standards that are Based on Sound Science and Reflect Risk-based Criteria Protective of Human Health and the Environment.
EPA should have clear authority to establish safety standards that are based on scientific risk assessments. Sound science should be the basis for the assessment of chemical risks, while recognizing the need to assess and manage risk in the face of uncertainty.
Senate bill
√Safety standard defined to prohibit EPA from considering costs in safety determinations.Other instances of “unreasonable risk” in TSCA are similarly qualified.
House bill
+/-Prohibits EPA from considering costs in risk evaluations of existing chemicals.Does not apply that prohibition to EPA review of new chemicals or other instances of “unreasonable risk” in TSCA.
Principle No. 2: Manufacturers Should Provide EPA with the Necessary Information to Conclude That New and Existing Chemicals are Safe and Do Not Endanger Public Health or the Environment.
a. Manufacturers should be required to provide sufficient hazard, exposure, and use data for a chemical to support a determination by the Agency that the chemical meets the safety standard.
Senate bill
+/-Explicitly calls for EPA to request or require information where available information is insufficient for EPA to make a safety determination for a new or existing chemical.EPA must request information before it can require its submission or development, potentially leading to delays.
House bill
+/-Authority but no explicit provision addressing sufficiency of information.New chemicals could continue to enter commerce in the absence of sufficient information for EPA to find the chemical is likely to meet the safety standard.
b. Exposure and hazard assessments from manufacturers should be required to include a thorough review of the chemical’s risks to sensitive subpopulations
.Senate bill
√Expressly requires consideration of risks to potentially exposed or susceptible populations and mandates their protection from such risks.
House bill
√EPA cannot conclude a chemical will not present an unreasonable risk if one or more potentially exposed populations are subject to such a risk.
c. Where manufacturers do not submit sufficient information, EPA should have the necessary authority and tools, such as data call in, to quickly and efficiently require testing or obtain other information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals.
Senate bill
+/-Provides authority for EPA to use orders to require testing (with justification) and eliminates TSCA’s requirement to first show risk or high exposure.Generally requires EPA to follow a tiered testing approach.
House bill
+/-Provides order authority to require testing; no specific justification to use orders is required.The bill retains TSCA’s requirement for EPA to first show risk or high exposure before requiring testing unless the testing is “necessary to conduct a risk evaluation.”
d. EPA should also be provided the necessary authority to efficiently follow up on chemicals which have been previously assessed (e.g., requiring additional data or testing, or taking action to reduce risk) if there is a change which may affect safety, such as increased production volume, new uses or new information on potential hazards or exposures. EPA’s authority to require submission of use and exposure information should extend to downstream processors and users of chemicals.
Senate bill
√EPA can revisit the priority of a chemical at any time based on new information or a request to do so.EPA may subject a new chemical to prioritization at any time based on new information. Mandate to collect needed information from chemical processors/users is provided.
House bill
XProvides no explicit authority or mandate to revisit new or existing chemicals based on new information.Provides no mandate to collect needed information from chemical processors/users.
Principle No. 3: Risk Management Decisions Should Take into Account Sensitive Subpopulations, Cost, Availability of Substitutes and Other Relevant Considerations.
EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns.
Senate bill
√Explicitly requires restrictions sufficient to ensure the chemical meets the safety standard, up to and including a ban.Cost and other non-risk factors are to be taken into account in deciding among risk management measures.
House bill
√Explicitly requires restrictions “necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents or will present an unreasonable risk,” including to a potentially exposed subpopulation.Cost and other non-risk factors are to be taken into account in deciding among risk management measures.
Principle No. 4: Manufacturers and EPA Should Assess and Act on Priority Chemicals, Both Existing and New, in a Timely Manner.
EPA should have authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews on existing chemicals based on relevant risk and exposure considerations. Clear, enforceable and practicable deadlines applicable to the Agency and industry should be set for completion of chemical reviews, in particular those that might impact sensitive sub-populations.
Senate bill
+/-EPA must make an affirmative safety finding before a new chemical can enter commerce.All existing chemicals are to be prioritized and those deemed high priority must undergo a safety assessment and determination.Deadlines apply to each step in the review and regulatory process.Low minimum numbers of chemicals to be assessed are specified.A limited pathway for industry-requested assessments is provided, with EPA having discretion as to whether to grant a specific request.
House bill
XNo mandate to review new chemicals or make an affirmative safety finding is provided.No prioritization process or other means to identify chemicals to undergo risk evaluations is established, though EPA can assess chemicals it has prioritized via its work plan.Deadlines apply to risk evaluations and required risk management rules.Low minimum numbers of chemicals to be assessed are specified, subject to availability of appropriations.A virtually unlimited pathway is provided for companies to request risk evaluations for chemicals they want assessed, which EPA must conduct.
Principle No. 5: Green Chemistry Should Be Encouraged and Provisions Assuring Transparency and Public Access to Information Should Be Strengthened.
a. The design of safer and more sustainable chemicals, processes, and products should be encouraged and supported through research, education, recognition, and other means. The goal of these efforts should be to increase the design, manufacture, and use of lower risk, more energy efficient and sustainable chemical products and processes.
Senate bill
√A sustainable chemistry provision is included.House bill
XNo sustainable chemistry provision is included.
b. TSCA reform should include stricter requirements for a manufacturer’s claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI). Manufacturers should be required to substantiate their claims of confidentiality. Data relevant to health and safety should not be claimed or otherwise treated as CBI. EPA should be able to negotiate with other governments (local, state, and foreign) on appropriate sharing of CBI with the necessary protections, when necessary to protect public health and safety.
Senate bill
√Upfront justification of most new CBI claims is required and they are subject to a renewable 10-year time limit.EPA must review all past and new CBI claims for the identity of chemicals in commerce and a representative subset of all other claims.The identity of chemicals in health and safety studies cannot be masked as CBI.States must be given access to CBI.
House bill
+/-Upfront justification of new CBI claims is required and they are subject to a renewable 10-year time limit.There is no requirement for EPA to review and require substantiation of past CBI claims for chemical identity for chemicals on the TSCA Inventory.The identity of chemicals in health and safety studies can be masked as CBI.States may be given access to CBI, subject to advance notification of claimants.
Principle No. 6: EPA Should Be Given a Sustained Source of Funding for Implementation.Implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded, in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of chemicals, and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting that goal. To that end, manufacturers of chemicals should support the costs of Agency implementation, including the review of information provided by manufacturers.
Senate bill
√Fees must be collected for new and existing chemical reviews, which go into a dedicated “TSCA Implementation Fund.”The level of fees is to be set initially to cover approximately 25% of relevant EPA program costs up to $18 million/year, and can be adjusted over time.
House bill
XEPA can charge fees only to cover costs for industry-requested assessments, which go into a dedicated “fee-for-service” fund.No fees can be charged to cover the costs of EPA-initiated assessments.No level of fees is specified.
-
Perfluorinated Chemicals Critically Needed, Semiconductor, Other Manufacturers Tell EPA
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Continued access to perfluorinated chemicals is essential for the semiconductor and other industries, according to comments on a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict use of such chemicals.
Perfluorinated chemicals covered by the EPA's proposal “provide critical acidity, surfactancy and anti-reflectivity properties for photoacid generators, photoresist polymers, anti-reflective coatings and other processes related to semiconductor manufacturing,” wrote the Intel Corp.
Intel described itself as the largest semiconductor integrated circuit manufacturer with a $55.6 billion revenue in 2014.
The EPA also must allow the continued purchase, importation and use of manufactured goods even if those goods contain residual amounts of the perfluorinated chemicals that the EPA proposed rule seeks to regulate, comments from Intel, the Semiconductor Industry Association and global automakers such as Aston Martin, the Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Toyota said.
The comments pointed to equipment that companies use to make semiconductors and replacement parts for automobiles as examples of the manufactured goods they need.
Manufacturers Raise Objections
The comments from manufacturers that purchase equipment as well as chemicals to produce semiconductors, cars and other goods—called articles—raised more objections to the EPA's proposed rule than did comments submitted by trade associations that represented perfluorinated chemical manufacturers, which have been phasing out their production of the chemicals that would be covered by the proposal (RIN 2070–AJ99).
The industry groups were among the parties commenting on a significant new use rule (SNUR) the EPA proposed Jan. 21 that was intended to keep 26 perfluorinated chemicals off the U.S. market and require the agency's oversight before manufactured goods, such as textiles or heat-resistant cables, made with the perfluorinated chemicals could be imported (80 Fed. Reg. 2885; 11 DEN A-11, 1/16/15).
The comment period closed June 26.
Health Concerns Prompt Action
Perfluorinated chemicals are used widely in small quantities in many industries because they can make products resistant to cold, heat, oil, stains or water.
The EPA rule focuses on long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate and perfluoroalkyl sulfonate chemicals, because these can degrade into perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
Nonstick cookware and stain-resistant carpets are among the types of consumer products that formerly used chemicals made with PFOA and PFOS.
The agency has been working to reduce human and environmental exposure to these chemicals for more than 15 years when 3M announced it would phase out PFOS, which was used to make Scotchgard® products and other items (96 DEN A-1, 5/17/00).
The EPA is concerned about PFOA and PFOS because the chemicals persist in the environment, are widely present in the bodies of people and animals, and are harmful to laboratory animals causing problems including cancer and developmental and systemic toxicity, the EPA said. People living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia that formerly made PFOA have sued the chemical manufacturer and are seeking medical monitoring (see related story).
The EPA's efforts on perfluorinated chemicals focuses first on substances related to PFOS and then on chemicals that could degrade to PFOA.
The EPA issued a final new use rule in 2002 so that it would oversee all but a handful of future manufacturing, importing or uses of PFOS-related chemicals (236 DEN A-9, 12/9/02).
The rule proposed in January would expand the scope of the agency's 2002 PFOS-related new use rule and cover PFOA-related chemicals.
End of Production, Use Anticipated
The EPA proposed the rule based on its assumption that manufacture and use of the PFOS-related chemicals already have largely ended and that a voluntary chemical phaseout program, which focused on the PFOA-related chemicals, would largely end their manufacture, importation and use by Dec. 31.
Eight chemical manufacturers that made the chemicals agreed to phase out their production as of Dec. 31, under a voluntary program called the 2010/2015 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) Stewardship Program (42 DEN A-1, 3/3/06).
The companies participating in that voluntary program—DuPont, Solvay Solexis, Asahi Glass Co., Daikin America Inc., Clariant International Ltd., 3M/Dyneon, Arkema Inc. and BASF (formerly Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp.)—represented a majority of chemical manufacturers working with PFOA-related chemicals, the EPA's proposal said.
Chemical Makers Voice Support, Objections
Two trade associations representing manufacturers of PFOA-related chemicals, the Global Industry Council for FluoroTechnology, or FluoroCouncil, and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc., largely supported the EPA's proposed rule.
“All participating companies are either on track or have already achieved the 2015 goal of virtually eliminating these substances from their products and facility emissions,” wrote Jessica Bowman, executive director of the FluoroCouncil, regarding the PFOA-related chemicals.
Council members support regulatory measures that will end the manufacture, use and importation of PFOS-related chemicals, Bowman wrote.
The Society of the Plastics Industry said it strongly supported the EPA's plans to eliminate the persistent chemicals and that its members have worked to help achieve that goal.
Some changes and clarifications are needed for the final rule, however, the society said in making its recommendations.
For example, companies should be able to use perfluorinated chemicals that are part of their existing inventories, the society said.
Imports, processing and use of articles made with fluoropolymers—plastics made from perfluorinated chemicals—should not be considered new uses subject to the rules reporting requirements, the plastics society said.
Chemicals Can't Be Restricted, Industries Say
Intel, the Semiconductor Industry Association, the Association of Global Automakers Inc., the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Coatings Association and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute objected to specific chemicals being included in the EPA's proposal and to its coverage of articles.
The Toxic Substances Control Act prohibits the EPA from issuing a new use rule for chemicals that are being used in commerce, the semiconductor association said.
“In most instances, there are typically no viable ‘drop-in’ alternatives to the chemicals in use in the manufacturing process,” the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) wrote.
“Furthermore, EPA cannot issue a rule limiting SIA members' ongoing acquisition, importation and use of articles such as semiconductor manufacturing parts, materials and equipment or SIA members' ongoing importation of semiconductor components or packages that may have been manufactured with and may contain residual amounts of [PFOA- and PFOS-related] chemical substances,” the SIA wrote.
“Continued U.S. leadership in semiconductor technology is essential to America's continued global economic leadership,” the association said.
Global Automakers and the Auto Alliance said the final rule should not cover articles or replacement parts and should allow continued use of specific perfluorinated chemicals essential to the manufacture of products including cameras, fire extinguishers, lamps and power-steering equipment.
Broader Rule Urged by Some
Comments submitted by the European Commission, the Environmental Defense Fund and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board urged the EPA to broaden its proposed rule.
A rule that would ban or restrict the chemicals of concern would be a more effective way to achieve the EPA's goals, the EU Commission said.
Such a rule could be pursued under TSCA Section 6, the commission said. The agency's proposed rule was issued under Section 5, which covers new chemicals and new uses of chemicals.
The EDF urged the EPA to consider promulgating a Section 6 rule for the perfluorinated chemicals.
The SNUR should cover more articles, both the EDF and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The rule would help reduce further pollution of aquatic resources nationwide, the water quality board said.
“We have identified perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as a chemical of moderate concern for the Bay,” it said.
-
EPA Has Incomplete Picture Of Hazardous Waste Imported Into U.S.
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
The Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to manage imported hazardous waste is “incomplete and ineffective,” the agency's inspector general said in a report released July 6.
In its review of a random sample of 211 manifests received by the EPA, the Office of Inspector General found that more than half were not accompanied by an EPA consent letter or other required documentation. Some manifests also indicated that shipments had occurred outside the consented time frame, incorrectly identified the generator of the waste, had unusually long transit times or lacked sufficient information to verify that the types of waste shipped were those to which the agency had consented.
“Based on our assessment of data in EPA information systems, the EPA has an incomplete picture of hazardous waste entering the country,” the report said. “This can give rise to undetected and unenforced violations of federal hazardous waste laws, which could result in unknown human and environmental exposure to toxic substances.”
Recommendations
The inspector general's office noted that some of these issues are beyond the EPA's control, as the agency does not have explicit authority for hazardous waste imports under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. But, it says, the EPA could request U.S. Customs and Border Protection use its authority to redeliver a shipment back to its port of entry if the agency believes the shipment is not in compliance with RCRA regulations.
The report recommends the EPA seek further statutory authority to prevent the import of hazardous waste lacking explicit EPA consent, implement controls ensuring full identification and tracking of hazardous waste imports, and develop a plan to address current administrative and enforcement deficiencies.
It says the EPA has already reviewed and agreed with the report's recommendations.
-
IG, EPA Waste Office Reconcile Dispute Over Hazardous Waste Import Oversight
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA's waste office and the agency's Inspector General (IG) have reached a compromise over recommendations made by the IG aimed at improving what the IG has said is the office's lax oversight of hazardous waste imports and at bolstering enforcement against imports that violate federal waste law.
While the IG's July 6 report titled "EPA Does Not Effectively Control or Monitor Imports of Hazardous Waste" remains critical of the agency's approach to regulating hazardous waste imports, the IG modified some of its draft recommendations and acknowledges that pending revisions to a hazardous waste export-import rule may address some concerns.
The IG outlines several concerns in the report, including that the agency "is unable to (1) confirm that all imported hazardous waste shipments reach their intended destinations, (2) ensure hazardous waste shipments are received only by facilities that are properly permitted to handle the waste, (3) determine whether there are any lost or unaccounted for shipments of hazardous waste, and (4) block hazardous waste from coming into the country without the EPA's consent.”
The IG faults EPA for failing to take enforcement action against domestic companies when import regulations under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) are violated, and says the government does not have a complete picture of imported hazardous waste with violators potentially going undetected.
Further, there is a gap in federal law, the IG says, with EPA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating they lack explicit authority to stop certain hazardous waste shipments at the border.
The agency says in response that some of the issues the IG raises -- specifically improving the tracking of hazardous waste imports -- may be addressed under upcoming revisions to the agency's hazardous waste export-import rule. The rule is currently being reviewed by the White House Office of Management & Budget. The IG says it may modify its recommendations after reviewing the proposed rule following OMB's analysis.
The IG revised some of its initial recommendations after EPA's enforcement and waste office heads took issue with the IG's original conclusions and recommendations.
EPA's Response
"Our chief concern is the significant overstatement in the report's draft conclusions, which claim that EPA's monitoring of imports of hazardous waste has 'serious flaws,'" EPA enforcement chief Cynthia Giles and waste head Mathy Stanislaus say in a March 25 response to the IG on its draft report. "Although the report acknowledges that EPA does not have legal authority to stop hazardous waste imports at the border, the report nevertheless criticizes EPA for failing to properly monitor imports and suggests that EPA should increase its work in this area to do a variety of paperwork exercises of no demonstrated value.”
Giles and Stanislaus say where resources permit, it does perform some monitoring of hazardous waste imports, and that EPA is taking steps to improve the tracking of hazardous waste imports through the upcoming export-import rule, and has limited resources to go toward additional enforcement related to imports. Further, they balk at the IG's recommendation that EPA pursue explicit statutory authority to prevent hazardous waste imports that lack prior EPA consent, saying it goes far beyond the IG's authority.
In response, the IG revised its recommendations, which it says the agency now agrees to. On the pursuit of greater statutory authority, the IG counters that the enforcement and waste offices were wrong to state that the IG lacks the authority to make this recommendation. "After additional discussion, the Agency agreed to meet with Administration officials outside of EPA to discuss obtaining explicit import border authority," the IG says.
As far as limited resources for enforcement, the IG says it has discussed with EPA "ways to effectively reconcile the two sources of import data with minimal resources."
According to the IG report, the agency "will reconcile discrepancies between import manifests submitted by [treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs)] to [the Office of Federal Activities] with import data reported by those TSDFs in the Biennial Report . . . for 2011.” Further, EPA will remind importers of reporting requirements and import manifest submittal requirements, will report back to the IG by the end of the year on working with CBP to use an international data system to better monitor domestic compliance, and will meet with administration officials outside of EPA by early next year on seeking explicit import border authority, the report says.
-
PHMSA Excess Flow Valve Proposal's Review Completed by White House; Sent to Agency
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The White House completed its review July 6 of a pipeline safety proposal to require that excess flow valves be installed on certain gas service lines.
The proposed rule (RIN 2137-AE71) would require that these valves, which generally detect when pressures hit certain levels and shut off the gas flow, be installed on new and renewed gas service lines serving multi-residential and small commercial buildings. It would essentially expand the valve requirement that already applies to most lines serving single-family residences.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rule is not labeled economically significant, meaning it is not expected to have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule is one of several under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. No. 112-90) that have stalled in the regulatory process, despite calls from Congress and others for PHMSA to issue final requirements quickly.
The American Gas Association, which represents hundreds of local natural gas utility companies, is one group that has expressed an interest in this rulemaking. The group previously told Bloomberg BNA that it has supported the upcoming proposed rule, with its members implementing similar standards voluntarily on valves since 2012.
However, the gas association has suggested that the agency exempt pipelines serving larger single-family homes or other buildings that use more than 1,000 cubic feet per hour of gas, because the valves will not function with such high consumption loads (86 DEN A-17, 5/5/14).
The rule had been under review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget since May 1.
-
House E&C Panel To Hold Pipeline Safety Hearing
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee is holding a hearing next week on pipeline safety that "will examine how the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has progressed, or not, in implementing reforms” laid out in the 2011 pipeline safety bill, according to a committee statement.
PHMSA has yet to complete more than a dozen mandates included in the 2011 bill. The agency has come under fire from watchdog groups and lawmakers for not doing more to improve pipeline safety.
"PHMSA’s lack of progress in implementing the reforms required under our 2011 pipeline safety law raises serious questions about their ability to provide the oversight necessary to ensure safe operation of our nation’s pipelines," committee Chairman Fred Upton and Rep. Ed Whitfield said in a statement. "In light of recent events, it’s time we reexamine PHMSA’s implementation of the reforms that Congress enacted.”
The hearing comes soon after the committee opened an inquiry into the status of federal pipeline safety mandates, sending letters to both PHMSA and Plains All American, the company behind the 100,000-plus-gallon May 19 spill in California.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold its hearing on July 14 at 10:15 a.m. -
Hearings Planned on House Bills to Lift Ban On Crude Oil Exports as Issue Gains Attention
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House hearings are planned on separate bills to lift the 40-year ban on crude oil exports as the issue begins to gain more attention from House Republicans.
The House Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing July 8 on legislation (H.R. 2369) from committee Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) that is nearly identical to legislation (S. 1312) to lift the ban introduced by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
The hearing, Energy & the Rural Economy: The Economic Impact of Exporting Crude Oil, is scheduled to feature testimony from Continental Resources Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Harold Hamm, as well as Terrence A. Duffy, executive chairman and president of CME Group, formerly known as the Chicago Mercantile Stock Exchange, and Frank Rusco of the Government Accountability Office.
In addition, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power has scheduled a separate hearing July 9 on legislation (H.R. 702) to remove the ban from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).
Policy Out of Touch
Conaway's bill, which is being co-sponsored by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), would authorize the export of U.S. crude oil and condensate, which was banned in the wake of the 1970s Arab oil embargo.
“The 40-year ban on oil exports is out-of-date and out of touch with America's thriving energy industry,” Conaway said in May, when he introduced the bill (96 DEN A-3, 5/19/15).
Witnesses scheduled to testify at the Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing include Czech Ambassador to the U.S. Petr Gandalovic; Mark Kreinbihl, group president of the Gorman-Rupp Co.; Kirk Lippold, president of Lippold Strategies LLC; and W. David Montgomery, senior vice president of NERA Economic Consulting.
70 Co-Sponsors
In addition to repealing the section of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act that established the crude oil export ban, the Barton bill, which has 70 co-sponsors, would bar the federal government from imposing or enforcing any similar restrictions and would require the Energy Department to submit a report on the appropriate size and makeup of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Barton said he is lobbying House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) to include his bill in a broader energy package being developed in the committee, although analysts think it will likely be moved separately.
Legislation to end the export ban got a boost in June when Upton said the issue should be on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's “agenda this year” (106 DEN A-7, 6/3/15).
Previously, Upton and other committee members, such as Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), have indicated they were in no hurry to act on the ban, which refiners such as Alon USA, Monroe Energy, PBF Energy and Philadelphia Energy Solutions argue should be left in place.
Supporters of changing the law include the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents companies such as Whiting Petroleum Corp. and Marathon Oil Corp.
In a July 7 letter, the group said the White House should use administrative action to lift the crude oil export ban.
“Today, with the advancement of hydraulic fracturing and improved horizontal drilling technologies, America's energy industry can provide the nation's oil and natural gas at levels not seen since the 1970s,” IPAA President and CEO Barry Russell wrote in a letter addressed to President Barack Obama. “However, the 1970s laws that govern America's crude oil exports are outdated and inconsistent.”
Lifting the ban would lower domestic gasoline prices, create jobs and increase America's foreign policy influence, the IPAA said.
-
Barnett Shale Methane Emissions 50% Higher Than EPA-Based Estimates
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Methane emissions from oil and gas operations in the Barnett Shale region of Texas are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas inventory, according to 11 papers published July 7 in Environmental Science and Technology.
Scientists used two methods for estimating methane emissions from oil and gas operations, and both approaches resulted in higher than expected emissions based on the EPA greenhouse gas inventory, the scientific commentary said.
The studies were coordinated by the Environmental Defense Fund, with funding from the Alfred P. Sloane Foundation. All field measurements were conducted over 15 days in October 2013.
Varying Analytical Approaches
There are varying analytical approaches that scientists use to estimate methane emissions from natural gas production, broadly called top-down or bottom-up estimates, the report said. Both of these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses and often yield different estimates of methane emissions. The published articles reported results from a coordinated, two-week field campaign that examined methane emissions using different analytical approaches in an effort to address those differences.
The bottom-up estimate was about 1.5 times higher than the estimation based on greenhouse gas inventories, the report said. The main reason for this was that EDF research included many more gathering compressor stations, whose emissions are comparable to mainline transmission stations. Another reason for the difference is that the researchers used a higher emission factor for oil and gas production sites, the report said.
Top-down analysis showed that 71 percent to 85 percent of observed methane emissions in the region originated from fossil-based sources, primarily from natural gas and oil operations and the rest coming from biogenic sources, or landfills, the report said.
30,000 Active Wells
The researchers focused on a region in north Texas that included the Barnett Shale oil and gas fields and the metropolitan area around Dallas and Fort Worth, the report said. There are about 30,000 active wells, which produced about 7 percent of the total natural gas in the U.S. in 2013, the report said.
At any given time, about 75 percent of methane emissions from Barnett Shale production sites come from dispersed sources, such as equipment leaks and tank venting, the research said. Sites with the highest proportion of methane emitted versus volume of gas production were referred to as “functional super-emitters.”
High Emissions From Few Sites
“One of the big findings is that large portions of emissions come from a small number of sites, and those sites can jump around,” David Lyon, a scientist with the EDF, told Bloomberg BNA. “This is important because if operators track this closely and make quick repairs when equipment malfunctions or there's leaks, it can greatly reduce methane emissions.”
The EDF coordinated to have the publication run all of the studies in the same issue, although a 12th study was published earlier, Lyons said. The collection consists of 10 peer-reviewed articles, plus a scientific commentary by EDF scientists.
EDF is in the process of publishing a paper in a different journal that synthesizes all the findings into one article, Anna Geismar, EDF spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA.
-
New Research Finds Higher Methane Emissions, Reduction Opportunities in Barnett Shale Region
Jul 7, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Steve Hamburg
Methane emissions from vast oil and gas operations in the densely populated Barnett Shale region of Texas are 50 percent higher than estimates based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory, according to a series of 11 new papers published today in Environmental Science & Technology.
The majority of these emissions are from a small but widespread number of sources across the region’s oil and gas supply chain. These emissions come from the sort of leaks and equipment malfunctions that are relatively easy to prevent with proper and frequent monitoring and repair practices.
The sprawling Barnett region, fanning out westward from the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, contains about 30,000 oil and gas wells, 275 compressor stations, and 40 processing plants. It is one of the country’s largest production areas, responsible for 7 percent of total U.S. natural gas output.
Unpredictable, Widespread Sources Dominate
A finding from the research shows that at any given time, roughly 75 percent of the methane emissions from production sites in the Barnett Shale tend to come from a set of elusive and dispersed sources. Higher emissions from these sites are often a result of avoidable operating conditions such as equipment leaks and tank venting that are relatively easy to prevent with frequent monitoring and repair practices.
The studies were coordinated by EDF as part of a larger effort to better understand where oil and gas methane emissions are coming from and how best to reduce them. The new findings are consistent with previous scientific work that indicates industry has a significant methane pollution problem driven by widespread, often unpredictable emission sources.
To better classify these emitters, researchers offer a new definition, calling them “functional super-emitters,” or those sites with the highest proportional loss rates (site-specific methane emissions relative to its production/volume of gas handled).
Simple Solutions for Reducing the Leaks
Routine leak monitoring is essential because these sources are difficult to anticipate – the leaks can emerge from a diversity of locations, at any point in time, jumping from site to site.
The good news is that there are many cost-effective ways to find and fix high-emitting sources. In fact, a 2014 report by ICF International found that by adopting already available technologies and operating practices, industry could cut methane emissions by 40 percent over five years for just one penny per thousand cubic feet of produced gas.
The bad news is, as easy and affordable as these solutions are, many companies simply are not using them. As long as they remain optional, it’s likely to stay that way.
Some states, like Colorado, have already begun directly regulating methane emissions from oil and gas operations and requiring comprehensive, frequent leak detection and repair. And in January, the White House announced plans to reduce methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain by 40 to 45 percent over the next ten years.
Details of the new plan are still in the works. In the coming weeks, EPA and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are both expected to propose rules to help meet the White House’s reduction goal. Based on the latest scientific research, including the papers released today, it’s important that these policies require both thorough and routine monitoring and maintenance to find and fix methane leaks.
Frequency is critical — the ICF report, for example, found that monthly inspections resulted in reducing emissions by 80 percent, while annual inspections reduced emissions by less than half.
Getting the Full Picture
The series of 11 papers represent the first findings of one of the largest and most comprehensive research campaigns on methane emissions in the oil and gas supply chain and will be followed by a paper fully synthesizing all of the researchers’ findings.
The work included 12 research teams from 20 universities and private research firms, including Colorado State University, Duke University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and University of Colorado-Boulder, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Purdue University, University of California-Davis and Scientific Aviation, University of California-Irvine, University of Cincinnati, University of Houston, University of Michigan, University of Texas-Dallas, Washington State University, West Virginia University, Aerodyne Research, Carbon Now Cast, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Picarro and Sander Geophysics.
The results of these papers tell us that we have a problem, but we already know there are cost-effective technologies and practices available to reduce emissions and make a big dent in waste and pollution.
-
Oil Industry Defeats Pennsylvania's Bid For Damages in MTBE Contamination Case
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Pennsylvania won't be able to pursue most of its claims against the nation's largest oil companies for allegedly contaminating groundwater with the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, according to a July 2 ruling by the Southern District of New York (In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2015 BL 214853, S.D.N.Y., No. 14-cv-06228, 7/2/15).
The ruling came in multidistrict litigation and dismisses the commonwealth's public nuisance and trespass claims against 46 oil manufacturers and distributors, including giants Atlantic Richfield Co., ExxonMobil Corp. and Shell Oil Co.
But the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stopped short of dismissing related unfair trade practices claims.
Pennsylvania contended that numerous oil manufacturers were liable because they refined, marketed and supplied gasoline containing the additive.
But the court said the allegations were insufficient to state a claim for relief or were too vague.
It granted the companies' motion to dismiss the nuisance and trespass claims, while permitting the commonwealth to amend its allegations under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The court also suggested that the parties file an immediate appeal of the ruling so the state's high court could be asked to clarify the scope of relief provided by the UTPCPL.
Requests for comment, sent July 7 to counsel in the case, weren't successful.
Nuisance, Trespass Claims Dismissed
Pennsylvania's public nuisance law is intended to apply to the owner or operator of a nuisance source, the court said. Here, the allegations related solely to the oil companies' manufacture and distribution activities and there wasn't any evidence the defendants had control at the source of the nuisance.
Nor could the trespass claim survive because there was no support in the case law for Pennsylvania's assertion that it acts as a trustee for the commonwealth's ground water, the court said.
Unfair Trade Practices Claim Survives
One allegation against Atlantic Richfield Co. arguably supported the UTPCPL claim—that a company bulletin contained allegedly false statements about the proper handling of MTBE—but the court said that wasn't enough to move the claim from “conceivable to plausible.”
The court dismissed the claim without prejudice and noted that the defect might be cured in an amended complaint.
Pennsylvania also contended that it was entitled to “restoration” under a provision of the UTPCPL that allows a court to return to a “person in interest” any monies or property acquired through an unfair trade practice (73 Pa. Stat. §201-4.1).
The court questioned whether a public entity is a “person” under the law and noted conflicting state court decisions on the issue. It invited the parties to file an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) to allow the Second Circuit to pose the question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Berger & Montague, as well as Miller & Axline and the Pennsylvania Attorney General represented the commonwealth.
McDermott Will & Emery represented the defendant oil companies in the motion to dismiss. r-latin;}
-
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Not A 'Piggy Bank' -- Murkowski
Jul 7, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Geof Koss
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said today that lawmakers should resist the temptation to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for unrelated legislative initiatives.
"I'm very worried about any incursions into the SPR that are just meant to fund something else, whether it's related to health care, whether it's related to transportation," she told E&ENews PM. "I've been pretty vocal and consistent in saying the SPR is our insurance policy out there. And you don't sell the insurance policy for a one-term shot in the arm. It doesn't make sense to me."
Murkowski's warning came as the House this week is slated to vote on a bipartisan bill, H.R. 6, by Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that aims to speed the development of life-saving drugs by creating a temporary multibillion-dollar fund for the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration.
To help pay for $9.3 billion in mandatory spending, the bill authorizes the sale of more than 80 million barrels of oil from the SPR over eight years, which the committee says will provide roughly $7 billion. The reserve is getting a fresh look from policymakers, given the rapid increase in U.S. oil production in recent years.
Murkowski suggested that using some SPR revenues for maintenance of the reserve would be appropriate.
"We've got some repair work to do," she said. "Let's look to the security of our SPR. If perhaps we need to sell off a little bit to help fund something like that, I can see that that makes sense. To me, you've got to have some nexus back. Whether it's vaccines or transportation, there's no nexus back. You're just using that as the ATM. That's not what it's designed for."
Her comments echo remarks made last month by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, whose department manages the reserve. "I have considerable concern about using the SPR for anything other than energy security and resilience issues for which it's intended," he told Upton (Greenwire, June 2).
An Upton spokeswoman referred a reporter to a committee fact sheet on the bill, which is a priority for the chairman and is also backed by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the panel.
That document addresses the connection between the SPR sales and the bill, noting changing domestic energy dynamics since the reserve's creation in 1975, an ongoing maintenance backlog, and the fact that the SPR contains nearly 50 percent more crude than is required by law.
"Through the course of the committee's oversight, it has become clear that modestly reducing the volume of the SPR would create some breathing room for DOE to more efficiently and effectively manage the SPR without jeopardizing energy security," it states.
"At the same time, the revenue generated from the sale of SPR oil would be directed toward NIH funding in the 21st Century Cures Act -- because just as energy reserves are a national resource designed to protect and serve our citizens, so too is an investment in health innovation and research. The Energy and Commerce Committee is uniquely positioned to make the modest adjustments the SPR needs, and to redirect those savings to benefit the American people."
Murkowski sidestepped a question on whether she'll work to fight the House's pay-for when the measure gets to the Senate, but expects SPR sales will surface again as Congress looks to fund programs in a tight budget climate.
"People are looking under every rock for money," she said. "And apparently they think they've found some money in the salt caverns that are the SPR. The SPR's not a piggy bank here. This is probably not the first time we'll be making this argument here."
-
$283 Billion of LNG Projects May Not Be Economical, Carbon Tracker Initiative Says
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Longley
About $283 billion of liquefied natural gas projects may be surplus to requirements if the world is to keep carbon emissions below levels aimed at holding global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the Carbon Tracker Initiative said.
In the next decade, 16 of the 20 biggest LNG companies are studying major projects that probably won't be needed, according to a report by the group, which argues that a large share of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to stem climate change.
The 2-degree Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) limit is the level that scientists have advised is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
About $71 billion of potential LNG capital spending will be unnecessary in the U.S. over the decade, along with $82 billion in Canada and $68 billion in Australia, based on the study's lower-demand scenario, the London-based group said in a statement.
While the move to a low-carbon economy shows some room for gas-demand growth to 2040, energy companies will need to choose which projects to develop, Carbon Tracker said. As the cost of renewable energy falls, some regions will probably leapfrog over using gas, curbing demand for LNG, which is already in a glut.
“The current oversupply of LNG means there is already a pipeline of projects to come on stream,” said James Leaton, Carbon Tracker's head of research. “It is not clear whether these will be needed and generate value for shareholders.”
New projects that rely on an LNG price of more than $10 per million British thermal units may not be needed, the group said.
More than half the unnecessary LNG capital spending relates to unconventional gas projects such as shale, tight gas and coal bed methane, it said. At the same time, only about 17 percent of LNG fed by North American shale gas or Australian coal bed methane is needed in a low-demand scenario, the group added.
-
House Funding Bill for Interior, EPA Has No Chance to Become Law, White House Says
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
In its strongest language yet, the Obama administration has said the president will not sign pending legislation to fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies for the upcoming fiscal year.
Just days before the House plans to vote on its bill (H.R. 2822), Shaun Donovan, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, held a conference call with reporters to deplore the deep cuts contained in this and other spending bills working their way through Congress.
“Not only can those bills not get signed into law, they can't even make it to the president's desk,” Donovan said.
Funding and Riders
To remain below the caps imposed on congressional appropriators by the sequestration process, the Senate and House bills would impose budget cuts on the EPA of between 7 percent and 9 percent below its current funding levels.
The White House also objects to numerous policy riders in pending bills that would block the agencies from implementing a number of controversial regulations.
“It's becoming increasingly clear that the Republicans are attempting to hijack the appropriations process to accommodate unrelated ideological proposals,” Donovan said. “There needs to be respect that this is not an appropriate way to use the appropriations process.”
Donovan said President Barack Obama will not sign any federal spending bill that “locks in sequestration,” not even a long-term continuing resolution that would fund the government temporarily at its current levels.
However, Donovan did not say what the administration's definition of “long-term” is in this context. The OMB declined to respond on the record to follow-up questions on this point.
Bill on House Floor
Despite the veto threats, the House continues to make progress on its spending bill after returning from the Independence Day recess.
It took up dozens more amendments July 7 on the floor, some of which were adopted on voice votes.
However, the most significant amendments to the annual spending bill will be subject to recorded roll-call votes. Those votes, along with a final vote on the bill itself, are scheduled to take place later this week.
If the House does pass the bill, it would be the first time the chamber has passed a stand-alone Interior/EPA appropriations bill since 2009.
-
Murkowski Still Aims to Mark Up Energy Bill By August Break, but Plenty of Work Remains
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee still intends to move a broad energy package before the August recess begins, but plenty of work on the bill remains, the chairman and ranking member of the committee told Bloomberg BNA July 7.
The bill is still being drafted and was the subject of negotiations between minority and majority staff members during the week-long Independence Day recess, but there is still “a lot of stuff to slog through,” committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in an interview.
Murkowski has 114 energy bills to choose from as she writes the yet-to-be-released bill, ranging from a bill (S. 1312) she introduced to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports to legislation that would expedite the federal approval process for the export of liquefied natural gas to overseas nations (128 DEN A-1, 7/6/15).
‘Lot of Talking' Left to Do
Murkowski is working closely with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, in hopes of writing a bipartisan bill, but Cantwell said they still need to do “a lot of talking” before an agreement on the shape of the bill can be reached.
“We are interested in not just passing something out of committee. We are interested in seeing action on the floor, so that means you've got to take into consideration not just what gets a majority of votes in the committee, but what both interests people and what processes we can move forward on,” Cantwell told Bloomberg BNA.
Talks on the bill, which if enacted would be the first energy policy updated since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, are expected to continue this week and next, Cantwell said.
Another potential candidate for the inclusion in the bill is legislation (S. 1228) from Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) that would expedite the federal permitting process on future cross-border energy projects such as oil and gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines.
In addition, the bill could be a vehicle for an energy tax title to reinstate and extend expired incentives such as the 2.3-cent-per-kilowatt-hour renewable energy production tax credit and give the renewable energy industry the right to form master limited partnerships, a tax break that has been limited to the fossil fuel industry.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is writing an energy bill of its own that is expected to be made public soon. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has said it may go to the floor later this month.
-
OMB Chief: We’ll Do ‘Everything We Can’ To Stop Policy Riders
Jul 7, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan this afternoon reiterated that the president will veto bills that “lock in” sequestration-level spending or include riders that would block key EPA regulations.
“It is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans are attempting to hijack the appropriations process to accomplish unrelated ideological proposals,” Donovan told reporters on a conference call. “We are going to do everything we can to make sure that these riders do not become law.”
Donovan added that the president “will not accept a bill that locks in sequestration, and that means either full-year spending bills or a long-term CR that would lock-in those” across-the-board reductions. He did not say whether the president would sign a short-term CR to keep the government operating past Oct. 1 but called on Republicans to start negotiating higher spending levels.
“They should not create the risk of shutdowns and a manufactured crisis,” he said. “They should come to the table now, we should negotiate now, as Democrats in both the Senate and the House have asked, and we should get his budget done.”
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy joined Donovan to reiterate her comments from this morning that House and Senate budget cuts would “hamstring” administration priorities like its climate change rules as well as threaten grants favored by many states and lawmakers.
The House is slated to pass its 2016 Interior-EPA spending bill as early as tomorrow. -
Obama Officials Bash EPA Spending Bill
Jul 7, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Two top Obama administration officials Tuesday lambasted House Republicans for a bill they say would have “far-reaching consequences” for federal environmental protections.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Gina McCarthy and White House Office of Management and Budget head Shaun Donovan told reporters Tuesday that the White House would not accept the policy provisions attacking top environmental priorities or funding cuts that would make it difficult to protect the nation’s air and water.“The appropriations bill currently under consideration by the House would have far-reaching consequences for the agency’s ability to ensure protections of public health and the environment,” McCarthy said.
She singled out provisions in the 2016 bill that block funding to enforce the EPA’s carbon dioxide rules for power plants, its water jurisdiction rule and its plan to restrict ozone pollution.
But the EPA’s funding level of $7.4 billion — a 9 percent cut from the current year and 14 percent below President Obama’s request — would make it hard for the EPA to do its most basic work, McCarthy argued.
“The budget would ... threaten the core work of the agency, on which there’s general agreement,” she said. “To put it very simply, if the agency doesn’t have enough money to operate, and is further restrained by far-reaching policy riders, the protection of public health and the environment on which Americans rely will be compromised.”
McCarthy gave a similar review of the House bill and its Senate companion earlier Tuesday, telling reporters, “taking away our core budget doesn’t just impact the Clean Power Plan and problems of the future.”
The House formally resumed debate on the bill Tuesday and is expected to vote on it this week.
The legislation also funds the Interior Department and has other policy provisions and cuts that the administration opposes, including to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Administration officials are also upset that the bill excludes wildfire funding changes they proposed.
Donovan said the bill is just another in a pattern from congressional Republicans, who are sticking to budget limitations hashed out in 2013 by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who led the budget committees at the time.
“We could do a call exactly like this call today on every single one of the House and Senate Republican bills, because the math just doesn’t work out,” Donovan said. “It would result in terrible, real-world consequences that go well beyond the two bills that we’re talking about today.”
But Donovan said he was especially incensed by the policy provisions.
“It is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans are attempting to hijack the appropriations process to accomplish unrelated ideological proposals,” he said. “We will not accept Republicans using it that way.”
Donovan said he is very optimistic that the White House, Democrats and Republicans can come to a new budget agreement that increases funding levels.
But he blamed Republicans for the fact that that has not happened, saying they’ve refused to negotiate.
-
Republicans Aim to Hamper Obama’s Policies With Spending Bills
Jul 7, 2015 | The New York Times
By Jonathan Weisman
From environmental and work force regulations to health care and contraception, congressional Republicans are using spending bills to try to dismantle President Obama’s policies, setting up a fiscal feud this fall that could lead to a government shutdown.
Even a planned papal visit to Congress in late September has added to the intrigue as the clock on a budget deal winds down.
“A lot of things are moving toward some kind of a climax,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who is pushing for negotiations now rather than later. “I think we’re asking the pope to do too much, but hey, mood is important to the legislative process.”
The House and Senate appropriations committees are churning out annual spending bills, dropping the bipartisanship that has long characterized the committees. The bills adhere to strict overall spending limits imposed in 2011 that Mr. Obama has already said he will not accept.
But beyond spending cuts, the bills collectively represent a firm reassertion of power by the Republican-controlled Congress.
In the House, one bill prohibits any federal money from being spent on the Affordable Care Act. Funds for the enforcement of new labor rules would be drastically reduced. The main federal family planning program, Title X, would be eliminated. The administration’s efforts to impose strict rules on for-profit universities would be reversed, as would new rules requiring retirement investment advisers to prove they have no financial conflicts of interest.
Another bill, now on the House floor, to finance the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency would stop regulation of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking; prohibit implementation of carbon emission standards for electric power plants; block new clean-water rules; and stop the government’s marine and coastal planning efforts to respond to climate change.
Other bills would block the Food and Drug Administration from reviewing e-cigarette marketing and keep the Federal Communications Commission from carrying out “net neutrality” regulation of the Internet. A “conscience” rider would let employers in the District of Columbia refuse health insurance coverage for any service on moral grounds, and hire and fire based on women’s use of health services.
The White House has vowed to veto each of the dozen spending bills in the works, and Senate Democrats have pledged to filibuster before they can even reach the president.
“Frankly, the fall is shaping up to be the most predictable — and, really, avoidable — budget crisis in memory,” said Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
Two changes have combined to make this budget season particularly contentious. The first is Republican control of Congress. Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, said the appropriations process was a way for Republicans to block new White House efforts and roll back old ones.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The other change is budgetary. After a protracted fight over raising the government’s statutory borrowing limit, Congress and Mr. Obama agreed in 2011 to strict spending limits for domestic and defense programs that would last a decade, absent a larger budget deal that overhauled the federal tax code and entitlement programs like Medicare. In the face of those limits, Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, and Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, negotiated a two-year budget deal to lift the caps.
With the reprieve ending Oct. 1 and Democrats no longer in control of the Senate, Republicans approved a budget this spring demanding adherence to the 2011 restrictions.
“The Appropriations Committee in the Senate is reporting out bills consistent with the budget that the Senate passed, and we’re going to move forward,” Mr. McConnell said last month.
With Democrats promising to vote against any bill that sticks to those limits, Republican appropriators have had to shift spending bills to the right to win the support of Congress’s most conservative members. Mr. Cole called the 10 bills that have passed the Appropriations Committee “the opening position in a negotiation” that has yet to begin.
But that position has only strengthened the president’s resolve.
Compounding the problem is the fact that the government will be nearing its statutory borrowing limit in late September, when Pope Francis is to be in Washington, heightening tensions around cuts to social welfare programs.
Senior House Appropriations Committee members, including the panel’s chairman, Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky, have already told Republican leaders that the time to negotiate a way out of the impasse is now, not in the shadow of the papal visit or a government shutdown Oct. 1, said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania and a subcommittee chairman.
Short of that, appropriators will press for quick passage in September of a “continuing resolution” to keep the government funded at current levels through December and begin budget talks.
“We all know there’s going to have to be a short-term C.R. to take us from September to December,” Mr. Dent said. “And I would hope sometime between now and then, we’ll have a negotiated budget agreement.”
But so far, Republican leaders have said little.
“We’ve got a plan that gives him what he wants for defense and keeps the caps in place,” Speaker John A. Boehner said, referring to Mr. Obama’s military spending request, which Congress plans to meet by increasing emergency war funding not subject to the 2011 limits. “And if he wants to have a budget negotiation, all he has to do is ask. I’m a pretty reasonable guy.”
What the president sees as unreasonable are the bills being drafted to adhere to the caps.
House Republican legislation would either reduce full-day, full-year service for 570,000 young children in Head Start or cut 140,000 children from the program altogether, the White House budget office said. That bill would also cut $6.4 billion from the president’s education spending request, and $370 million from the Pell Grant higher education program.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Funding for job training would be almost $500 million less than the White House requested. The National Labor Relations Board’s budget would be cut by nearly a third.
Family planning would be all but eliminated. National service programs would be cut 42 percent. The Environmental Protection Agency’s operation budget would fall $474 million, or 13 percent. The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund would lose $152 million, or 38 percent. Cuts to the National Park Service as it prepares to celebrate its centennial would delay about 70 percent of its construction projects and more than a third of its repair and rehabilitation efforts.
To the Republicans drafting those bills, the cuts are about priorities. The same health and labor bill would increase spending on the National Institutes of Health by more than $1 billion and protect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Higher education aid would be focused on historically black colleges, predominantly Hispanic universities and tribal education.
“The reality is we still live in a divided government,” Mr. Cole said. “It’s not as if the Democrats can be shut out, but they can’t dictate to us any more than we can dictate to them. It’s time to sit down and see if we can make a deal.” Correction: July 7, 2015
An earlier version of this article misidentified the state that Senator Patty Murray represents. It is Washington, not Wisconsin.
-
House Interior-EPA Funding Debate Continues Slog Through Thorny Amendments
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
The House yesterday accepted several changes to the GOP fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA, as well as set the stage for likely votes today on contentious policy riders in the bill.
Policy provisions targeting EPA's review of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone, climate change and endangered species protections generated some of the most contentious back-and-forth between Republicans and Democrats during a floor debate that stretched from early afternoon until 1 a.m.
The debate came as Obama administration officials slammed the legislation for its funding levels and policy provisions. Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan said that the president would not accept appropriations bills that adhere to the 2011 across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration or that include "ideological" policy riders.
"Republicans are using this appropriations process to try to jam through unrelated ideological riders that undercut core health, safety, environmental and other protections," Donovan told reporters on a conference call.
The legislation overall would provide the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies with $30.17 billion, or $246 million below current spending levels and $3 billion below President Obama's fiscal 2016 request for the agencies. EPA would take a hit of about 9 percent, or $718 million, under the spending plan.
The bill includes slight funding boosts for Interior agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, while funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service -- which is housed within the Agriculture Department -- would remain roughly level.
Among the bill's riders are provisions that would forbid the Fish and Wildlife Service from writing a listing rule for the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act until October 2016.
The bill would also shutter EPA's plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing and new power plants and halt EPA's final rule to change the scope of water bodies in the United States that receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act. It also would delay EPA's effort to tighten the national ozone standard.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy yesterday warned that the bill would have a "significant impact" on the agency's ability to protect public health and the environment.
"By attacking the agency though both policy restrictions and budgetary restraints, the current version of the legislative text goes well beyond hamstringing the agency's ability to finalize new regulations such as the Clean Power Plan, the clean water rule and the upcoming revision to the ozone standard," she said. "Those provisions are very problematic and we strenuously object to inclusions of such provisions." Ozone
The House yesterday debated three amendments related to the bill's policy rider targeting EPA's November proposal to tighten the national ozone standard from 75 parts per billion -- last set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration -- to between 65 and 70 ppb.
The bill's provision would bar EPA from updating the standard until at least 85 percent of counties have achieved the 2008 limit. The measure responds to industry concerns that a new standard would impose high costs at a time when many areas of the country have yet to meet the 75 ppb standard.
By voice vote, the House rejected an amendment by Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) that would retain the rider but still allow EPA to update the primary ozone standard, which is set at a level that protects public health. The House will vote later, however, on a separate amendment introduced by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) that would strike the policy rider from the bill altogether.
On the floor, Edwards argued that public health science shows that a tighter limit is needed to protect public health from the negative effects associated with ozone pollution.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) also introduced an amendment targeting the ozone standard. Yoho's amendment would prevent EPA from using any funds to change the ozone standard, regardless of whether all counties achieve the 2008 standard. He argued that a tighter standard would have a large impact on the economy and that ozone has some beneficial uses in cleaning applications.
But his amendment ran into opposition by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Calvert argued that the language already in the bill is a "compromise" and that EPA shouldn't be completely barred from setting a new standard once most areas meet the 2008 limit.
"That's certainly not the committee's intent," he said. "We need to make progress in cleaning air in areas that folks want to see cleaner air, but at the same time making sure technology is there to do that."
GOP lawmakers targeted other EPA air regulations. Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) introduced a successful amendment to exempt glider kits from proposed greenhouse gas regulations for heavy-duty trucks, while Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.) introduced a provision that would block EPA's new final standards to reduce air pollution from residential wood heaters. Rouzer said that the rule, which the agency says is needed to protect human health, was of "particular concern" for rural residents because it could raise the cost of wood furnaces. Democrats requested a recorded vote on the provision.
Rouzer's North Carolina Republican colleague, Rep. Richard Hudson, also offered an amendment that would restrict EPA from regulating particle emissions from barbecues in response to an agency study on the subject. Democrats argued that the amendment was based on a "false premise" and that EPA has no intention of regulating barbecues. The House accepted the language on a voice vote. Climate change, funding limits
Climate change and funding limits also played a key role in the amendment debate. The bill contains several riders that target EPA's climate change efforts beyond the agency's Clean Power Plan.
The House rejected by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to eliminate a rider that would require the president to submit to Congress a report detailing expenditures related to climate change. The House also rejected an amendment by Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) that would eliminate a policy rider on EPA's program for substitutes of ozone-depleting substances.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) requested a vote on a separate amendment that would strike the bill's prohibition on assessing the social cost of carbon. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) likewise requested a vote on an amendment that would stipulate that no funds be used in contravention of climate change executive orders.
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) unsuccessfully attempted to eliminate several riders at once, introducing an amendment that would kill riders that go against Obama's climate change plan.
The House adopted an amendment by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) that would limit funding for EPA's Office of the Administrator and Office of Congressional Relations. Lamar said that the reduction was in direct response to what he described as "obstruction" by the agency in responding to congressional requests.
The House approved another amendment from Smith that would prohibit funds from going toward EPA finalizing any regulation for which research is "secret" or held in contravention of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment would also halt regulations if EPA's scientific advisory board fails to provide advice requested by Congress. It incorporates legislation passed earlier this year by the House aimed at EPA "secret science" and the agency's science panel.
The House also adopted an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) that would prohibit EPA funding from going toward the U.N. Environment Programme, an amendment that would exempt farmers from oil spill response regulations and an amendment by Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) that would prohibit use of funds in the bill to enforce the Code of Federal Regulations regarding biomass.
The House rejected by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) to eliminate the rider that would halt EPA's Waters of the U.S. final rule. On the other hand, it accepted a provision by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) that would prohibit funds from being used to lobby on behalf of WOTUS, a response to concerns raised about EPA's efforts to promote the water rule. The House will later vote on a provision by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) that would give states more leeway in implementing EPA's pollution cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay -- a day after a federal court upheld the agency's program.
Lawmakers also added to the bill a provision sponsored by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) that would protect livestock feeding operations from being found in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by EPA for manure storage and handling. The provision was in response to a ruling in the state of Washington that found dairies responsible for dumping because of their storage of animal waste.
The House also agreed to vote on language by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) that would bar federal money from being spent to settle lawsuits over Clean Air Act, water pollution or Endangered Species Act regulations, a jab at what GOP critics calls "sue and settle" tactics by EPA. A separate amendment by Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) would cap attorney fees under Endangered Species Act civil lawsuits will likewise receive a vote. The House also approved a provision by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) restricting EPA from offering higher pay, an amendment that Democratic critics said would prevent the agency from attracting top scientists. Endangered species
Along with debating EPA regulations, the full House launched into a fiery back-and-forth over endangered species protections for the greater sage grouse and gray wolf.
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) introduced an amendment that would strike three policy riders in the spending plan that would delay the sage grouse listing, require the Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue rules from 2011 and 2012 that delisted wolves in the western Great Lakes and Wyoming, and require the agency to amend an interim rule that would allow some activities to harm or kill northern long-eared bats.
Tsongas called the sage grouse rider "unnecessary and completely inappropriate," arguing that it upends a coordinated process already underway to protect the bird. Tsongas requested a recorded vote on her amendment.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) defended the policy provision, arguing that it would give the Fish and Wildlife Service more time to determine whether there should be a listing.
"We're trying to give them the time necessary," he said. "This is going to affect 11 Western states. It's not going to affect Massachusetts, by the way."
Newhouse also took aim at the Fish and Wildlife Service's actions in protecting gray wolves, offering an amendment that would restrict Interior or FWS from treating any gray wolf in Washington, Oregon or Utah as an endangered or threatened species. The House will vote later on the measure.
The House approved several measures aimed at blocking other species from being listed as endangered: An amendment by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) and supported by the entire Kansas delegation that would prohibit the Obama administration from implementing an earlier threatened species listing of the lesser prairie chicken. An amendment by Gosar to block the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the Sonoran desert tortoise as an endangered or threatened species. Gosar argued that protection for the tortoise would negatively affect development and agricultural operations. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) offered an amendment that would prohibit the listing of the northern long-eared bat, arguing that listing would affect energy development. An amendment by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) would bar FWS from enforcing the Endangered Species Act for six different species of mussels. The House approved an amendment by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) to overturn a listing decision for Preble's meadow jumping mouse, a small mouse found in Wyoming and Colorado. A separate Lamborn amendment accepted by the House would bar FWS from implementing the Endangered Species Act for any species that hasn't undergone a five-year status review.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, slammed the amendments, arguing that FWS needs more funding to complete its reviews of species. She added that she wondered "if the intent of many of the amendments being offered is not only to chip away but to do away with the Endangered Species Act." Mining
The House rejected an amendment by voice vote to strip a provision blocking the administration from changing the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act. Such a step could add limits to surface mining.
Sponsor Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called the rider a "pre-emptive strike" against potential clean water protections. But Calvert said it simply mandates the "status quo" and warned that changes could affect "all earth-moving industries."
The House debated another strip coal mining amendment from Grijalva to scrap a bill provision that would prevent the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement from promulgating a stream protection rule due in the coming weeks.
Republicans and pro-coal Democrats have long opposed the rule, which they believe would hurt mining. Grijalva, top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said the rulemaking process should move forward with the goal of doing "a better job at protecting streams." A vote on the amendment is forthcoming.
The same goes for an amendment by Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke against an Office of Natural Resources Revenue proposal to reform federal coal valuation, which could affect mining company royalties.
Zinke said the proposal is part of the Obama administration's "war on coal," which the congressman said the administration is waging with more vigor than the fight against the self-styled Islamic State group. "We can't power the American economy on pixie dust and hope," he said.
Cloud Peak Energy Inc., which focuses on Powder River Basin mining and has significant Montana operations, is one of the proposal's loudest critics. Zinke focused on how the rule could hurt the Crow Nation's effort to develop its coal resources.
McCollum said the proposal was meant to prevent mining companies from "gaming existing royalty systems." Doing so, she said, would benefit taxpayers and Native Americans.
Beyond riders against Obama administration policies, the spending bill includes a $30 million grant program to help communities hit by the coal market downturn clean abandoned sites and promote job creation. It's similar to but more limited than a White House proposal.
When it comes to non-coal mining, the legislation would block EPA from issuing planned new financial assurance requirements. The measure has not received significant debate on the floor.
The House accepted the following amendments by voice vote: An amendment by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) to study unused federal lands that could be sold to private owners. A Polis amendment to boost federal support for volunteer firefighters. An amendment by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) to prohibit funds from being used to put in place a comprehensive conservation plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. An amendment by Grijalva that would prohibit funds being used in contravention of the executive order regarding Indian sacred sites. Three amendments by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to restrict the display of the Confederate flag on federal lands and federal cemeteries. An amendment by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) that stipules that the protection of hatcheries is a high priority for the Fish and Wildlife Service. A separate amendment by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) would prevent the closure of fish hatcheries and archives. An amendment by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) that confirms that grazing permits or leases should not be issued to anyone who does not comply with Bureau of Land Management regulations, a provision aimed at rancher Cliven Bundy. An amendment by Walberg that would delay BLM's implementation of land management plans. An amendment by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) that would prohibit the redirection of certain funds allocated under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. The House also accepted an amendment offered by Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) to prohibit funds to research, investigate or study offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. An amendment by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) that would require federal fleets to be efficient. An amendment by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) that would restrict contracts with people who have been convicted of fraud. A trio of amendments by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) that would block the elimination of the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership and the reduction of Smithsonian Institution outreach activities and would affect certain National Park Service funding. An amendment by Rep. Garrett Graves (R-La.) that would address what he called the "mismanagement" of coastal resources. An amendment by Rep. Scott Peters (R-Pa.) that would prohibit Interior from using drones for mapping that could be done by the private sector.
The House yesterday punted votes on several other amendments that are likely to come up today: Tsongas requested a recorded vote on an amendment that would strike a policy rider that blocks implementation of the National Ocean Policy. Grijalva requested a recorded vote on an amendment to eliminate a provision in the bill that would make it easier for landowners to get approval for grazing on federal lands in times of drought and wildfires. Grijalva also requested a vote on an amendment that would strike a rider aimed at the administration's forthcoming rule restricting ivory sales. Lawrence requested a vote on her amendment to strike a section from the bill regarding hydraulic fracturing. Polis requested a vote on his amendment to limit the federal government's ability to transfer lands to private landowners against federal law. Rep. Marcia Blackburn (R-Tenn.) requested a vote on her amendment to institute a 1 percent across-the-board spending cut on all Interior and EPA programs. A vote was requested on Rep. Steve Pearce's (R-N.M.) amendment that would prohibit BLM from changing its royalty rate structure for oil and gas operations. A vote was requested on an amendment by Rep. Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.) that would block funds from going to presidential declarations of national monuments in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Utah -- areas where Hardy said there is strong local opposition. Democrats requested a vote on an amendment by Hudson that would mandate that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management include the mid-South Atlantic area in its lease sale schedule for offshore drilling.
-
Republican Senators Urge EPA to Reconsider Proposed Mercury Limit for Brick Industry
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency should reconsider its proposal to require brick-making facilities to install equipment to limit emissions of mercury, three Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said.
Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in a letter that the agency should consider setting work practice standards to limit mercury emissions instead of establishing numeric emissions limits. The letter was sent July 2 to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The numeric mercury limits were included in a 2014 proposed rule (RIN 2060-AP69) that would establish limits on emissions on various hazardous air pollutants from brick and ceramics kilns. The agency estimated the proposal would reduce nationwide emissions of air toxics by about 440 tons per year (226 DEN A-10, 11/24/14).
However, the senators questioned whether the EPA's proposal to set numeric limits on mercury, which would require installation of pollution control devices that each cost about $2 million, would provide enough health benefits to justify the compliance costs. The agency estimated the proposed standards would reduce mercury emissions industrywide by 118 pounds annually.
“Standards resulting in costly and anticipated control technology must demonstrate that any costs create commensurate benefits,” the senators wrote. “That does not appear to be the case here.”
Small Business Concerns Raised
The senators said a decision to set numerical standards for mercury could cause “roughly one-third” of small businesses in the brick-making industry to either close or consolidate operations.
The EPA estimated that one or two facilities would be at “significant risk of closure” due to increased costs associated with the proposed standards. However, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy said in comments that the agency significantly underestimated the potential effect of the proposal on small manufacturers that may not be able to comply unless financing were available to cover initial capital costs for pollution controls (68 DEN A-2, 4/9/15).
Second Attempt at Regulation
The EPA's rulemaking effort is its second attempt to regulate hazardous emissions from the brick, structural clay and clay ceramics industries. The agency first set national standards in 2003, but that rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 64 ERC 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ).
The EPA is under a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 24 to issue its final standards.
-
McCarthy Sees No Impact to Clean Power Plan After Supreme Court's Mercury Ruling
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Supreme Court's recent decision on the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) will have no impact on its soon-to-be-released final carbon pollution limits for existing power plants, Administrator Gina McCarthy said July 7.
McCarthy, speaking at a “Christian Science Monitor” event, acknowledged she was “disappointed” by the court's June 29 ruling that the agency should have considered costs earlier in the regulatory process, but said the EPA might be able to implement a “very simple” fix at the appeals court level.
“[The Supreme Court] really went out of their way to limit this,” McCarthy said. “Had they not, it could have had much broader implications. It simply didn't.”
The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 opinion that the EPA was required to consider compliance costs when deciding to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The decision left in place the regulation itself but remanded the issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration (Michigan v. EPA , 2015 BL 207163, U.S. , No. 14-46, 6/29/15; 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15).
Enormous public health benefits and pollution reductions have already been achieved through the standards, McCarthy said. She noted the practical implications of the appeals court action on MATS may be limited because utilities have already made decisions about how to comply with the standards.
McCarthy said the D.C. Circuit has a wide range of options available for what it may ask the agency to do, but said “it will take a while to sort itself out.”
While the court decides, “I think there's very compelling reasons for the utilities to continue to treat this as a requirement,” McCarthy said. “And I think you'll see them doing that.”
Litigation Certain for Power Plan
On the Clean Power Plan, McCarthy said she remained confident the regulation, once made final, would be on firmly legal ground but conceded there would “absolutely” be litigation on it.
“Is there a single rule that I would talk about that is not going to be [litigated]?” McCarthy asked. “We're actually very good at writing rules and defending them. And this will be no exception.”
Any attempt to link the Supreme Court's decision on MATS to the Clean Power Plan's fate is like “comparing apples and oranges,” McCarthy said. She added the agency still intends to complete its work on the Clean Power Plan “this summer.”
McCarthy also brushed off concerns many states will simply choose to ignore the final rule and require the agency to implement a federal plan to drive emissions reductions. Just one state—Oklahoma—has firmly stated it will not comply with the regulation, though several others have threatened to follow its lead.
States opting not to comply with the rule have been “very limited” to date, McCarthy said.
“Those same states that may want to reject developing their clean power plan may actually benefit from a Clean Power Plan,” McCarthy said.
Multiple senior EPA officials have said the agency intends to issue the final rule (RIN 2060-AR33), which would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state, under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, this summer. State regulators would then have flexibility to determine how best to achieve their individual targets (123 DEN A-2, 6/26/15).
Confident of Water Rule
Speaking on another controversial agency rulemaking, McCarthy said she was confident the agency's recent rule (80 Fed Reg. 37,054) defining the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act would withstand legal challenges from states and industry groups because it was on “solid legal ground.”
“If they just take a little bit of a deep breath, take a look at what the rule says, what it does, they will see that we followed their call to reduce the uncertainty that was in the system by providing the rule itself,” McCarthy said, referring to the states and groups who have already filed lawsuits.
More than half of all states and 14 interest groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation and American Petroleum Institute, have already lodged a host of challenges to the final rule (RIN 2040-AF30) in several different judicial venues around the country (126 DEN A-14, 7/1/15).
-
RGGI Scope Not Likely to Meet Requirements Of Federal Clean Power Plan, CRS Reports
Jul 8, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
It's uncertain if the “scope and stringency” of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan, according to a July 2 report on RGGI from the Congressional Research Service.
The report, “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Lessons Learned and Issues for Congress,” cited two issues of concern. First, it said RGGI's current emissions cap ends in 2020, while the CPP's proposed requirements would run from 2020 to 2030.
Second, the report said RGGI's cost-containment reserve, a mechanism to prevent spikes in carbon allowance prices, could potentially allow for an additional 10 million tons of carbon allowances per year. The reserve mechanism requires that additional allowances be offered for sale when prices at auction hit a certain level.
Similar issues regarding RGGI's compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan have been identified by the Maine-based Acadia Center and others (93 DEN A-12, 5/14/15).
Jordan Stutt, a policy analyst for the Acadia Center, told Bloomberg BNA the report provides “a thorough description of RGGI's history, mechanics and performance, which should prove useful in educating Congress on this successful program.”
“One key aspect of the RGGI program that is not detailed in this report is the net economic impact, which would include the benefits received from investment of RGGI revenue,” he said in an e-mail. “As other states and Congress assess the benefits of using the RGGI model, it is important to consider the economy-wide impact of strategic revenue reinvestment.”
Question on RGGI Structure
Gregory E. Sopkin, a partner in the Denver law firm Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer LLP, told Bloomberg BNA that “there is a great deal of interesting analysis here, but perhaps more interesting is that no one to date has made the case for how the RGGI structure could fit into a multi-state plan that satisfies the Clean Power Plan approval criteria.”
“Of all the discourse on the proposed Clean Power Plan over the past 13 months, no one has made the opposite compliance case, specifically an argument that says ‘here is how the RGGI satisfies each of the four approval criteria set out in the rule,’” Sopkin said in an e-mail.
The CRS report said RGGI could provide lessons to the federal government if a national emissions cap-and-trade program is ever adopted.
“RGGI's activities may create examples and/or models that could prove instructive for federal policymakers crafting more widespread applications,” the report said.
“The program has provided a training ground for personnel from multiple states and various professions to develop a specific expertise in emissions trading issues,” it said. “This knowledge base could be useful if a federal system were developed.”
The report said the nine RGGI states—New York, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine—account for 7 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. If the RGGI states were a nation, their aggregate emissions from energy would rank 20th in the world, according to the report.
-
Inside The Fight Against Obama's Climate Plan
Jul 7, 2015 | Politico
By Darren Samuelsohn
President Barack Obama’s signature climate change rule is expected to land this summer, imposing the nation’s first-ever greenhouse gas limits on the electric utility industry— and Republicans and industry are already scrambling to kill it any way they can.
A handful of governors have already pledged to ignore the rule, heeding the call of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for a state-by-state campaign of defiance. And House Republicans have inserted a controversial rider into the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual spending bill, due for a floor vote as soon as this week, which would cut off federal funding to implement the rule.
But it’s really the courts where EPA’s adversaries expect to notch their big win. Obama’s opponents think the agency is vastly overreaching by using the 1990 Clean Air Act as the legal basis for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, and plan to sue to block it. Ultimately, this is a debate that could go to the Supreme Court.
For a look at the strategy and expectations of Obama’s opponents, POLITICO senior policy reporter Darren Samuelsohn interviewed Jeff Holmstead, an energy industry attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani who ran EPA’s air office during President George W. Bush’s first term.
Holmstead explained some of the reasons that industry expects the so-called Clean Power Plan to be overturned – and why it will be fighting so hard to win a court stay even before then. He also described what a future Republican president might do instead on climate change, and why even business could get behind a new climate law that replaces the administration’s hodgepodge regulatory approach to fight global warming.
Darren Samuelsohn: You’ve been at EPA as it wraps up big rules. What’s happening at the agency right now as it finishes the Clean Power Plan?
Jeff Holmstead: They're probably still doing response to comments. This has been a very rushed process. I think there's just a lot of production work that's going on. The senior people, I would imagine, are still engaged in the interagency process. This is a presidential initiative but that doesn't mean that DOE and OMB don't have questions and comments. So, my guess is there's a lot of production going on at the staff level. There's also a lot of negotiations about language that are going on at more senior levels between EPA and other agencies.
DS: Do you think Obama himself is involved, given this is so central to his environmental legacy?
JH: I doubt he will be involved in the substance very much, but certainly we expect that he'll be involved in the announcement. He's made it such a big part of his agenda.
DS: What do you make of the Obama administration’s overall PR push on climate, from the president interviewing Sir David Attenborough to Gina McCarthy going on HBO to talk with Bill Maher?
JH: In my lifetime, we've never seen anything like this, where an EPA rules has gotten such a significant kind of public relations campaign that involves the president, that involves really everybody in his administration. It's really quite remarkable, and whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, you have to kind of admire them for the campaign that they've put together.
DS: Is this the biggest rule EPA has ever done?
JH: It depends how you count it. It may not be the most expensive. I mean, compared to the ozone rule, it may not be as expensive as that. It may not be as expensive as the MATS [mercury and air toxics] rule. But in terms of the ambition of the agency, to really fundamentally change the way that electricity is produced and used throughout the United States, it's really quite extraordinary.
DS: Opponents are trying to kill the EPA rules in many different ways, from lawsuits to budget riders. Which approach do you think will be most successful?
JH: I find it very hard to believe that the courts will ultimately uphold the rule, unless it changes a lot. We've only seen the proposal, but I think if you …had to choose one way to oppose the rule, you would say you'd do it in court, because it really is hard to see how the courts would uphold this.
DS: What did you take away from the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling last month in King v. Burwell as a signal of where the justices would go if they ultimately get to decide the legality of the Clean Power Plan?
JH: I don't think the court is going to give EPA deference in interpreting the scopes of its own powers. One thing we've learned from Burwell, that's probably something that the court will do on its own.
DS: Industry will certainly be trying to get the federal appeals court to immediately block implementation of the Clean Power Plan while the merits of the case are decided. How important is a winning a stay at that early stage?
JH: My impression is that there are a lot of people in the administration who understand that this is legally a stretch and may be struck down eventually. But the hope is--and I know this to be the case--that they really hope that once states start down this path, once they start on their plans, that even if the rule is struck down, they'll continue down that path. I don't know how realistic that hope is, but I think that's one of the things that's motivating this whole thing. And that's one of the reasons why I think you have so many states and so many industry groups that are going to put a lot of effort into the stay. That's going to be a huge battle.
DS: What signals do you take away from the Supreme Court’s other recent decision, in Michigan v. EPA, which kicked the agency’s mercury regulation back down to the federal appeals court and told the agency it should have considered costs earlier in the rule writing process?
JH: I don't think it will affect in any way what EPA is doing….I do think it could have an impact on the way the court deals with [the Clean Power Plan], and in particular on the stay issue. I think it just seems really unfair to a lot of people that finally we understand that this rule is not legally--not validly promulgated, and yet you have…100 plants that have shut down, thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and companies have spent billions of dollars. I think that makes it easier for states and industry to go in and say, ‘Look, you have to stay the Clean Power Plan until the litigation is over, until we really see if this is really legally valid or not.’ I also think…you just have to say that it doesn't bode well for the EPA in the Supreme Court. Two years ago people were saying, ‘Well, EPA wins all these cases. The Supreme Court is going to defer to them.’ And now, we have two cases where that's not the case.
DS: Do you see Congress weighing in in the meantime?
JH: I've spent the last 25 years working on Clean Air Act issues and I can say with some confidence that the act doesn't work very well, if the goal is to get a level of environmental protection at the lowest possible cost. We're paying a lot more than we need to for the reductions that we're getting because there's so much underbrush here. People are starting to talk about another round of Clean Air Act reauthorization.
The one thing that I think could finally push Congress to reform the Clean Air Act is the ozone [standards], because depending on where they set it, you're going to have many, many parts of the country that are going to have a standard that they're not able to meet. If you're in a rural area and wherever you are in the West, you don't have sources in your area that you can regulate to meet the standard, and yet because of the way that the Clean Air Act works, you have a legal obligation to do something that you can't do.
DS: Given the state of U.S. climate politics, do you think this is an issue a future Republican administration would even tackle?
JH: I'm going to give you what I think the real answer is. …I think ultimately that's why the Clean Power Plan is so important, because I think we will get legislation eventually. If the Clean Power Plan is upheld, then the environmental community will have much more leverage in those debates, because the courts will have said, ‘Well, here is this aggressive mechanism that EPA can use not only to regulate power plants but regulate anybody else.’ And I think in some ways that may be the most important part of the Clean Power Plan.
On the other hand if, as I would expect, the Clean Power Plan is overturned in court, the environmentalists will no longer see the Clean Air Act as the way that they can get what they want and they will feel like they need to actually go to Congress and work on something.
And the other thing I would say is this: I mean, I don't pretend to know how it will ultimately play out, but today it is so hard for anyone to build anything new. And when you look at the way climate change is now being addressed under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and maybe the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, I think there would be a lot of folks in the business community who would like to have a rational program that just replaced all of these other things that really were never designed to deal with the issue, but…the transactions costs of doing anything are so high that if there was a way to kind of wipe those away, to have something that was more sensible, that was more understandable--so, I think that there could eventually be some kind of legislation.
DS: There’s an argument that a Republican president could better handle this debate—akin to a ‘Nixon to China’ moment on energy and the environment.
JH: I don't know that you need a Republican to do it, but you do need a White House that is willing to get involved… not only in negotiating with the Democrats, but actually pushing back on their own constituency.
DS: What happens to the Clean Power Plan if a Republican wins the White House in 2016?
JH: Any Republican candidate that I can imagine would very quickly just rescind the Clean Power Plan. Even if you look at the statements from folks who are most sympathetic, every one of them agrees that this is an incredible overreach by an agency.
DS: Do you think a Republican president would revoke EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases that is essentially the backbone of everything it’s doing on climate change?
JH: As a practical matter, I think that would be very hard to do. You can always exercise your discretion under a law to change something, but I don't think a Republican administration would do that. I think part of the problem is there's this scientific record that would be very hard to get around, and I don't think that's really necessary. …EPA could still do things to regulate CO2 emissions that would not be enormously disruptive or expensive and, oh, by the way, would be consistent with the law and what the Clean Air Act says. My guess is the Republican administration would probably pursue that instead of trying to revoke the endangerment finding.
DS: Post-Obama, will the climate debate have moved far enough in the direction of action that a Republican couldn’t ignore it once in office?
JH: Maybe that is true. I'm not sure the big debates are around the science, the big debates are around well, what is it that we should do... It's really a technology issue, and I think the only effective way to deal with climate change is to make sure we're investing in technologies that will give people what we get today from fossil fuels at a cost that's cost competitive. If I were in charge of climate change policy in the government, I would certainly want to invest more in those kinds of technology breakthroughs. And we're seeing some encouraging things, but I think… if this is only about making people's energy more expensive, making it harder for people to have the things that they have today with fossil fuels, I think it's very hard to overcome human nature. But if there are technologies that can actually give us those same things without those CO2 issues and at a comparable cost, I think that's the only way we actually end up dealing with climate change.
-
Industries Raise Fears Over Pace, Breadth Of EPA NSPS E-Reporting Rule
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Groups representing major industry sectors are raising fears that EPA's plan to require electronic reporting (e-reporting) for new source performance standards (NSPS) air rule compliance does not allow sufficient time to comply, is too broad, lacks sufficient flexibility, and risks imposing duplicative reporting requirements on the sectors.
The concerns, outlined in recently filed comments on the proposal, highlight some of the questions that EPA might have to address both in the NSPS rule and a related e-reporting rule it is developing for national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs).
The NSPS proposal released March 20 would shift regulatory reporting of compliance with the air rules to a single electronic format. EPA says the rule "will facilitate more accurate and timely development of numerous efforts, including regulation development, emissions factors, emissions inventories, trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments and human exposure modeling."
The agency says the rule "will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community." EPA's rule would be effective 90 days after publication of the final version in the Federal Register.
Public comments that EPA received from groups representing the utility, petroleum, and other industry sectors offer diverse advice to EPA, given that the reporting rule would affect so many different industry sectors.
But some common themes emerged -- for example, industry groups argue that the time proposed for transition to the new system is insufficient, that industries should not be forced to use the system and participation should be voluntary, that industry should be allowed to use alternative reporting methods, at least temporarily; and that EPA should not impose reporting requirements that duplicate reporting requirements already in place.
In its comments, the American Petroleum Institute (API) says, "This proposal suffers from a failure to address the realities of reporting using an inflexible and difficult to revise electronic system, the realities of the structure of EPA regulations and EPA's practice of referencing [Clean Air Act] part 60 paragraphs and subparts, and the difficulties of integrating EPA's electronic reporting system into existing EPA, State and company reporting processes."
API asks that EPA provide the option for states to either submit electronic reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface and the Electronic Reporting Tool, or to submit PDF files or paper reports instead, at least for several years, according to API's June 18 comments.
Nor does the group accept EPA's claim that the shift to e-reporting will not increase reporting burdens for industry. "API believes this proposal will significantly increase industry recordkeeping and reporting burdens and that EPA should take significant steps to minimize those impacts," the group says.
Industry's Concerns
The Air Permitting Forum, an industry coalition, in its June 18 comments says that while it welcomes to concept of e-reporting, it asks EPA to heed "the Forum's strong recommendation that EPA re-propose or simply finalize the rule as an alternative reporting option, at least for an introductory period."
"Rather than launching the electronic reporting rule for the 100+ NSPS categories currently regulated all at once, EPA should select a few categories with which to pilot the program and use the learnings from that effort to make adjustments to its rules and programming," the group says. It cites concerns about the system's lack of flexibility, and says it will result in duplicative reporting and "reverse reporting efficiencies."
The Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing investor-owned electric utilities, in its June 18 comments expresses similar concerns with specific reference to the power sector. UARG expresses concerns that the proposed e-reporting rule would be duplicative and add burdens to the sector, which already reports data on conventional and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions electronically to EPA using existing systems.
UARG also questions the scope of EPA's proposal and says that it is uncertain. "EPA also makes clear . . . that it considers this proposal to be only the second phase of a longer term project that ultimately will cover additional types of reports, additional subparts, and additional mechanisms for submittal," the group says. "As a result, it is not possible to determine at this point the full impact of EPA's proposal."
Meanwhile, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) -- which represents many state environmental agencies -- in its June 18 comments broadly welcomes the shift to electronic reporting, but also expresses some reservations. "States believe that e-reporting, where feasible, can help with data entry burdens and recognize that electronic storage of data makes reports more accessible for review, analysis, and sharing. ECOS and its members are supportive of transparency, clarity, comparability, and quality of environmental data," ECOS says.
ECOS also expresses concerns about possible duplicative reporting requirements, and stresses the need for EPA to provide training for state air regulators with new electronic reporting systems.
Pending Rulemaking
ECOS also notes that while the proposal applies to NSPS rules, the rule could ultimately expand to cover air toxics rules as well -- and EPA has said that it is working on such a rulemaking.
In EPA's "Action Initiation List" of rules launched in May, which the agency posted to its website mid-June, there is a listing for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on NESHAP e-reporting.
According to the AIL the agency plans to issue the NRPM within 12 months or less, and it follows an October 2009 advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on updates to air rules including e-reporting for NESHAPs. "[T]his rulemaking proposes to require the electronic submission of other selected compliance data, such as excess emissions reports, that are already being compiled and submitted by industry to regulatory authorities. These data can be used for regulation development, control strategy development, rule effectiveness studies, risk analyses and other air pollution control activities," according to the AIL.
-
McCarthy Defends Major EPA Rules As GOP Eyes FY16 Bill To Bar Policies
Jul 7, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is defending the legality of major EPA rules including its pending revised ozone standard and power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) standards as well as its recently finalized Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, while Republicans look to use fiscal year 2016 funding legislation to block the policies.
Speaking at a July 7 “Recharge Discussion” hosted by the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) in Washington, D.C., McCarthy suggested that the upcoming and final rules will withstand legal challenges because, she said, there is a sound legal and scientific basis for the regulations. If industry groups and other critics of the rules fail with their lawsuits, then one of the only options they have left to block the rules is for Congress to pass bills with that goal.
House Republicans have included language in their EPA FY16 appropriations legislation that would block a suite of major agency rules, and at press time were debating the measure on the floor ahead of a vote.
Shaun Donovan, director of the White House Office of Management & Budget, said on a July 7 call with reporters that the administration has concerns with the bill and its proposal to cut EPA's budget by $718 million down to $7.4 billion. “Their plan would lock in sequestration, which would lead to the lowest levels of real funding in a decade. . . . The math just doesn't work out -- it would result in terrible real-world consequences,” he said.
McCarthy on the same call criticized the legislative riders that aim to use the FY16 bill as a vehicle to block agency rulemakings. "Congress is trying to legitimately legislate science,” she added.
Earlier at the CSM event, the administration also discussed the budget and said, “You are at a time when states' budgets are hurting. We do not have the level of protections for clean air, clean water, cleaning up Superfund sites, transforming those brownfields sites into economic opportunities. These are standard things the agency has done forever. Taking away our core budget doesn't just impact the Clean Power Plan -- it definitely impacts our ability that I think the general public has relied on to protect their public health and the environment.”
While the FY16 bills are pending in Congress, EPA is pushing ahead with its broad regulatory agenda that includes first-time GHG standards for existing and newly constructed power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. Critics of those rules filed novel lawsuits trying to block the proposed version of the standards, though at least one of those challenges has failed while another such suit pending in federal district court faces large hurdles.
At the July 7 discussion, McCarthy said the GHG rules “will undoubtedly be litigated -- is there a single rule I can talk about that is not going to be? . . . But we're actually very good at writing rules and defending them.” Her remarks came in response to an audience question on whether EPA is confident that rules opposed by the Republicans -- including all of the GOP's presidential candidates -- will survive into the next administration.
Addressing the power plant GHG rules specifically, McCarthy said the agency used “proven, time-tested tools” to craft its proposal, and sought to avoid measures that would dictate states' energy portfolios.
“We looked at where the energy world was transitioning, and made sure that as an EPA rule that is solely focused on reducing pollution -- in this case, carbon pollution -- it could stay in its lane, instead of trying, or even thinking about, leading what energy choices we want people to make,” she said.
MATS Ruling
McCarthy also downplayed the Supreme Court's June 29 decision that in a 5-4 vote remanded EPA's mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after faulting the agency for not considering costs in its initial decision to craft a MATS.
The justices' decision in Michigan, et al. v. EPA, et al. “did not vacate the mercury and air toxics standard. It is still in effect today. And as we know the majority of power plants have already decided and invested in their paths for achieving compliance. . . . and the record is very clear for everybody to see that had we looked at costs up front, we would have come to the similar conclusions that we came to in the rule today,” McCarthy said.
While the D.C. Circuit will now consider how to respond to the remand, McCarthy said that “in the meantime the rule continues and it's going to be complied with. . . . there's very compelling reasons for the utilities to continue to treat this as a requirement, and I think you'll see them doing that.”
The MATS has already taken effect and many power plants have already either shuttered or taken the necessary starts to comply, while others won a one-year compliance extension to April 2016.
Regarding the CWA jurisdiction rule, McCarthy said the agency is tracking the several lawsuits already filed challenging the regulation, but officials are confident that courts will back EPA.
“We know we're on solid legal ground, not least because the Supreme Court told us to do exactly what we did,” she said, referring to two high court decisions that left the state of CWA jurisdiction uncertain. Those decisions were 2006's Rapanos v. United States, where a fractured court created competing tests for jurisdiction, and 2003's Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Army Corps of Engineers.
While challengers to the rule have argued that it violates both the Rapanos and SWANCC decisions, McCarthy argued that EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “followed science to the letter” in crafting the final regulation.
EPA recently scored a significant win in an unrelated CWA suit, in which a three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit ruled unanimously to uphold EPA's landmark multi-state Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan, rejecting industry claims that the agency exceeded its water law authority both in crafting the total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan and in its related rules that allow EPA to limit nonpoint pollution in TMDLs.
McCarthy called the ruling “a great affirmation of EPA's responsibility, of our creativity in bringing those states together. They celebrated that TMDL, and they actually gave some wonderful kudos to the agency in terms of our ability and our willingness on how to use our discretion under the law to address these types of challenges.”
Ozone NAAQS
At the July 7 event, McCarthy also address concerns over the agency's proposed tightening of its ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
She downplayed a June 17 letter from a group of GOP legislators who have worked as medical doctors, where the Republicans argued that past reductions in ozone levels have failed to produce health benefits that the agency has said justify its proposal to tighten the current standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a limit in the range between 65 and 70 ppb.
“EPA doesn't rely on any single voice, or any groups of voices, on this. We rely on a standard process to look at peer-reviewed science, to make sure it's transparent. . . . It takes years to develop these standards, to look at the wealth of information and science that we have. Ozone is one of those standards that just have a wealth of science behind them,” she said.
Critics have charged that a stricter ozone NAAQS would impose ruinous costs on regulated facilities and lead to job losses across the country. But EPA by law cannot consider costs when setting the level of a NAAQS and instead must base its decision solely on scientific data about a pollutant's health effects. And the D.C. Circuit has in several prior rulings in suits over the six various NAAQS deferred to EPA on its interpretation of such science.
Meanwhile, a new white paper by three members of EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, “How Did Air Quality Standards Affect Employment And Generation At U.S. Power Plants?” says estimates that past NAAQS revisions have had high jobs impacts could be overstated.
“Significant negative generation and employment impacts after 1993 are limited to those areas” that face the most stringent penalties for NAAQS nonattainment, the paper says. “This latter set of results is important if one wishes to use historical experience with clean air regulation to analyze potential new policies.” The authors caution that, “The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
-
McCarthy lashes out at Congress for targeting agency science
Jul 8, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy yesterday slammed what she called several attempts by Congress to undermine agency science.
In a call with reporters, McCarthy singled out legislation to make the agency's science more transparent, reform EPA's scientific advisory board and stipulate that biomass energy is "carbon neutral."
"Congress is trying to legislate science," the administrator said.
McCarthy's defense of her agency's science came shortly before the House approved an amendment to its fiscal 2016 spending plan for the Interior Department and EPA that would prohibit funds from going toward finalizing any regulation based on research that is "secret" or held in contravention of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) would also halt regulations if EPA's scientific advisory board (SAB) fails to provide advice requested by Congress (see related story).
This congressional session, both the House and Senate have moved on pieces of legislation targeting EPA science.
The "Secret Science Reform Act" (H.R. 1030), which is separate from the House amendment, would prevent EPA from issuing rules that are based on science that isn't "transparent or reproducible."
A separate piece of legislation (H.R. 1029) targeting the SAB would add new peer-review requirements when it comes to balance and independence on the advisory board. It would also set a quota for state and local officials to be included on the panel, allow corporate interests to serve after disclosing conflicts of interest and add requirements for board members to respond in a written format to public comments.
The full House earlier this year passed both bills, while the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently sent the secret science bill (S. 544) to the Senate floor.
McCarthy slammed both as attempts to discredit agency science. She said the secret science bill would prevent EPA from proposing or finalizing "what we would consider to be our routine efforts" as well as force the agency to release health information publicly that should be kept private.
"It's really not an approach that we would expect Congress to take," she said, "and certainly not an approach that would benefit the science or public health and environment protection mission of this agency."
The administrator also defended the scientific advisory board as working "extraordinarily well."
The reform legislation, she said, "would weaken our ability to get the best scientists and our ability to have independence and the integrity of the science advisory board that we currently enjoy."
Republicans have billed both measures as promoting scientific integrity at the agency.
McCarthy yesterday also said EPA is against a policy rider in the fiscal 2016 spending bill that promotes forest biomass is a carbon-neutral form of energy. The House legislation cites an analysis done by the Agriculture Department finding that U.S. forest carbon stocks "are stable or increasing on a national scale."
The EPA chief called the rider "pretty disconcerting."
"While we very much are in favor of recognizing sustainable forestry and the efforts that it provides to essentially lower greenhouse gases," McCarthy said, "the language in the report basically seems to tell EPA what the outcome of our science needs to be instead of ensuring that we do rigorous science."
EPA is currently considering whether to recognize biomass combustion as a way to comply with its Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
-
Jul 8, 2015 | The Huffington Post - Green Blog
By Michael Brune
The hospitals prepared for an influx of wounded that never came. People either escaped or died. The youngest victim was 4 years old; the oldest was 93. In all, 47 people died on the night of July 6, 2013, when an out-of-control oil train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed in the small Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic, 22 miles from the U.S. border.
The fireball that destroyed half of Lac-Mégantic burned for two days. Seven victims were never found. According to the coroner's office, they were "completely vaporized." The few town buildings that survived the conflagration were later razed because of oil contamination. Lac-Mégantic was obliterated.
The railroad operator has since gone bankrupt, forcing the community and local government to shoulder the cost of cleaning up and rebuilding the town -- close to $2 billion.
During the past six years we've seen a huge surge in the transport of extreme crude oil trains, and, so far, Lac-Mégantic is the worst consequence. It is not the only one, however. Lac-Mégantic was just one of six major derailments of trains carrying crude oil in 2013. Last year there were five more. This year five trains have exploded. Although none of this year's accidents caused fatalities, each of those trains was traveling a route that included heavily populated areas.
Two factors are responsible. One is the extreme volatility of fracked oil and tar sands oil. Both are extremely combustible, making them challenging to refine and dangerous to transport.
The other factor is the aging and inadequate infrastructure of a rail system that was never designed to carry such hazardous cargo. As a result, the U.S. had a total of 144 oil train incidents last year. In 2009 there was only one.
The truth is that if we keep shipping dangerous oil by train under unsafe conditions, it's only a matter of time before there is another tragedy. The Department of Transportation estimated that we could see a disaster like the one at Lac-Mégantic every two years. What's more, it could happen almost anywhere. Thousands of oil trains are crisscrossing the U.S. as oil companies ship extreme oil from the tar sands and from shale oil fields to coastal refineries and ports, where much of the oil is processed and exported to the world market. ForestEthics has estimated that 25 million of us live within one mile of tracks that carry oil tanker cars. My own family lives just a couple of miles from one of those rail lines.
Shipping extreme oil by rail is a risk that oil companies are willing to take on our behalf because it gets their product to where it can fetch the highest price. That business is also worth billions each year to railroads. That the rail and oil companies would put profits first is disappointing but not surprising. What's both disappointing and hard to believe is the Obama administration's inadequate response.
A couple of months ago the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued new regulations for trains carrying crude oil, but the new rules don't do enough to address what the department itself called the "real and imminent danger" of another disaster. For instance, under Obama's new regulations, getting dangerous tank cars off the rails could take 10 years. And trains with fewer than 35 of those tank cars are exempt altogether.
No good reason exists for allowing oil companies and railroads to ship millions of barrels of explosive oil through our communities in unsafe tank cars. That's why the Sierra Club is challenging the DOT's new rules in court. We want unsafe tank cars made off-limits to extreme oil immediately. We're also working with local communities to stop Big Oil from building new export terminals to spur ever more oil trains on the tracks.
Of course, the real solution is to recognize that extreme oil deserves no place in our future. As our country continues to move beyond oil, the most dangerous and polluting sources must be the first to go. Americans shouldn't have to choose between a bomb train exploding in their backyard or an oil pipeline poisoning their water. Instead, we should expand investments in public transportation and efficient vehicles -- policies that have led to declining U.S. oil consumption over the past decade. We don't need this dirty oil, and it should stay in the ground.
Now, though, it's time to focus on that real and imminent danger. Yesterday's anniversary of the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic marked the beginning of a week of action to stop oil trains, with more than 100 events across the U.S. and Canada. There's no better time to send a message to President Obama asking him to immediately ban the shipment of explosive crude oil in unsafe tank cars -- before the next tragedy.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested