Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Aug 31
-
Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard on Manufacturing and Utilities
Sep 1, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: Fine Arts Center, Central Community College 4500 63rd Street, Columbus, NE 68601/ 10:00 AM -
Dakota State University to Host U.S. Senate Cybersecurity Field Hearing
Sep 3, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Dakota State University, Madison, S.D. - South Dakota Tunheim Classroom Building, Room 203/ 3:30 PM -
(ACC Blog) On the Road With #ACCaugust – Updated 8/28/15
Aug 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions...http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report: Global Chemical Production Slows In July
Aug 28, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Global chemical production increases recorded their slowest growth of the year in July, according to the latest weekly report from the American Chemistry Council. The industry group's Global Chemical Production Regional Index showed a 0.1 percent increase across a three-month moving average. -
Waiting for Formaldehyde Limits 10 Years After Katrina
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, the U.S. still does not have national standards to limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood such as those released in the trailers provided to thousands of displaced residents. “No family should ever worry that their wood floors... -
Breaking Our Hunger For Extreme Oil
Aug 28, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rick Bass
As Americans, we reflexively want the biggest, the best and the greatest. We have a love affair with consumerism and hunger for more. This rings true in our hunger for oil development and is reflective of our pursuit of the riskiest and most reckless development in the lands and waters of America’s Arctic. But in this unconsidered quest... -
Regulatory Obsession Means War On Oil And Gas
Aug 28, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kathleen Sgamma
With the announcement earlier this month of the Clean Power Plan, the war on coal is officially over. The casualties in Appalachia, Northwest Colorado and other mining areas across the country number in the thousands. Consumers’ electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket across the country, but President Obama can claim mission accomplished. -
Greens: Obama Climate Legacy At Risk Over Arctic Drilling
Aug 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama will visit Alaska on Tuesday in the midst of a fight with environmental groups, who arguing he is putting his climate legacy is at risk by allowing Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil in the Arctic waters off the state’s northern coast. Obama is going to Alaska to inspect the effects of climate change... -
Arctic Nations Joust Over North Pole
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David J. Lynch
Even as melting Arctic glaciers threaten to swamp shorelines, nations from Russia to the U.S. are betting that warming temperatures also will unlock trillions of dollars in new wealth. “It is potentially the biggest strategic opportunity in America since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803,” said Scott Borgerson, a former Coast Guard officer... -
Obama Taking Climate Message To The Arctic
Aug 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama is bringing his climate change message to the Arctic Circle, White House officials said Friday, previewing his trip to Alaska. Obama’s trip next week is part of his “broader and longer-term effort” to speak about climate change and highlight how to prevent it, Obama’s senior climate adviser... -
Climate Change Urgency Part of Obama's Arctic Message
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
A key message of President Barack Obama's historic trip to the Alaskan Arctic will be that climate change is a “here and now” issue, “not an issue of the future tense,” one of his senior advisers said Aug. 28. “We view this as part of a broader and longer term effort by the president and the administration to speak openly... -
Congress Lobbied on Clean Power Plan Until Very End
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Mere days before the Environmental Protection Agency completed work on the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's climate change agenda, House and Senate lawmakers were still pushing the agency for changes to the Clean Power Plan. Months after the public comment period ended, congressional and state lawmakers were... -
EPA's Clean Power Plan and Europe's Folly
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - Contributors
By Kathleen Hartnett White
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final Clean Power Plan (CPP) to reduce carbon dioxide pulls a colossally damaging and futile national energy plan out of a bureaucrat's hat. Who needs congressional authorization by law to dismember the engineering marvel that is our national electric power system? -
EPA Refinery Standards Under White House Review
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The White House Office of Management and Budget is now reviewing a final Environmental Protection Agency rule that would revise national air toxics standards for petroleum refineries. The agency submitted the final rule (RIN 2060-AQ75) for interagency review Aug. 27, just over one month before a Sept. 30 deadline for signing the regulation. -
EPA Continues to Oppose MATS Suspension Request
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency still opposes an industry request that a federal appeals court suspend compliance obligations under the mercury and air toxics standards for a small Colorado power plant, the agency said in a court filing (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, opposition filed 8/28/15). -
EPA, Colorado Reach Deal To Fight Utility's Bid For Emergency MACT Stay
Aug 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and Colorado air regulators have reached a deal that lifts a looming Sept. 1 interim deadline for a Western power company's facility in the state to decide whether to comply with a hydrogen chloride emission limit in the agency's utility air toxics rule, hoping to fend off the company's renewed bid for an appeals court to stay the compliance... -
13 States Subject to Delay of Court's Water Ruling
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
States won't immediately feel the impact of the federal district court ruling that has blocked the clean water rule from taking effect in 13 states, according to associations representing state and interstate environment and water officials. “I think we will slowly begin to see the confusion and questions develop—it will be more like a slow boil a... -
States Ask Judge To Declare EPA CWA Rule Injunction Applies Nationwide
Aug 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A coalition of 13 states that convinced a federal district court judge to issue an injunction against EPA implementing its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule from taking effect are urging the judge to declare that the ruling applies nationwide, after the agency said it would only heed the decision in the 13 states that sought the order. -
Biogenic Carbon Framework Lacks Key Details, SAB Says
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
he Environmental Protection Agency's latest attempt at developing a methodology to account for the net greenhouse gas impact of facilities that burn biomass is an improvement over past efforts but still lacks crucial policy details, an advisory panel said. The biogenic carbon accounting framework currently under review... -
EPA 'Consistency' Policy Might Lead To Uneven Clean Air Act Enforcement
Aug 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's proposal to exclude adverse appellate court rulings on its Clean Air Act policies from applying nationwide might lead to uneven enforcement of the air law, some observers say, as the plan appears to give agency regions broad discretion to respond to such rulings absent any guidance from headquarters on a uniform response. -
EPA Urges D.C. Circuit Not to Rehear Waste Lawsuit
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not to rehear challenges to a regulation exempting certain nonhazardous secondary materials from stricter air pollution requirements when burned in solid waste incinerators or boilers (Eco Servs. Operations LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir... -
How to Improve Air Quality at Your Children’s School
Aug 28, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
A healthy, resting adult takes 12 to 20 breaths per minute. Children, from school-age to preschoolers and younger, take many more. It’s normal for a toddler to take twice as many breaths as an adult, and an infant may take a full three times more. Every breath matters, especially for their developing lungs...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard on Manufacturing and Utilities
Sep 1, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Location: Fine Arts Center, Central Community College 4500 63rd Street, Columbus, NE 68601/ 10:00 AM
-
Dakota State University to Host U.S. Senate Cybersecurity Field Hearing
Sep 3, 2015 | U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Location: Dakota State University, Madison, S.D. - South Dakota Tunheim Classroom Building, Room 203/ 3:30 PM
-
(ACC Blog) On the Road With #ACCaugust – Updated 8/28/15
Aug 28, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
During the August recess, our state affairs and political mobilization teams will fan out across the country to create opportunities to further our industry’s advocacy goals in a grassroots initiative we’re calling #ACCaugust. Through plant tours, in-district meetings, and industry roundtable discussions, we will meet with Members of Congress to raise awareness of the vital importance of our industry and showcase the economic benefits of the business of chemistry where it matters the most—in their districts. Take the #ACCaugust tour with us! Zoom in and out and pan around to see where we’ve been and where we’re going (don’t forget Alaska!)
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Report: Global Chemical Production Slows In July
Aug 28, 2015 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Global chemical production increases recorded their slowest growth of the year in July, according to the latest weekly report from the American Chemistry Council.
The industry group's Global Chemical Production Regional Index showed a 0.1 percent increase across a three-month moving average.
Chemical production increased in most regions but declined in Latin America, where Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Venezuela saw weakness. The Brazilian economy on Friday officially entered a recession.
North America saw a 0.3 percent increase in production in July; the U.S. market was hindered by plastic resins, synthetic rubber and manufactured fibers.
Production increased in inorganic chemicals, organic intermediates and bulk petrochemicals. Specialty chemical growth in the U.S., meanwhile, was fueled by the coatings segment.
Overall, the global index was up 3.8 percent compared to the same timeframe in 2014.
Another ACC metric, the Chemical Activity Barometer, reported a drop of 0.3 percent in August following a slight July gain and 0.5 percent increases in both May and June.
Chemical industrial capacity, meanwhile, declined by 0.3 percentage points in July. The current 81.9 percent utilization rate is just below the rate from July 2014 and well off the long-term average, which exceeds 90 percent.
-
Waiting for Formaldehyde Limits 10 Years After Katrina
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, the U.S. still does not have national standards to limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood such as those released in the trailers provided to thousands of displaced residents.
“No family should ever worry that their wood floors—the ones they walk on and their kids play on every day—contain toxic chemicals that could make them sick,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told Bloomberg BNA in an Aug. 27 e-mail.
“That's why I led bipartisan legislation that was signed into law to create federal standards that guard against these toxins in wood products. It's well past time for the EPA to finish the job we gave them by finalizing and implementing these much-needed protections, and I have repeatedly told the agency that,” Klobuchar said.
Klobuchar's 2010 Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act (Pub. Law No. 111-199) was signed into law in 2010 (115 DEN A-10, 6/17/10).
Congress Set 2013 Deadline
The act directed the Environmental Protection Agency to establish national limits by Jan. 1, 2013, for formaldehyde emissions in composite-wood products. The law amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates chemicals.
The EPA did not provide comment to Bloomberg BNA about the status of its final standards, which have not been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
The law, supported by both industry and environmental health groups, directed the EPA to apply nationwide California's formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particle board nationwide (S. Rpt. No. 111–169).
Many U.S. companies already met California's standards. Concerns about the Gulf Coast residents who had lived in government-provided trailers that released high concentrations of formaldehyde also spurred support for the law.
The law allowed the EPA to diverge from California's standards if the agency deemed that appropriate.
In rules the EPA proposed in 2013, the agency would have diverged from California's standards in several ways, for example, by broadening the definition of laminated products subject to emissions limits.
Chemical producers, kitchen cabinet makers and other manufacturers urged the agency to use California's approach instead (82 DEN A-2, 4/29/14).
Industry Group: ‘Eager for EPA to Move Forward.’
Jackson Morrill, president of the Composite Panel Association, which supported the formaldehyde standards act, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 27 that he did not know whether the lamination or other issues were delaying EPA's final standards.
“We are eager for EPA to move forward,” Morrill said.
Standards that would apply California's limits nationwide would level the playing field for companies making and selling goods across the country and require imported composite wood products to meet the same standards, Morrill said.
Tom Neltner, an environmental health attorney who worked to secure passage of the formaldehyde act, told Bloomberg BNA no single obstacle has caused the delay.
The OMB didn't complete its year-long review of the agency's proposed rule until after the 2013 deadline for the final standards already had passed.
OMB's review is supposed to take 90 days, Neltner said.
In addition, “Congress has created a grueling rulemaking process and does not give the agency the resources it needs to complete the process. This mandate, in particular, did not come with additional resources,” Neltner said.
Congress punted the lamination issue to EPA, which determined that laminated wood could expose consumers to significant levels of formaldehyde, he said.
No Guaranteed Protection Yet
“The problem was real. From my perspective, getting accurate answers takes time,” Neltner said.
The public interest community crafted a middle way that would have made it easier for companies that put a hardwood laminate on compliant composite-wood products to comply with the EPA's requirements, he said.
“We think it is the best option and would encourage EPA to give it serious consideration,” Neltner said.
“But the reality is that until there is a rule, the residents outside of California who suffer the next Katrina-like disaster as well as those buying cabinets and furniture in the store today are not getting the protection Congress said was essential back in 2010. While many producers are conscientious, we have seen sufficient evidence that not all producers and importers are as careful as they need to be. EPA needs to act,” Neltner said.
-
Breaking Our Hunger For Extreme Oil
Aug 28, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rick Bass
As Americans, we reflexively want the biggest, the best and the greatest. We have a love affair with consumerism and hunger for more. This rings true in our hunger for oil development and is reflective of our pursuit of the riskiest and most reckless development in the lands and waters of America’s Arctic. But in this unconsidered quest, we are at risk instead of ending up with the hottest, the messiest, the most damaging. The Arctic tundra and ocean is no place for oil development. The oil industry has been saying for decades that it can do so “responsibly,” and we are guilty of hearing only what we want to hear rather than looking at the simple facts: it can’t.
Nor should it. The Arctic is too special to drill. Special to us as Americans, and special, up at the top of the world, as one of our planet’s great sources of wildlife and wilderness.
Fortunately, as Americans we also take pride in our national parks, our public lands and waters, and our sweeping landscapes. In short, we want it all. And by acknowledging the extent of our hunger and the momentum of our consumption, who, then, if not us, is better suited to draw a line and put these last few treasures beyond the oil industry’s reach?
The Arctic is wild, fragile, and home to some of our most iconic wildlife like polar bears and walrus. It is also home to the Inupiat and Gwich’in peoples who have lived their lives off the land and waters of the Arctic for time immemorial. This is a place too special to drill.
U.S. gasoline consumption is declining. But oil companies aren’t counting on selling Arctic Ocean oil domestically. Instead they hope to export that oil, and to further these ends they’re pushing Congress to lift the current crude oil export ban. It is this driving hunger, this mindless habit for more oil that overtakes logical thinking and the ability to make prudent decisions to protect our natural resources.
Despite all of the values of the Arctic and the devastating impacts of climate change, President Obama and his administration have given Shell Oil its final permits for exploratory drilling in the sensitive waters of our Arctic Ocean. The president has put the fate of the Arctic and our climate in the hands of mishap-laden Shell– the same company that ended a disastrous 2012 with its drilling rig, the Kulluk, bound for the trash heap after crashing it off the coast of Alaska’s Sitkalidak Island.
The Arctic Ocean is a harsh and chaotic environment with limited infrastructure – the nearest Coast Guard base is located more than 1,000 miles away. The poles are melting, parts of Alaska are falling into the sea and lives are being impacted, not only in Alaska but in the Lower 48 where we are feeling the impacts of extreme weather.
Quite frankly, as a geologist, I have probably discovered more oil and gas than I will ever use in my lifetime, and I can tell you that this kind of development is risky and irresponsible. We need to quell our hunger and make decisions that not only protect special places like the Arctic, but look forward towards mitigating the consequences of climate change. President Obama cannot have it both ways and needs to hear from us that the Arctic is special to us, if not to him.
We are the guardians of this pristine place and the wildlife that live there; we should not throw all of this away because of Shell Oil’s hunger. We must stand vigilant and demand that some places be taken off the drilling pad once and for all. Shell wants to use this summer as the launching pad for additional development – we should watch its every move until Shell is out of our Arctic Ocean for good.
-
Regulatory Obsession Means War On Oil And Gas
Aug 28, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kathleen Sgamma
With the announcement earlier this month of the Clean Power Plan, the war on coal is officially over. The casualties in Appalachia, Northwest Colorado and other mining areas across the country number in the thousands. Consumers’ electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket across the country, but President Obama can claim mission accomplished.
Where does the conquering army now turn? After all, those ideological foot soldiers for greater centralized command and control of the economy can’t just be de-mobilized and sent home.
The answer is to gear up for the war on oil and gas. The planning has been in the works for years. There have been some early skirmishes, but with one front quieted, it’s time to open up a new front in the war on fossil fuels. The methane rules for the oil and gas industry announced last week mark the latest assault.
Why shouldn’t the country want to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas? Well, the industry is doing just that, through technical innovation and compliance with state regulations. Natural gas well emissions are down 38 percent even as production has climbed 26 percent. Emissions from oil facilities are down 21 percent since 1990. Not content with that success, the federal government now targets regulation on production facilities, which represent a very small percentage of U.S. greenhouse gases, while ignoring larger sources elsewhere.
Methane, like carbon dioxide, is a gas found naturally in the atmosphere. It poses no direct health threat. Besides being emitted from other human activities, it seeps naturally from the ground. However, the oil and gas industry is the only one that captures methane in large quantities and puts it to beneficial use. When used for electricity generation, it provides significant clean air benefits.
The industry is investing billions in infrastructure to capture even more methane from oil wells. We’re working with states to reduce emissions while still producing the oil that gets Americans to school and work at an affordable price.
But the federal government isn’t content with that success because the war’s not about providing reliable, affordable energy, or even about environmental benefit. It’s really about making sources of fossil fuels more expensive and scarce.
Besides the four complex rules announced last week, the oil and gas industry has had to engage in over 200 regulatory processes over the last few years. As the complexity of the rules increases, the environmental benefits get progressively smaller. It’s really not about the environment though, because as EPA has obsessed with one industry, it has ignored regulatory obligations regarding others, although we in Colorado would be better off if EPA had ignored old mines also.
As the regulatory fixation on the oil and gas industry intensifies, it’s now time to call it a full-on war. But Americans will be less prosperous, safe, and healthy if the Administration wins these battles. Oil and natural gas provide reliable, affordable energy for electricity, transportation, manufacturing, and home heating while providing the feedstock for medicines, medical devices, smart phones, and anything else made with plastics. Nothing else does all that. The only alternatives favored by the Administration are intermittent electricity sources that must be backed up by natural gas and coal.
These ideological regulatory wars on fossil fuels are really an attack on Americans’ health, safety, and prosperity. The collateral damage will be to all Americans, particularly the poor and others struggling to feed their families, clothe their kids, and heat their homes. When regulation makes energy less reliable and more expensive, the costs are born by all.
-
Greens: Obama Climate Legacy At Risk Over Arctic Drilling
Aug 30, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama will visit Alaska on Tuesday in the midst of a fight with environmental groups, who arguing he is putting his climate legacy is at risk by allowing Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil in the Arctic waters off the state’s northern coast.
Obama is going to Alaska to inspect the effects of climate change on one of the nation’s most vulnerable ecosystems.In the final quarter of his presidency, Obama intends to use the dramatic backdrop to highlight his administration’s efforts to combat global warming — an issue he's looked to address through broad and controversial new regulations and international accords.
It’s a legacy Obama has done much to burnish in his second term, but one green groups argue will be jeopardized by the new Alaska drilling.
One group — Credo Action — has launched a website highlighting Obama’s trip, and warning it threatens to become his “Mission Accomplished” moment.
“President Obama is heading on a trip to Alaska to talk about climate change,” the group says on its website. “There is no clearer symbol of the self-defeating hypocrisy of his policies on energy and climate.”
Environmental groups hope to use Obama’s visit to pressure him over the drilling permit, something Obama himself moved to defend this weekend.
“I know there are Americans who are concerned about oil companies drilling in environmentally sensitive waters. Some are also concerned with my administration’s decision to approve Shell’s application to drill a well off the Alaskan coast, using leases they purchased before I took office,” Obama said in his weekly address.
“That’s precisely why my administration has worked to make sure that our oil exploration conducted under these leases is done at the highest standards possible, with requirements specifically tailored to the risks of drilling off Alaska.”
Greens have dismissed those arguments.
Drilling in the Arctic, they say, risks the potential for an oil spill where it would be difficult to clean up. They say that if climate change is to be avoided, the Arctic’s estimated 100 billion barrels of oil need to stay below ground.
“I think it could be a real deal-breaker, for not only his climate legacy but for his progressive legacy. It really is a people-versus-corporation situation,” Greenpeace USA spokeswoman Cassady Sharp said.
Greenpeace activists in the Pacific Northwest had led the charge against Shell’s plans, working to physically block key pieces of equipment from reaching the company’s drilling site in the Chukchi Sea. Sharp said Obama’s decision represents something of a betrayal to the green flank of his base.
“He’s leading kind of a double life, quite honestly, on climate, and I think it’s really going to come back to haunt him if he doesn’t put an end to Shell’s lease now,” she said.
Green groups have often been aligned with Obama in his second term.
His Clean Power Plan regulations for power plants are designed to slash carbon emissions from the American electricity sector, and he’s won praise from environmentalists for instituting higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and proposing rules cracking down on methane emissions from natural gas drilling sites.
But a major environmental disaster remains a key moment in the Obama era. During his second year in the Oval Office, he had to confront the 3.19 million-barrel Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf, and greens warn a similar spill in the Arctic would be exceedingly difficult to clean up — and would land firmly in Obama’s lap if it were to happen now.
“You could see where this president leaves office with a great environmental legacy that he’s earned, he’s done great things,” Athan Manuel, the director of lands protection at the Sierra Club, said.
“But if there’s a catastrophic spill in the Arctic Ocean, by Shell, on a rig that they permitted, that could completely undercut what should be a great environmental legacy.”
As Obama has addressed his energy policy, his administration often takes pains to note the role oil and gas play in a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Speaking to a clean energy summit on Monday, Obama noted the growth in American oil and gas production, but he framed it a step toward breaking “our addiction to fossil fuels and foreign oil” that has “perennially threatened our planet and our national security.”
“Now even as we accelerate this transition, our economy still has to rely on oil and gas,” Obama said in his weekly address.
“As long as that’s the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic production than on foreign imports, and we should demand the highest safety standards in the industry — our own.”
But his decision to give a company the go-ahead to explore for oil in the Arctic won’t help combat climate change, greens warn.
“You have to weigh what he’s doing on [regulations] with what he’s done on all-of-the-above and fracking and celebrating oil and gas exports,” Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said. “What he’s done is historic compared to all these other presidents, but given the problem we’re facing, it could be viewed historically as a missed opportunity.”
Activists have suggested ways out of the quandary for Obama. Shell’s drilling season ends in September, and the company will need to request a permit to explore again next summer. Manuel said Obama should deny that request.
They also hope Obama will override his own Interior Department and block new offshore drilling anywhere around the United States. Greens were incensed in January when the Interior Department proposed opening up swaths of the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling.
But despite what happens next, “it’s still a head-scratcher that this summer, drilling is going to happen in the Arctic Ocean,” Manuel said. “We’re certainly hoping Shell is more competent than we think they are and they don’t have a problem.”
-
Arctic Nations Joust Over North Pole
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David J. Lynch
Even as melting Arctic glaciers threaten to swamp shorelines, nations from Russia to the U.S. are betting that warming temperatures also will unlock trillions of dollars in new wealth.
“It is potentially the biggest strategic opportunity in America since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803,” said Scott Borgerson, a former Coast Guard officer and now an adviser at Catalyst Maritime.
President Barack Obama begins a three-day Alaska trip on Aug. 31 to underscore the urgency of combating climate change. His visit comes as the Arctic's potential for oil and gas production and shorter trade routes when the ice melts puts it at the crossroads of economics and geopolitics.
Already, the polar economic dawn includes server farms for companies such as Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., which enjoy lower cooling costs in the North. Possible future rewards include an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 1.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that await discovery in the Arctic, with the vast majority located offshore, according to a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report.
Any big financial payoff, however, is probably decades away. Falling commodity prices are discouraging exploration for Arctic oil and gas, while new trade routes across the top of the world are falling short of expectations.
“Arctic development is a lot slower than people thought,” says Malte Humpert, executive director of the Arctic Institute, a Washington-based policy group. “The hype is wearing off. It'll be many, many years before we see the development people have been talking about.”
That hasn't deterred Russia, which has been the most assertive, and theatrical, in advancing its claims. In 2007, a pair of Russian mini-subs descended more than two miles below the polar icecap to plant a titanium flagpole on the North Pole's seabed, a purely symbolic gesture.
Russia, which boasts half the Arctic coastline and depends on the region for roughly a fifth of its national economic output, is expanding its Northern Fleet, upgrading regional facilities and staging unannounced military exercises.
Arctic Seen as Important to Russia
“The Arctic's incredibly important to Russia,” said Heather Conley, a former State Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “They're basing their future economic development on it.”
Russia's not alone. Canada and Norway are preparing their militaries to defend territorial claims and forestall a 19th century-style resource grab. The cash-strapped U.S. Navy is concentrating for now on improving its ability to operate in the unforgiving north.
Preoccupied by the Islamic State and the rise of China, the U.S. has been an Arctic laggard. On April 24, however, the U.S. assumed the rotating two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council, the eight-nation body responsible for environmental, maritime and emergency preparedness policies (77 DEN A-17, 4/22/15).
The council, which operates by consensus, has agreed on procedures for dealing with oil spills and conducting maritime search and rescue despite rising tensions between Russia and other members over Ukraine.
The climatic thaw that's bringing the Arctic new prominence is unmistakable. Temperatures above the Arctic Circle are rising twice as fast as elsewhere, according to the Arctic Council.
Coast Guard Commandant Scans Area
As a young Coast Guard officer in July 1976, Robert Papp gazed from the town of Kotzebue and saw unbroken ice from the shore to the horizon. When he returned 34 years later as Coast Guard commandant, Admiral Papp scanned the sea again.
“There was no ice to be seen whatsoever,” Papp, who's retired and now the administration's special representative for the Arctic, told a Washington audience this month.
Nevertheless, the Arctic gold rush pales alongside the Klondike stampede that drew 100,000 prospectors north between 1896 and 1899.
Oil prices below $50 per barrel—less than half the price a year ago—discourage exploration efforts that incur high costs in the harsh Arctic climate.
One exception is Royal Dutch Shell Plc, The company is spending more than $1 billion annually on Arctic exploration. On Aug. 18, the company won U.S. approval to drill in Arctic waters for the first time since 2012 after its efforts were derailed by the grounding of a drilling rig (159 DEN A-3, 8/18/15).
“Shell is a bit of an outlier,” James Henderson, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, said in an e-mail. “Other companies have taken a much more cautious approach, for environmental and cost reasons, and this caution will only be further underlined in a low oil-price environment.”
Shipping Shortcut Seen
The increasingly ice-free Arctic seas have opened a shortcut between Europe and Asia for ships bearing cargoes such as diesel fuel and iron ore. The sailing distance from Rotterdam, the Netherlands, to Yokohama, Japan, via a northern route that hugs the Russian coastline is almost 40 percent shorter than the one through the Suez Canal, the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea.
Yet only 31 vessels transited that route last year, down from 71 the year before, according to the Northern Sea Route Information Office in Murmansk, Russia. Those dozens are dwarfed by the more than 17,000 ships that passed through Egypt's Suez Canal in 2014.
“We cannot compare the volumes of cargo transported through the Suez Canal to the volumes transported through the NSR,” Sergey Balmasov, head of the information office, said.
A second polar route—the fabled Northwest Passage sought for centuries by mariners such as Henry Hudson—has seen only a handful of vessels. Submerged ice formations that rise from the seabed and complex channels discourage traffic.
Despite the thaw, the northern route is still open only four-and-a-half months each year. Even then, the possibility of encountering ice makes it poorly suited for container cargo ships, which require precise scheduling. Shallow waters and a lack of navigational aids further complicate the journey.
While the route makes sense for trade between ports such as Yokohama and Rotterdam, many major export hubs in Vietnam and Indonesia are too far south, Sverre Bjorn Svenning, research director at ship brokers Fearnleys in Oslo, said.
“If you go south of Hong Kong or south of Rotterdam, it's cheaper on the traditional route,” he said.
Much of the activity on the Northern Sea Route involves the export of natural resources or voyages between Russian ports such as Murmansk and Vladivostok, Balmasov said.
Meager Traffic
In June, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev conceded that the Arctic route's traffic to date was “nothing to shout about.”
Still, some analysts said the U.S. hasn't done enough to position itself for the region's emerging opportunities. Borgerson, the former Coast Guard officer, said the Obama administration is beginning to recognize the Arctic's significance but needs to do much more.
The nearest U.S. deepwater port to the Arctic is in Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands, almost 1,000 miles from the Chukchi Sea that separates Alaska and Russia. Two of the Coast Guard's three polar icebreakers already are beyond their 30-year operational lifespans, even as Russia plans a trio of new nuclear-powered vessels by 2020.
New satellite communication networks, navigation aids, runways and modern maritime charts also are needed.
Political infighting in Washington that's prevented the U.S. from joining the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea means the U.S.—unlike every other Arctic nation—is unable to file territorial claims for the region's contested resources (147 DEN B-1, 7/31/15).
Russia submitted a revised claim to 1.2 million square kilometers (463 million square miles) of the Arctic continental shelf on Aug. 4, arguing that the territory is a natural continuation of the Russian continental shelf.
The UN rejected a similar submission in 2002, though Russia said it has conducted extensive research since then to gather supporting data.
Though not an Arctic nation, China also is hedging its bets by cozying up to Iceland. In 2013, the island nation became the first European country to recognize China as a market economy, and the two nations signed a free trade agreement.
-
Obama Taking Climate Message To The Arctic
Aug 28, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
President Obama is bringing his climate change message to the Arctic Circle, White House officials said Friday, previewing his trip to Alaska.
Obama’s trip next week is part of his “broader and longer-term effort” to speak about climate change and highlight how to prevent it, Obama’s senior climate adviser, Brian Deese, told reporters.“This trip to Alaska will be an important part of that ongoing effort," he continued.
“For the president, I think that this is going to be principally exciting because it’s going to give him the opportunity to meet with Alaskans and hear from them about what’s going on in their lives and how climate change is impacting them now.”
Obama will discuss the need for a United Nations deal on climate change during a conference of Arctic Circle nations on Monday. Deese said the speech will also touch on ways for local communities to track and address climate change.
Obama will also tour a national park and hike on a receding glacier near Seward, Alaska. On Wednesday, he’ll meet with residents and fishing workers in Dillingham, a town known for its commercial fishing operations, and then travel to the town of Kotzebue, in the Arctic Circle.
The prevailing mission of the trip, officials said, will be to assess the direct impact of climate change in an area — the Arctic — that is particularly sensitive to it. Obama pledged in a video earlier this month to use the trip to illustrate the urgency of climate change to the American public.
“This is an issue that is very here and now,” Deese said. “The issue of climate change is not an issue of the future tense in Alaska. It is affecting people’s live and their livelihoods in real ways.”
The trip is part of the Obama administration’s sharper focus on climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency released a landmark rule governing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in early August. This week, Obama issued a series of executive actions to boost renewable energy technology.
He spoke this week on climate change and energy issues in Las Vegas and New Orleans, where he marked the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
Later this year, a U.N. conference will meet to try to reach a deal aimed at preventing climate change.
“We view this [trip] as part of a broader and longer-term effort by the president and the administration to speak openly, honestly and frequently about how climate change is already affecting the lives of Americans and the strength and health of our economy, and also what we can do, individually and collectively, to address it,” Deese said.
-
Climate Change Urgency Part of Obama's Arctic Message
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
A key message of President Barack Obama's historic trip to the Alaskan Arctic will be that climate change is a “here and now” issue, “not an issue of the future tense,” one of his senior advisers said Aug. 28.
“We view this as part of a broader and longer term effort by the president and the administration to speak openly, honestly and frequently about how climate change is already affecting the lives of Americans and the strength and health of our economy and also what we can do individually and collectively to address it,” Brian Deese, an adviser to the president on climate and energy issues, said in a call with reporters.
Obama's multi-day trip, which starts Aug. 31, will include a speech at an international meeting of policy makers, scientists and businesses in Anchorage and a hike alongside melting glaciers in Seward.
The president also will meet with fishermen in Dillingham, known as the salmon capital of the world, to hear how climate change is affecting their industry and he will talk with residents of Kotzebue, north of the Arctic Circle, whose homes may need to be relocated due to coastal erosion fueled by rising seas, melting ice and thawing permafrost.
Deese hinted that the president “will have more to say” during his trip on the issue of relocation and how the federal government can help.
Seeing Change ‘First Hand.'
The trip, the first for a sitting American president, will cap a month's worth of climate-focused policy announcements and events, from the finalization of the nation's first carbon pollution controls for power plants to a stop in New Orleans highlighting efforts to rebuild in a more climate-resilient way post-Hurricane Katrina (167 DEN A-5, 8/28/15).
Resilience will again be a theme during the Anchorage meeting, organized by the State Department, Deese said. So will the importance of successfully reaching a global deal to fight climate change at a year-end United Nations summit in Paris, he said.
Climate change is hitting especially hard in the Arctic, which is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.
“The president will be visiting communities in Alaska that are experiencing first hand the impact of climate change, and for a variety of complicated scientific reasons, there is reason to think that the impacts of climate change are actually outsized in the northern latitudes,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said during his daily briefing Aug. 28.
Public Engagement to Be Priority
Throughout Obama's trip, Deese said public engagement will be a priority as the president looks for ways to share his experiences with the lower 48 states.
The State Department and the scientific community have been making their own public diplomacy push on the Arctic to coincide with the two-year U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council (79 DEN A-8, 4/24/15).
The Arctic—a region that few understand—is receiving more attention as the changing climate opens up new opportunities for shipping, fishing, tourism and oil and gas exploration.
-
Congress Lobbied on Clean Power Plan Until Very End
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Mere days before the Environmental Protection Agency completed work on the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's climate change agenda, House and Senate lawmakers were still pushing the agency for changes to the Clean Power Plan.
Months after the public comment period ended, congressional and state lawmakers were still steadily pressuring the EPA to modify or withdraw its approach to regulating carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's fleet of existing power plants, newly posted letters to the rulemaking docket show.
“We write to express deep concern with President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and commandeer the state regulatory process to impose unduly burdensome carbon emissions regulations at existing power plants,” Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake wrote July 8, less than a month before the EPA finalized the rule.
“The plan charges headlong toward dictating Arizona's resource portfolio and regulating beyond the fence line,” the senators continued. The regulation “treats Arizona so harshly that it would be compelled to maximize the use of all its building block ‘options' just to comply with the rule. This is hardly a choice.”
Finalized Aug. 3, the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets an individual carbon dioxide emissions target for each state's existing power plants but lets each state craft its own plan for meeting the goal. The EPA relaxed Arizona's emissions targets in the final version of the plan (150 DEN A-2, 8/5/15).
Concern Over Targets
Many other members of Congress also voiced concerns about their states' emissions targets in the weeks immediately preceding the final rule's release.
Mississippi lawmakers, for example, sent a letter stating they were “treated unfairly and disproportionately under the Clean Power Plan” and said the EPA's proposal lacked “appropriate factual analysis.”
“It is clear that EPA performed insufficient analysis on the rule's impact at the state level,” the July 21 letter states. “If Mississippi ratepayers cannot pay the costs of complying with the Clean Power Plan, their entire loan portfolio may be at risk. There is a strong federal interest that exists for rural electrification, and it should not be sacrificed for EPA's goals.”
Both Mississippi Republican senators—Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker—signed the letter along with its entire congressional delegation. That includes Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson.
Even at the late stage in the rulemaking process, lawmakers asked the EPA to come see firsthand the impacts its rule would have on individual states. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) asked the agency on July 13 to visit Northwest Colorado to hear directly from residents potentially affected by the regulation.
“Colorado is well positioned and on track to meet the emissions targets in the draft plan,” Bennet wrote. “It is also important to me that all voices are heard in this process and that regulations are workable in all of Colorado's communities.”
States Urge Plan Withdrawal
At least three state legislative bodies—the Georgia Senate, the Louisiana legislature and the Missouri House of Representatives—submitted resolutions urging the EPA to back off its rulemaking in the weeks preceding the Clean Power Plan's release.
“To avoid the potentially unnecessary and substantial expenditure of limited state and consumer resources, the members of this body urge Congress and the president to enact legislation to prohibit the Clean Power Plan from taking effect unless and until any and all legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan have been fully resolved and no appeals remain,” the May resolution from Georgia reads.
All three states urged the EPA to withdraw the regulation, and several urged their governors to pursue legal action to block the Clean Power Plan upon its completion.
Several governors wrote the agency in the weeks leading up to the rule's release to urge consideration of new information and resources.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R), an opponent of the regulation, urged the EPA in an April 28 letter to consider a new study on the impact of coal on his state's economy while noting “these emission guidelines are far-reaching and extend EPA's regulatory authority beyond its statutory authority.”
More Congressional Queries
Not all of the suggestions for how to improve the Clean Power Plan were negative. In late May, nine members of the Senate Democratic caucus asked the EPA to include energy-efficiency improvements made to water or wastewater infrastructure as positive components of state implementation plans.
“We believe that energy efficiency improvements for water and wastewater utilities may be an important component of many state implementation plans for” the Clean Power Plan, the letter led by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said.
Several members of Congress urged the agency to relax interim targets for states under the regulation and asked the EPA to change the baseline year for state emissions from 2012. In the final rule, the EPA attempted to address concerns about interim targets but left in place 2012 as the baseline year for emissions, albeit with a revised methodology. The final rule also pushed back the initial compliance deadline from 2020 to 2022 and will phase the emissions reductions in over time, allowing states to chart their own glide path toward compliance.
“I am perplexed that the [Clean Power Plan] seems to punish states like mine for their proactive efforts to transition early to cleaner energy sources,” Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) wrote in an April letter. “I urge the EPA to eliminate the interim targets and allow Minnesota's energy and environmental regulators to use existing well-established processes to design an appropriate glide path to the 2030 target.”
-
EPA's Clean Power Plan and Europe's Folly
Aug 31, 2015 | The Hill - Contributors
By Kathleen Hartnett White
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final Clean Power Plan (CPP) to reduce carbon dioxide pulls a colossally damaging and futile national energy plan out of a bureaucrat's hat. Who needs congressional authorization by law to dismember the engineering marvel that is our national electric power system? The EPA "architects" may have lots of letters behind their names, but their federal plan to overhaul the U.S. electric "machine," as the agency now calls it, belies fundamental physical and economic energy realities.
The EPA substantially upped the ante of the CPP in the final rule. The plan now aims for the full monty of green orthodoxy: a mandatory path toward a zero-carbon electric sector. At the proposal stage, the rule envisioned that more natural gas-fueled electric generation would replace most coal-generated electricity. The plan finalized in early August assumes static or declining use of natural gas. This major change from the initial proposal carries far higher risks and costs. The agency apparently has concluded that building new natural gas plants will delay achieving the ultimate goal of decarbonization, an objective casually asserted by President Obama.
Thus, the EPA now looks to supposed zero-carbon renewable energy sources to the fill the huge gap created by an EPA-induced retreat from natural gas. According to the rule language: "Emission reductions achieved through the use of new Natural Gas Combined Cycle Capacity (NGCC) require construction of additional [carbon dioxide] emitting generation capacity, a consequence that is inconsistent with the long term need to continue reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions beyond those achieved in this rule."
The role of natural gas as the "bridge" fuel to the future — long understood as the only viable lower-carbon alternative — may be quite short. To compensate for less natural gas in the generating mix, the EPA assumes that renewable electric generation in the U.S. will more than triple within the next 15 years. The EPA calculates renewable generation in 2012 — an anomalously high year because the federal subsidy was soon to expire — at approximately 218 million megawatt hours (MWh). By 2030, when the CPP is in full effect, the EPA expects renewables will generate 706 million MWh — an uncanny growth rate of 314 percent in just 15 years.
This wildly optimistic assumption may trump Germany's "Energy Revolution," considered the most radical rush to renewable energy in the world. The EPA's ambitious plans for renewable energy — predominantly through onshore wind facilities — would force the U.S. on a path similar to that legislated several years ago in Germany and Britain. The European schemes may have put lots of renewable energy on their electric grids but with grave, counterproductive impacts. Major European and U.S. media report on the European rush to renewables as "environmental lunacy" (The Economist) that has become a "fatal blunder with ugly consequences" (Die Zeit). With retail electric rates three times higher than the average U.S. rate, Germany's Der Spiegel writes that electricity has become a "luxury good" for low- and middle-income families. Yet, the European energy debacle is never meaningfully raised in discussions about renewables.
U.S. policymakers must scrutinize the results of Europe's misinformed gamble that intermittent renewable energy can handily replace coal and natural gas as mainstay fuels for electricity. Now that the EPA would force dependence on wind and solar generation at a massive scale, we need to absorb the lessons of Europe.
Germany, with Britain close behind, made gross miscalculations about the cost of renewable subsidies, the engineering complexity of integrating large volumes of uncontrollable renewable power, and the widening financial losses in renewable industries, conventional electrical utilities, key energy intensive industries, related investors, shareholders and consumers. As a result, everybody has lost.
Germany has learned that when the renewable share of total generation approaches a certain percentage, the risk of grid instability soars and necessitates completely redundant backup power. Furthermore, generation from coal or natural gas — the carbon sources — are capable of ramping up and down in an instant when wind speeds and cloud cover fluctuate. A German transmission operator reported that interventions to stabilize transmission rose from two in 2002 to more than 1,200 in 2013!
In the ultimate green irony, Germany is now subsidizing construction of 10 new (lignite) coal-fired power plants to ensure enough backup power. Wood has returned to the power scene because at least it is reliable, now accounting for around 40 percent of Germany's renewable portfolio. Yes, Germany is using more and more renewable energy, but the country's carbon dioxide emissions are rising and subsidies are ballooning. Former minister of the environment, Peter Altmaier, estimates the subsidies will approach a $1 trillion by 2022.
Modern systems of electric power have achieved phenomenal precision, efficiency and reliability through the integrated operations of conventional power plants, electric grids and transmission networks. Supply, affordability, reliability and safety have long been the controlling priorities. The carbon content of generating fuels, however, has now become the overarching priority for dispatch to the grid — a criterion at odds with previous priorities.
An accessible, affordable, reliable and versatile electric power system is a sine qua non of healthy, prosperous societies. Now that the EPA has marshalled coercive federal power to weaken our electric power supply, a candid review of Europe's folly is crucial.
-
EPA Refinery Standards Under White House Review
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The White House Office of Management and Budget is now reviewing a final Environmental Protection Agency rule that would revise national air toxics standards for petroleum refineries.
The agency submitted the final rule (RIN 2060-AQ75) for interagency review Aug. 27, just over one month before a Sept. 30 deadline for signing the regulation. That deadline is part of a consent decree with the Environmental Integrity Project and other environmental groups, which had sued the EPA for missing a statutory deadline for reviewing air toxics standards covering refineries.
The proposed version of the rule, issued in May 2014, would revise emissions control requirements for flares and other refinery processes, establish maximum achievable control technology standards for delayed coking units and require refinery operators to establish a fenceline monitoring network to monitor for benzene emissions (95 DEN A-1, 5/16/14).
The EPA estimated its proposed rule would reduce emissions of benzene, xylene and other hazardous pollutants by about 5,600 tons per year at an annual cost of about $42.4 million. However, the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers argued in comments that the EPA drastically underestimated the cost of the proposal, which they said could cost the industry more than $20 billion.
Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the API, told reporters during an Aug. 13 lunch that the EPA's proposed flaring provisions would require facilities to install many more flares, which he said would “seemingly not be consistent” with the agency's typical view of flaring.
Busy Air Agenda for EPA
The refinery rule is one of several major Clean Air Act regulations that the EPA must issue over the next five weeks.
The EPA, under a consent decree with the Sierra Club, must issue by Sept. 24 a final rule (RIN 2060-AP69) to set emissions standards covering brick and ceramics kilns. The agency submitted that final rule to OMB on Aug. 24 (165 DEN A-18, 8/26/15).
The agency also is under an Oct. 1 court-ordered deadline to issue a final decision on whether to revise or retain the current national ambient air quality standards for ozone, set in 2008 under President George W. Bush. That final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) has not yet been submitted to OMB for review, as of Aug. 28.
-
EPA Continues to Oppose MATS Suspension Request
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency still opposes an industry request that a federal appeals court suspend compliance obligations under the mercury and air toxics standards for a small Colorado power plant, the agency said in a court filing (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, opposition filed 8/28/15).
The EPA, in an opposition brief filed Aug. 28, said the emergency motion by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. should be denied because the agency has provided the utility with relief from immediate permit deadlines and because the utility still has not exhausted all possible administrative options to address its compliance concerns.
Tri-State, a Colorado-based wholesale electric power supplier, has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to grant an emergency order suspending compliance obligations for the Nucla Station power plant by Sept. 1, the date by which the company said it must decide whether to shut down the power plant or invest millions of dollars to meet hydrochloric acid emissions limits under the MATS rule (165 DEN A-3, 8/26/15).
Imminent Deadline Alleviated
Tri-State said it did “everything possible” to obtain an administrative remedy from the EPA and the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division but was unable to do so.
However, the EPA in its opposition said it has offered a “viable path forward” for the Nucla Station power plant under the agency's enforcement response policy. That policy provides flexibility for plants that are critical to reliability to operate through April 15, 2017, before compliance with MATS would be required, the EPA said.
The agency said Tri-State hasn't pursued relief under the enforcement response policy and has therefore failed to exhaust administrative relief. The EPA said it also extended all interim deadlines included in Nucla Station's operating permit, including the Sept. 1 deadline to make a decision on shutting down, after consulting with Colorado officials.
“Tri-State is now relieved of its immediate time constraints and has from now until April 2016 to pursue administrative relief consistent with EPA's enforcement response policy,” the agency said.
Tri-State acknowledged the enforcement response policy in its emergency motion, noting that it has previously attempted to obtain relief for the Nucla Station plant under the policy but was told by EPA officials that the utility didn't qualify.
The company asked for that suspension to be put in place until the EPA addresses a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held the agency was required to consider compliance costs when it decided it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions from power plants (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015)).
The agency has already told the D.C. Circuit that it intends to address the cost consideration necessitated under the Michigan v. EPA decision by spring 2016.
-
EPA, Colorado Reach Deal To Fight Utility's Bid For Emergency MACT Stay
Aug 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and Colorado air regulators have reached a deal that lifts a looming Sept. 1 interim deadline for a Western power company's facility in the state to decide whether to comply with a hydrogen chloride emission limit in the agency's utility air toxics rule, hoping to fend off the company's renewed bid for an appeals court to stay the compliance deadline.
Tri-State Generation has twice asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to issue an emergency stay of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limit compliance deadline, currently April 16, for its Nucla Station coal-fired power plant, a small facility in Colorado that seldom runs and the company says is uneconomic to retrofit with pollution controls. The company wants a stay until ongoing litigation over the broader rule is resolved.
The D.C. Circuit, which is weighing how to proceed with a Supreme Court remand of challenges to the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule, on Aug. 17 denied the first request for a stay. The court said Tri-State had not exhausted its administrative efforts to win a stay from EPA or Colorado.
Tri-State refiled Aug. 24, claiming its approaches to Colorado and EPA failed because both the state and agency had turned down the request to delay the Sept. 1 deadline for the company to decide whether to shutter the Nucla plant or comply with the HCl limit. The company wants the limit put on hold until EPA responds to a Supreme Court ruling that remanded the MACT to the D.C. Circuit after faulting the agency for not considering costs when deciding to craft the rule.
The high court's 5-4 ruling issued June 29 said EPA erred because it did not factor costs into its finding that a MACT for utilities was “appropriate and necessary,” even though the Clean Air Act is silent on consideration of costs. EPA said it weighed costs in setting the rule's air limits, but the justices said it should have been a factor in the finding. The high court then remanded the rule to the appellate court, which has yet to decide how to proceed.
EPA has told the court in a legal filing that it intends to craft a new appropriate and necessary finding that considers costs, and Tri-State says that the HCl compliance deadline should be put on hold pending that finding.
Compliance Extension
In an Aug. 28 response brief, however, the Justice Department (DOJ) on behalf of EPA says that the agency and state have agreed that Colorado will remove the Sept. 1 deadline, hence removing the “emergency” that Tri-State claims. As a result, DOJ argues that the D.C. Circuit should again reject the request for a stay.
DOJ says that Tri-State's pursuit of administrative relief from EPA and Colorado was “superficial,” and invites the company to apply through the proper procedure for an additional year within which to comply. If granted, this would give the plant until April 2017 to comply -- more time than an emergency stay would provide.
According to the response, “instead of approaching EPA with a well-supported application for an administrative order under EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy, Tri-State sent EPA a letter demanding relief in three days, thereby attempting to short-circuit the administrative process EPA requires under the Policy.”
Tri-State has failed to exhaust its options for administrative relief -- a vital condition for a stay -- DOJ says, adding, “Tri-State cannot show that it is entitled to a stay, given that its immediate permit deadlines have been extended.”
Nor has Tri-State satisfied other legal requirements for a stay, such as demonstrating imminent harm from MACT compliance, or showing that it is likely to win on the merits of its case, DOJ says. At this stage of proceedings, DOJ says the merits at issue concern whether the court should remand the rule without vacatur, as EPA requests.
DOJ adds that, “although the question of whether the Court should remand the Rule without vacatur has not been fully briefed by the parties, given the limited nature of the Supreme Court’s decision and EPA’s commitment to an ambitious schedule on remand, in addition to the public health and welfare benefits of keeping the Rule in effect during remand . . . Tri-State’s likelihood of success on the merits is far from certain.”
Groups' Opposition
Public health advocacy groups and a coalition of company representing “clean” low-emitting power sources also submitted Aug. 28 filings to the court opposing the stay request.
“Clean” utilities including Calpine Corp. and Exelon Corp. backing the MACT rule have warned that Tri-State's stay effort is a “Trojan Horse” that could open then floodgates for many other power plants to also seek to avoid compliance.
These utilities in their Aug. 28 response to Tri-State say, “Tri-State sent an email and a letter, but this preliminary effort can hardly be said to have 'exhausted' the administrative remedies available. Indeed, while Tri-State has requested relief from EPA pursuant to its Enforcement Response Policy, it has not complied with the clear requirements of that policy to support its request with facts. For example, Tri-State has not made the required demonstration that the Nucla plant is required to operate to maintain reliability.” Public health advocates led by the American Lung Association in their separate Aug. 28 response say that Tri-State intentionally did not ask Colorado to take the one step purely within its power, to alter the Sept. 1 deadline, instead asking the state to alter the April 16 compliance deadline -- a step the state cannot take without EPA's blessing. Hence, the company's claims of an emergency are false, the groups argue.
-
13 States Subject to Delay of Court's Water Ruling
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
States won't immediately feel the impact of the federal district court ruling that has blocked the clean water rule from taking effect in 13 states, according to associations representing state and interstate environment and water officials.
“I think we will slowly begin to see the confusion and questions develop—it will be more like a slow boil as landowners come in and request jurisdictional determinations,” Julia Anastasio, executive director and general counsel for the Association of Clean Water Administrators, told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 28.
Anastasio was discussing the Aug. 27 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, which issued a preliminary injunction against the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to block implementation of the clean water rule in the 13 states.
The rule (RIN 2040-AF30), which sought to clarify which waters and wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act, was to take effect nationwide Aug. 28 (80 Fed. Reg 37,054); (167 DEN A-1, 8/28/15).
Under the order issued by the court Aug. 27, the parties that obtained the preliminary injunction are not subject to the new rule and instead continue to be subject to the prior regulation. The 13 states subject to the injunction are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.”
Anastasio said the 2008 guidance would apply in those 13 states and that the new rule would apply in the remaining 37 states. Echoing the remarks made a day earlier by Ken Kopocis, EPA deputy assistant administrator for water, Anastasio said that “there will not be an immediate rush of jurisdictional determinations today but rather they will come over time as landowners request them.”
Alexandra Dunn, executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of the States, agreed with Anastasio that the “fractured implementation” of the final rule will result in confusion as “the Clean Water Act, and jurisdictional determinations under the Section 404 program, are made within states concerning specific water bodies and lands.”
“Now we have 13 state that for now will continue under the preexisting regulatory language and other states that will move ahead under the new rule,” Dunn told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 28.
Two Other Courts Dismissed Petitions
The White House also weighed in on the ruling. Press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the Obama administration “strongly disagrees” with the ruling. At the same time, he reminded the press that two other federal courts had dismissed petitions seeking a similar injunction against the rule.
“So, I would actually say if we're going to sort of look to federal judges for an endorsement here, that twice as many judges have actually agreed with the administration than have agreed with our opponents,” Earnest said.
Dunn viewed the split ruling and subsequent split implementation approach as an opportunity for states to see if the new rule actually advances “more consistent and more timely” jurisdictional determinations as promised, as compared to the prior rule.
“Only actual application of the rule to real world waters can prove out whether the rule works as the administration says it intended,” Dunn said.
In the meantime, Earnest said the Justice Department is weighing all its options.
Ellen Steen, American Farm Bureau Federation general counsel, said the EPA is taking a “legally incorrect” position by restricting the district court ruling to just the 13 petitioning states.
“But it isn't surprising the agency would take that position,” Steen told Bloomberg BNA late Aug. 27. “They take many incorrect positions. And unfortunately for farmers and others whose activities may be regulated, it's impossible to know what courts will do—as the last two days have demonstrated. So, even with this injunction, the rule will create a great deal of uncertainty—starting tomorrow.”
EPA Expected to Seek Stay
Vermont law professor Patrick Parenteau told Bloomberg BNA that he expects the EPA will seek an immediate stay from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the federal court in North Dakota.
In asking the Eighth Circuit to either stay or overturn the district court ruling, Parenteau said the EPA will make the case that the split implementation will cause confusion.
Parenteau disagreed with the district court judge who ruled that states would suffer “irreparable harm” from the implementation of the clean water rule.
Richard Stoll, partner in the Washington D.C. office of Foley and Lardner LLP, described the three rulings to Bloomberg BNA as an “irreparable, holy mess.”
Stoll blamed Congress, saying it left the reach of the Clean Water Act “notoriously unclear.” Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings rendered further confusion, and the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which together issued the waters of the U.S. rule, responded by coming up with a rule that even the corps found “legally defective.”
Vast Record Exists
Recently revealed corps memos had officials questioning whether the clean water rule was indeed legally defensible (144 DEN A-1, 7/28/15).
“So for today the Clean Water Act's reach is much more confined in 13 states, but who knows where we will be tomorrow or next month?” Stoll said. “This could take years to resolve, all because Congress left the Clean Water Act's reach so unclear and left the question of which court has jurisdiction to review so unclear.”
Steven Miano, a shareholder attorney with the Philadelphia-based Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, rued that the court based its decision on a very narrow record, while a vast record exists supporting the need for this rulemaking.
Miano also said it was most unfortunate that the court decided to not give any deference to the EPA at all. He said nowhere in the ruling does Judge Ralph Erickson ever discuss deference.
Erickson Appointed by Republican President
But Parenteau wasn't surprised, pointing out that Judge Erickson was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
Members of Congress weighed in with their reactions to the North Dakota ruling, with Republicans lauding the district court decision and most Democrats decrying it.
“In deciding to halt the implementation of the Clean Water Rule, the federal court has imperiled the waters that feed the drinking supplies of 1 in 3 Americans,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in an Aug. 28 statement.
In contrast, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, took the opportunity to criticize the EPA for failing in its core mission to protect the environment.
“While the agency has been frantically working to regulate the trickle of small streams in Americans' backyards, the EPA has failed at its core mission to protect the environment and is responsible for a toxic spill that polluted waterways impacting at least three different states,” Smith said Aug. 27. “The Waters of the U.S. rule should be halted until EPA can clean up its act and get its priorities in order.”
-
States Ask Judge To Declare EPA CWA Rule Injunction Applies Nationwide
Aug 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
A coalition of 13 states that convinced a federal district court judge to issue an injunction against EPA implementing its Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule from taking effect are urging the judge to declare that the ruling applies nationwide, after the agency said it would only heed the decision in the 13 states that sought the order.
The states claim that EPA's position -- to apply Bush-era CWA jurisdictional guidance in the 13 states but implement the Obama administration's rule in all other states -- “is contrary to, and in defiance of, the Court's Order” issuing the injunction, according to an Aug. 28 filing the states submitted to the district court judge.
“Indeed, the Agencies’ defiance of this Court’s Order controverts the Agencies’ repeated claims before this and other courts that the Rule is of 'nationwide' scope,” according to the coalition of states.
“Plaintiff States respectfully submit that the Agencies' [clean water rule] 'CWR Litigation Statement' is
contrary to, and in defiance of, the Court’s Order,” state attorneys general say in an Aug. 28 filing in States of North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southeastern District of North Dakota.
The states argue that they made it clear in their earlier successful request for an injunction that they were asking the judge to block the nationally applicable rule. The regulation aims to define the scope of the CWA to clear up confusion about the law's reach following Supreme Court rulings that created competing tests for jurisdiction.
Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson ruled Aug. 27 to block the Aug. 28 implementation of the rule, and he also strongly criticized the regulation for being “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeding the authority of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers that jointly crafted the policy, suggesting he will scrap the rule.
However EPA has said it intends to honor the ruling in only a “limited geographic region” and adhere to Bush-era CWA policy in those areas, while applying the newer rule's CWA policy everywhere else.
The 13 states in which EPA will comply with the judge's order are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico and North Dakota.
“In all other respects, the rule is effective on August 28,” EPA said in a statement on the ruling. “The Agencies are evaluating these orders and considering next steps in the litigation,” referencing the North Dakota ruling and also rulings from two other district courts that denied requests for injunctions to block the rule.
Pending Litigation
EPA has not said whether it will challenge the judge's injunction, and in a statement said that it is evaluating the order, along with orders denying injunction requests from federal district courts in Georgia and West Virginia, and “considering next steps in the litigation,” an agency spokeswoman tells Inside EPA.
The federal district courts in Georgia and West Virginia rejected separate requests from Georgia and a coal mining firm to stay the rule. Other litigation over the rule is pending in a host of federal district courts, and appellate suits over the rule have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow at the free-market think tank Heartland Institute, in an Aug. 28 statement criticized EPA for not applying the decision on the CWA rule -- also known as the waters of the United States (WOTUS) policy -- nationwide. “Ten additional suits challenging WOTUS have been filed by other states and entities appealing for stays until the courts have finally determined whether the rule is constitutional and sound as a matter of law. Unfortunately, federal courts in those jurisdictions have not granted stays,” he said.
“All the cases are being consolidated into a single case before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. One might hope with different rulings on the issue of a stay, the appeals court would fast-track a hearing to determine whether to stay the rule in all jurisdictions, but in the meantime, the federal government’s heavy boot will lie across the necks of most states across the country, controlling most of the land in the U.S. through the back door by its assertion of power over all waters of the U.S.,” Burnett argued. Similarly, the Heartland Institute's Vice President for External Relations James Taylor said, “The federal court acted wisely and properly imposing an injunction on EPA’s water grab. EPA is well aware that its proposed restrictions will ultimately be struck down by the courts. However, EPA also realizes that absent an upfront injunction on its proposal, individuals and businesses will have to comply with EPA’s illegal water grab while the issue plays out in the courts.”
-
Biogenic Carbon Framework Lacks Key Details, SAB Says
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
he Environmental Protection Agency's latest attempt at developing a methodology to account for the net greenhouse gas impact of facilities that burn biomass is an improvement over past efforts but still lacks crucial policy details, an advisory panel said.
The biogenic carbon accounting framework currently under review by the Science Advisory Board's Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel “lacked concreteness and was written in a way that was too flexible, with too many possibilities,” the panel said in a draft analysis posted to its website late Aug. 27.
The advisory panel recommended that the EPA adopt specific accounting policies and use those to develop its methodology.
“EPA needs to make some decisions and offer justification for those choices,” the advisory panel said.
The accounting framework, issued in 2014, will be used by state air pollution regulators as they develop greenhouse gas permits for facilities burning biomass. The accounting framework tracks changes in carbon dioxide and methane emissions from biomass feedstocks that occur as a result of growth and harvest; processing, transport and storage, as well as emissions from the decomposition of those stocks had they not been burned for energy.
The framework includes an equation state and federal permitting officials can use to calculate the net greenhouse gas impact of facilities burning biomass and highlights considerations such as choice of baseline, temporal scale, feedstock categories and spatial scale to be included in the analysis (224 DEN A-4, 11/20/14).
The advisory panel will next meet to discuss the accounting framework Sept. 9.
Improvements Made
Despite the critiques, the Science Advisory Board said the latest carbon accounting framework had been improved over past efforts. The panel praised the EPA's decision to incorporate biogenic accounting frameworks that represent variations between feedstocks and regions, an analysis of net biogenic carbon emissions of feedstocks if they had not been burned for energy and for taking steps to address “leakage” where efforts to reduce emissions from one sector drive additional emissions from another.
“We are pleased that the 2014 framework incorporated the SAB's prior advice and we believe this has advanced the analytical foundation for making determinations about net contribution of biogenic feedstocks to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” the Science Advisory Board said.
The EPA in 2011 first developed an accounting framework that calculated a facility's biogenic accounting factor, a numeric representation of how much of a facility's emissions is offset by using biomass-derived fuels. The Science Advisory Board raised significant concerns with the agency's approach, including its assumption that all biomass feedstocks are naturally carbon neutral.
The EPA had exempted facilities burning biomass from greenhouse gas permitting requirements while it worked on the carbon accounting framework. However, that exemption was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court recently denied forestry groups' petition to rehear arguments in that lawsuit (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1101, rehearing denied 7/24/15; 144 DEN A-14, 7/28/15).
-
EPA 'Consistency' Policy Might Lead To Uneven Clean Air Act Enforcement
Aug 28, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA's proposal to exclude adverse appellate court rulings on its Clean Air Act policies from applying nationwide might lead to uneven enforcement of the air law, some observers say, as the plan appears to give agency regions broad discretion to respond to such rulings absent any guidance from headquarters on a uniform response.
Despite the potential for varying applications of appellate decisions across the agency's 10 regions, one industry source says the issue "isn't going to come up that often, and frankly, hasn't come up a lot" previously given that challenges to Clean Air Act rules that apply nationally are required by statute to be brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- though it could affect policies other than national regulations.
For example, various circuits have heard suits over EPA-approved new source review (NSR) air permits that have led to different standards among some states about how to apply such permits. The plan to allow regions to ignore such rulings if they are not within the circuit that issues them could exacerbate these splits, sources say.
Nevertheless, a former agency source says "EPA has managed to get along without regional consistency rules in other programs," suggesting any problems from the new policy might not be widespread.
The proposal would only apply to Clean Air Act rulemakings and not affect how EPA responds to adverse court decisions on rules issued under statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA). For example, if the agency were to finalize the proposal it would have no effect on EPA's decision to narrow the scope of a federal district court's Aug. 27 injunction against its CWA jurisdiction rule solely to those states that filed the suit resulting in the injunction.
Under the Aug. 5 proposed air law rule EPA would not apply rulings by other circuit courts on locally or regionally applicable regulations -- such as the agency's regional offices' approvals of state implementation plans for complying with the greenhouse gas rules or other air standards, or Clean Air Act permitting decisions -- to states in other appellate circuits, even though this may result in inconsistent policy application.
The ruling would revise EPA's years-old "regional consistency" policy mandating uniform application of Clean Air Act requirements across all its regions, and sources say it could lead to some inconsistency.
For example, an appellate ruling on the stringency of an air permit would apply only to those states that fall within the applicable circuit, potentially resulting in inconsistent application within and across regions as EPA regions covering several states, because some agency regions split across more than one circuit.
One legal source points to language in EPA's proposal that appears to give each of the 10 regions "wide latitude" to fashion policy absent concurrence from agency Headquarters as being "of particular concern" from an enforcement perspective because "uniformity, even-handedness, and fairness are of paramount importance."
EPA acknowledges this outcome, saying its proposal "would be authorizing a region to act inconsistently with nationwide policy or interpretation to the extent that the region must do so in order to act consistently with a decision issued by a federal court that has direct jurisdiction over the region's action."
The rule responds to a D.C. Circuit decision in May 2014 in National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) v. EPA, which vacated an EPA memo that sought to narrow the reach of an adverse 6th Circuit air permitting ruling to only the states in that circuit. The D.C. Circuit said the memo was at odds with the regional consistency policy as it would have led to differing permit requirements among all 50 states.
Uniformity Exceptions
EPA's proposal would revise its consistency policy to acknowledge exceptions to the uniformity approach, saying that "only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions of the D.C. Circuit Court that arise from challenges to 'nationally applicable regulations . . . or final action' would apply uniformly nationwide."
The proposal would also revise the rules to clarify that EPA headquarters would not need to issue new "mechanisms," which could potentially include guidance, to address federal court decisions from challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions, as they would not be deemed to affect states in other circuits.
A third revision proposes to revise the rules to "clarify that EPA regional offices' employees would not need to seek headquarters office concurrence to act inconsistently with national policy or interpretation if such action is required by a federal court decision arising from challenges to 'locally or regionally applicable' actions."
The legal source says this provision is "particularly troubling" because regulated entities engaged in the same activities could be treated fundamentally differently from both a permitting and enforcement perspective based solely on which state, appellate circuit, and EPA region they are located within.
The provision could potentially cause burdens on entities based on where they operate, that source says, adding, "Absent a concurrence role for headquarters EPA runs enhances the risk of treating the members of the regulated community unevenly," the source says, adding that headquarters should retain some role to ensure against the scenario where two facilities engaging in the same activities but in other states are regulated differently.
The industry source says any problems with differing applications of appellate rulings are unlikely to be frequent, given the D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction over rules that have national scope.
But that source adds that there is some potential for the Clean Air Act NSR program and other permitting decisions to be affected by the regional consistency rulemaking, given that "some NSR cases get circuit splits" and EPA often makes field determinations in those programs to resolve any permitting questions.
'Aggregation' Litigation
The proposal stems from lengthy litigation over a Clean Air Act policy on "aggregating," or combining, emissions for permitting purposes. Aggregation is a major issue for industry, especially the natural gas sector, because if combined emissions from several sources exceed a certain threshold, they could be subject to stricter permit controls.
The 6th Circuit in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA scrapped the agency's "functional interrelatedness" test for determining "adjacency" -- a central factor for when regulators aggregate emissions sources for the purposes of triggering more stringent Title V and other permit requirements under the air law. The court said that adjacency must be determined based solely on physical proximity, which is less likely to trigger aggregation.
Following the ruling, EPA issued a December 2012 memo that sought to limit the ruling to those states covered by the 6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, which cover parts of EPA Regions 4 and 5. The memo said that in all other EPA regions and states the stricter adjacency test would remain in place.
But industry sued over the memo in the D.C. Circuit, and the court in a May 2014 ruling in the NEDA/CAP litigation sided with industry, finding the memo is a final agency action because it creates a new enforcement regime that unfairly advantages permitted facilities in the 6th Circuit.
"The D.C. Circuit Court presented three options that the EPA could pursue in response to an adverse decision: revise the underlying regulation; appeal the decision; or revise the Regional Consistency regulations. By making the revisions proposed in this rulemaking, the EPA is following one of the options suggested by the court," the agency says in the proposal, offering its justifications for why it chose the consistency rule revision option. In response to the litigation, EPA also Aug. 18 floated a draft aggregation rule which includes two options for when sources are "adjacent" and therefore aggregated as a single source: a controversial "functional interrelatedness" factor that would lead to more aggregation than current policy, and a more conservative "physical proximity" test that the agency says is its preferred option.
-
EPA Urges D.C. Circuit Not to Rehear Waste Lawsuit
Aug 31, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not to rehear challenges to a regulation exempting certain nonhazardous secondary materials from stricter air pollution requirements when burned in solid waste incinerators or boilers (Eco Servs. Operations LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir. , No. 11-1189, response filed 8/27/15). In an Aug. 27 response, the EPA said “there is no basis for rehearing en banc because the panel's decision is entirely consistent with existing case law and does not present an issue of exceptional importance.” In a June 3 unpublished opinion, the court found the EPA properly used its discretion in promulgating the 2013 regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (78 Fed. Reg. 9112). Environmental advocates asked for a rehearing en banc on July 20 (140 DEN A-5, 7/22/15). The EPA's response is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Eco_Services_Operations_LLC_v_EPA_Docket_No_1101189_DC_Cir_May_23/1.
-
How to Improve Air Quality at Your Children’s School
Aug 28, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
A healthy, resting adult takes 12 to 20 breaths per minute.
Children, from school-age to preschoolers and younger, take many more. It’s normal for a toddler to take twice as many breaths as an adult, and an infant may take a full three times more.
Every breath matters, especially for their developing lungs, and approximately 75 million Americans live in communities with unhealthy air. In addition, the EPA reports that half of the 115,000 schools in the United States have problems linked to indoor air quality. So it’s not too surprising that 6.8 million American children have asthma, and the number is climbing.
How can parents and teachers help children breathe easier? Here’s what you need to know about air quality in and around schools and what you can do to improve it.
Indoors
Almost 55 million students and 7 million staff members spend their days in school facilities across the country. If you and your loved ones are among them, you might be inhaling a host of indoor pollutants including building materials (such as asbestos), cleaning products, radon and even mold. In addition to triggering health problems such as headaches and asthma, indoor air quality can affect children’s academic performance and increase absenteeism.
The good news: Administrators, teachers and families have tools to improve indoor air quality (IAQ) in schools. Many are similar to those you may use in your own home.
EPA offers an IAQ Tools for Schools Action Kit that provides guidelines, best practices, sample policies and a sample management plan. Areas to focus on include improving HVAC systems, maintaining filters and carbon monoxide detectors, controlling moisture and mold, managing pests and carefully selecting cleaning and building materials.
EPA does not require schools to monitor their air quality, submit information about it or use these voluntary tools, so it’s important for parents to speak up. Share the action kit with your school and talk to decision makers about what they’re doing to improve indoor air quality. Here are additional recommendations for parents, particularly those whose children suffer from asthma.
Some states and school districts have specific policies or regulations to improve indoor air quality. To learn about your area, visit the Environmental Law Institute’s database of state indoor air quality laws or contact your state’s IAQ or IAQ Tools for Schools coordinator.
Outdoors
When students step outside school buildings for fresh air, that air might not be so fresh. Pollutants such as smoke, road dust, car exhaust and factory emissions can all add up to poor quality air. And some days are better than others.
How can you tell the difference? Check your local Air Quality Index. The daily index reports how polluted your air is and what it means for your health. Among other pollutants, the index tests for ground-level ozone (smog) and airborne particles, the two most hazardous types of air pollution.
Children are particularly sensitive to air pollution, so when air quality is rated orange – “unhealthy for sensitive groups” – it might be wise to limit prolonged periods outdoors and avoid heavy exertion, including outdoor sports.
Some school districts adjust recess and outdoor play based on air quality. Ask your children’s school about its air quality policies and share the EPA’s Air Quality Index Toolkit for Teachers. To find your Air Quality Index, search by zip code on AirNow.com, sign up for email alerts on EnviroFlash.info or check local weather reports on television or in the newspaper.
Do you see buses idling outside your children’s school? Diesel exhaust can damage lungs, irritate eyes and throats and trigger asthma or allergies, so check out these tips and tools for reducing bus idling. These resources are designed not just for schools, but for students, parents and community members as well. Talk to your kids about why air quality matters and encourage them to get involved, too.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested