Preview Newsletter
ACC Sept 2
-
(ACC Mentioned) Eric Cantor: Poster Boy of the Beltway GOP Crapweasels
Sep 1, 2015 | Real Clear Politics
By Michelle Malkin
Ooouuuch. My sides are still aching after last week's comical announcement by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush that he had snagged the coveted endorsement of notorious electoral reject Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader kicked to the curb by disgusted voters in Virginia's 2014 primary election. -
(ACC Mentioned) Scale Back Nanomaterial Reporting Proposals, Industry Tells EPA
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Chemical industry groups have urged the US EPA to revise and reissue its proposed reporting and recordkeeping rule for nanomaterials. If adopted, the proposals would require companies to submit a one-off report on the specific chemical identity of their nanomaterials – both new and existing; production volumes; manufacturing methods... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Use Rule Will Be Proposed on LED Chips
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A direct final significant new use rule for a chemical used in light-emitting diode (LED) chips will be withdrawn by the Environmental Protection Agency, which will reissue it as a proposed rule, according to a notice set for Sept. 2 publication. The agency is withdrawing the substituted cyclosiloxane rule it issued June 5... -
NGOs, State Agencies Back EPA's Nano Reporting Proposals
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
NGOs, and some state agencies, have backed the US EPA's proposed reporting and recordkeeping rule for nanomaterials (CW 26 March 2015), but said it could be strengthened. Their views contrast with industry groups, which say the current definitions and scope are ambiguous. -
Risk Levels Proposed for Two Perfluorinated Chemicals
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is proposing its first minimal risk levels for two well-studied perfluorinated chemicals. Minimal risk levels, or MRLs, are the agency's estimate of daily human exposures to a hazardous substance at or below which that substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful... -
D.C. Proposes Rule for Foam Food Container Ban
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The District of Columbia's environment agency Aug. 31 announced a proposed regulation to implement its prohibition of containers made of expanded polystyrene foam in retail food services. The ban, due to take effect Jan. 1, 2016, and applying to almost all retailer-provided foam food and beverage containers... -
New Easy-To-Clean Membrane Separates Oil From Water
Sep 1, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Prachi Patel
A steel mesh with a novel self-cleaning coating can separate oil and water, easily lifting oil from an oil-water mixture and leaving the water behind (ACS Nano 2015, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b03791). If the coated mesh gets contaminated with oil, it can be simply rinsed off with water and reused. -
McCarthy Says Animas River Spill Raises Big Issue
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel and Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency is looking forward to meeting its obligations in cleaning up the mine waste spill into the Animas River in Colorado, the head of the agency told state environmental officials Sept. 1. “The good news is we're seeing concentrations of contaminants that have returned to pre-event... -
Federal Study Finds Benefits in Lifting Oil Export Ban
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Lifting restrictions on the export of U.S. crude oil could lead to increased domestic production, higher wellhead prices for producers and lower gasoline prices, according to a government report released Sept. 1. The report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) also said relaxing the 40-year-old ban on most crude oil exports would... -
Government Report Finds Economic Benefits of Oil Exports
Sep 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Christian Berthelsen
A long-awaited study by the Obama administration concludes that lifting the nation’s four-decade ban on oil exports wouldn’t increase U.S. gasoline prices and could even help lower them, raising the stakes in the debate about whether to lift or relax the ban. -
EIA: Lifting Crude Export Ban Would Not Increase Gasoline Prices
Sep 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Gasoline prices would not increase if the 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports is lifted, the Energy Information Administration says. In a long-awaited analysis on the effects of lifting the ban, EIA today concluded that gasoline and other petroleum product prices in the U.S. "would be either unchanged or slightly... -
EPA Expects to Publish Clean Power Plan in October
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency anticipates publishing its final Clean Power Plan in the Federal Register by “late October,” it told a federal appellate court (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277, response filed 8/31/15). The EPA told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Aug. 31 that early challenges... -
The EPA’s Next Big Economic Chokehold
Sep 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tony Cox
This fall the Environmental Protection Agency plans to take its next grand regulatory step, following the announcement of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan over the summer. The agency is likely to introduce stringent new standards for ground-level ozone, arguing that a lower allowable level of ozone—an important component of smog -
Michigan to Comply With Clean Power Plan
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Michigan plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan and intends to make its initial submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by the Sept. 6, 2016, deadline, even as the attorney general pursues legal challenges to the rule, state officials said. -
Michigan’s GOP Governor Will Comply With Power Plant Rules
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced Tuesday that his state will comply with President Obama’s new rules for power plant emissions. Snyder’s decision runs counter to those of other Republican governors around the country, several of whom have either ruled out complying with the Clean Power Plan... -
Court Again Denies MATS Exemption for Power Plant
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appeals court denied for the second time a Colorado power plant's bid to suspend its air toxics control requirements, but once again the judges left open the option of future litigation if the plant cannot receive administrative relief from the Environmental Protection Agency... -
Economic Lifeline Could Keep Struggling Coal Plants Open
Sep 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Scott Waldman
There could be a second act for struggling power plants — if they're deemed necessary to keep the electrical grid reliable. Environmental and community groups cheered the news last week that NRG Energy would shutter two coal-burning power plants, Huntley and Dunkirk, which are both in the Buffalo area. -
Environmentalists Narrow Challenge to Coal Ash Rule
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Environmental organizations have narrowed the grounds of their legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's coal ash rule (RIN 2050-AE81), according to recent filings in a federal appeals court (Clean Water Action v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 15-01228, opposition to motion to intervene 8/20/15). -
Ex-EPA Official Consulting For BP On Ozone Rule
Sep 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A onetime adviser to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is now working with BP to urge EPA to better account for background ozone levels as it sets its final standard. Bob Sussman, now a principal at his own consulting firm, attended a July 13 meeting on the ozone standard with executives from BP America and acting EPA air chief... -
Rapid Arctic Change Adds Pressure to Climate Talks
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio and Dean Scott
President Barack Obama's historic trip to the rapidly warming Alaskan Arctic could help put pressure on international negotiators to successfully ink a global deal to fight climate change at a year-end summit in Paris. Urgency has been a theme of the three-day trip: The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. -
EPA, States Spar Over Reach Of Judge's CWA Jurisdiction Rule Injunction
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA and a coalition of 13 states are sparring over whether a federal district court judge's order blocking the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule should apply nationwide or only in the 13 states, with EPA arguing national application would unfairly prejudge other suits over the rule but the states saying it is the only fair outcome. -
EPA Pledges To Finalize CERCLA Hardrock Mining Financial Rules In 2017
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA in a proposed legal agreement with environmental groups has pledged to finalize Superfund financial assurance rules for the hardrock mining industry by the end of 2017 and for the first time is committing to deadlines for deciding whether it will propose similar rules for other industry sectors.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Eric Cantor: Poster Boy of the Beltway GOP Crapweasels
Sep 1, 2015 | Real Clear Politics
By Michelle Malkin
Ooouuuch. My sides are still aching after last week's comical announcement by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush that he had snagged the coveted endorsement of notorious electoral reject Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader kicked to the curb by disgusted voters in Virginia's 2014 primary election.
Newsflash to GOP elites: Getting Cantor's support is not like landing a prized marlin. It's like hooking one of those hideous bottom-feeding blobfish named the world's ugliest creature.
Inside the Beltway, The Washington Post reported, "Cantor remains well-liked and respected in the Virginia business community and among the Republican donor class in the commonwealth."
But outside the Beltway, the failed Republican revolutionary-turned-Wall Street influence-peddler is a snortle-inducing spectacle on both sides of the political aisle.
In Cantor's endorsement statement Thursday, he praised Bush as a "true conservative leader" who "can re-energize our nation and recapture our greatness." That's empty babble coming from the epitome of an out-of-touch, self-aggrandizing, revolving-door ruling class.
BushCantor share the same smug condescension toward Americans who believe in strict immigration enforcement and putting American workers first. Cantor fecklessly lied to voters during the campaign season about his position(s). He showered his district with anti-illegal immigration flyers that fraudulently portrayed him as standing up to President Obama on amnesty. But on Capitol Hill, he championed the DREAM Act for illegal alien students, huge H-1B visa increases to quench Big Tech's appetite for cheap foreign tech workers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce/AFL-CIO's collaboration on massive immigration expansions.
While Cantor lip-synced to the limited-government tea party message, he boogied in backrooms with his pork-barrel pals. He assailed Obama's bloated stimulus and then celebrated the high-speed rail boondoggles in his state funded by it. As a celebrated "young gun" on the right, Cantor preached fiscal responsibility, while blowing nearly $170,000 on fancy steakhouse dinners across the country in his last year in office.
Like Bush (and Gang of Eight cheerleader Sen. Marco Rubio), Cantor was the beneficiary of -- and water carrier for -- generous Silicon Valley and Big Business contributors. Cantor's biggest donors included New York financial conglomerates the Blackstone Group ($65,500) and Goldman Sachs ($26,000), and California tech company Oracle ($25,000).
By contrast, the biggest donors to Cantor's successful challenger, libertarian economics professor Dave Brat, were Virginia couple Gerry and Karen Baugh of Baugh Auto Body ($5,400), Michigan writer and artist Louis McAlpin ($5,200), and retired Virginia couple Martha and Kenneth Schwenzer ($5,200).
One outside group, the American Chemistry Council, spent a whopping $300,000 on soft-money ads to protect Cantor -- an amount that exceeded Brat's entire campaign funding.
Likewise, while Bush fashions himself a champion of the American worker, he pompously pushes the Gang of Eight amnesty as the only "adult" plan in the room. While he poses as a champion of American parents, students and "school choice," he trashes activist moms and zealously crusades for failed Fed Ed rackets and data-mining schemes masquerading as "higher standards." And while he stumps for the ordinary American's "right to rise" through conservative principles, he has parlayed his political career into a multimillion-dollar collection basket from liberal special interests and corporate cronies who fund his Common Core advocacy -- including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the GE Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Intel and Pearson Education.
BushCantor seem to think everyone else will suffer from Sudden Election Amnesia Syndrome and grant big-spending, open-borders Republicans blanket amnesty for their betrayals. But what Brat told voters in Virginia about Cantor goes for voters nationwide as Bush flounders. "Eric Cantor doesn't represent you," Brat bluntly warned. "He represents large corporations seeking a never-ending supply of cheap foreign labor. He doesn't care about how this will affect your livelihood, your schools, your tax bills or your kids' chances of finding a job."
The disgraced seven-term representative from Virginia's affluent 7th district, who turned his back on grassroots constituents in favor of cashing in on power, now promises to work closely with Bush "as they chart a course to the White House."
Here's to Cantor's success in helping Jeb navigate his same path to loserdom. Bon voyage!
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scale Back Nanomaterial Reporting Proposals, Industry Tells EPA
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Chemical industry groups have urged the US EPA to revise and reissue its proposed reporting and recordkeeping rule for nanomaterials.
If adopted, the proposals would require companies to submit a one-off report on the specific chemical identity of their nanomaterials – both new and existing; production volumes; manufacturing methods; exposure information; and available data on environmental and health effects (CW 26 March 2015).
But the groups say, unless the proposals are changed, they will confuse and unduly burden small business and downstream product formulators.
Without “additional clarity and refinement of scope and key concepts”, the proposed rule will create “a confusing, subjective, arbitrary and uneven regulatory playing field” for regulated entities, said the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The ACC suggested a two-step information collection process: firstly, manufacturers of nanomaterials of a “prescribed set” of chemicals would report volumes and uses in commerce; following this, the EPA would have the power to call for “more detailed, targeted technical data on materials, for which the agency identifies potential for concern”.
The current proposed approach “of collecting so much information at once”, it said, in many cases “can be characterised as duplicative, unnecessary reporting”.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) called for an exception to be made for small businesses that “retains a volume-based exemption and links the dollar thresholds to sales of nanomaterials”.
It also wants removed the proposal to make non-confidential information, reported under the proposed rule, available on the ChemView database.
“At the very least,” it said, “ChemView should be configured, in such a way, that people are not able to search it by whether a chemical has had data reported in response to this rule.”
Citing “controversies” associated with nanotechnology, Socma said, the “ability to generate such a list would be inconsistent with EPA's assurance that the rule is not intended to conclude that nanoscale materials as a class … necessarily give rise to, or are likely to cause harm to people or the environment.”
The EPA should revise the rule to ensure that reporting is required only by manufacturers and importers and not processors, the Consumer Specialty Products Association said.
“At this time, manufacturers and importers are the best source for the more detailed information on nanoscale substances.” The expansive scope of reporting requirements, it added, will unduly burden industry, especially processors, and will put formulated products containing nanomaterials at a competitive disadvantage.
The agency should exclude nanosilver products from the reporting requirements, said the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group.
In the case of non-pesticidal uses of nanosilver, it said, the information the EPA is seeking, under the rule, is already collected under other federal statues, such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as well as by agencies like the FDA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Therefore, “submitting such information again offers no value and imposes significant burdens on industry.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Use Rule Will Be Proposed on LED Chips
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A direct final significant new use rule for a chemical used in light-emitting diode (LED) chips will be withdrawn by the Environmental Protection Agency, which will reissue it as a proposed rule, according to a notice set for Sept. 2 publication. The agency is withdrawing the substituted cyclosiloxane rule it issued June 5 as part of a regulatory package covering 22 chemicals (108 DEN A-5, 6/5/15); 80 Fed. Reg. 32,003). In comments submitted July 6, however, the American Chemistry Council's Silicones Environmental, Health, and Safety Center said it would submit adverse comments about the substituted cyclosiloxane SNUR. The center did not describe its objections. In keeping with its standard practice, the agency is withdrawing the direct final rule to reissue it as a proposal. The prepublication version of EPA's withdrawal notice is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-21800.pdf.
-
NGOs, State Agencies Back EPA's Nano Reporting Proposals
Sep 2, 2015 | Chemical Watch
NGOs, and some state agencies, have backed the US EPA's proposed reporting and recordkeeping rule for nanomaterials (CW 26 March 2015), but said it could be strengthened.
Their views contrast with industry groups, which say the current definitions and scope are ambiguous. Other provisions would cause undue burden to small businesses and downstream product formulators, they say (CW 2 September 2015).
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) said the ambiguity, caused by the EPA's lack of clear definition of ”unique, novel and trace amounts”, could be exploited by manufacturers to avoid reporting.
“This ambiguity and the unclear nature of determining properties, based on size, could be eliminated by removing these three terms from the definition.” EWG also wants the agency to include nanomaterials, covered by future Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) exercises.
The Natural Resources Defense Council urged the EPA to remove the exclusion from reporting requirements, for nanoclays, zinc oxide and substances manufactured at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface. The EPA's reasoning is that these materials are either well-characterised or present little exposure potential, the group said.
But, “at this time, nanomaterials are too novel and poorly understood for the EPA to be confident in making such sweeping exclusions.” Exposure data, and information collected from the proposed rule, should not be shielded by confidential business information claims, it said.
A reporting rule only collects information and provides no authority for a formal review of the substances, said the Environmental Defense Fund. “We strongly urge the EPA to reconsider, using its authority to promulgate a significant new use rule, which would provide it with the ability to review, and place any needed condition on new manufacturing and processing of nanomaterials.”
The agency should also issue a rule, requiring periodic reporting of substances manufactured at the nanoscale, modelled on the CDR rule.
The Washington State Department of Ecology called for period reporting requirements for nanomaterials. It is unclear how the agency will determine whether future actions are needed, it said. “The proposed rule should include a clear pathway and procedures for such determinations, based on the data provided.”
The California Department of Public Health said the EPA should define all nanosized chemicals as “new chemical substances”. The department cited the deficiency in data, saying information reported under the proposed rule should be merged with other databases.
A public database that is searchable and up-to-date with curated data, it said, "could bring the public health community closer to dealing with the emerging technology”.
-
Risk Levels Proposed for Two Perfluorinated Chemicals
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is proposing its first minimal risk levels for two well-studied perfluorinated chemicals.
Minimal risk levels, or MRLs, are the agency's estimate of daily human exposures to a hazardous substance at or below which that substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful noncancerous effects.
The ATSDR is proposing intermediate-duration MRLs of 0.0003 milligram perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg/day) and 0.0002 mg/kg/day for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The proposed MRLs are included in a draft, updated toxicological profile of 13 perfluorinated chemicals that the agency will announce in a notice set for Sept. 2 publication.
The ATSDR will accept comments on its new draft through Nov. 30.
The ATSDR's toxicological profiles, including the minimal risk levels, or MRLs, aren't regulatory documents or standards. The profiles provide information for health officials, health care providers and occupational health specialists who may work with exposed individuals or groups.
The updated profile includes far more information from occupational and other epidemiological studies of people exposed to perfluoroalkyls than did the last draft profile, which the agency released for public comment in 2009 (141 DEN A-4, 7/27/09).
Data were insufficient to propose MRLs in 2009, the agency said at that time.
The intermediate-duration MRLs the agency hasn't proposed are designed for exposures that last more than 14 days and less than a year.
Chemical Nominated by Sweden in Profile
Among the 13 perfluoroalkyl chemicals discussed in ATSDR's profile is perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), which Sweden has nominated as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) under the European Union's REACH regulation (169 DEN A-5, 9/1/15).
REACH stands for the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals regulation ((EC) No 1907/2006).
Certain perfluoroalkyls are under global scrutiny, because human and wildlife exposure to the oil-, heat- and water-resistant chemicals is widespread and because some studies have suggested they may be associated with problems, including high blood pressure and liver damage.
“It is difficult to interpret the results of these studies, because they are not consistent,” ATSDR's draft profile said.
Regulators and health officials are focusing on what are called long-chain perfluoroalkyls due to the higher number of carbon atoms in the chemicals. The higher number causes a longer chain compared to the short-chain alternatives that are replacing them.
Effect of Carbon Chain Length
“It appears that, in general, the shorter the carbon-chain length, the faster the perfluoroalkyl leaves the body,” ATSDR's draft profile said.
There is, however, little public information about shorter-chain perfluoroalkyls, the profile said.
-
D.C. Proposes Rule for Foam Food Container Ban
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The District of Columbia's environment agency Aug. 31 announced a proposed regulation to implement its prohibition of containers made of expanded polystyrene foam in retail food services. The ban, due to take effect Jan. 1, 2016, and applying to almost all retailer-provided foam food and beverage containers, is required by a 2014 statute enacted by the D.C. Council, the capital city's legislature (137 DEN A-18, 7/17/14). Exceptions are provided for foam containers used to package raw meat, fish, poultry or seafood for off-premises consumption, as well for foam food containers packaged outside the District for retail sale. Comments on the proposed rule may be filed with the District's Department of Energy and the Environment on or before Sept. 30. They may be e-mailed to DOEE.FoamRegulations@dc.gov, with the subject line stating, “DOEE Foam Proposed Rule Comment.” The proposed regulation can be viewed at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=sdoe-9zxkj6.
-
New Easy-To-Clean Membrane Separates Oil From Water
Sep 1, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Prachi Patel
A steel mesh with a novel self-cleaning coating can separate oil and water, easily lifting oil from an oil-water mixture and leaving the water behind (ACS Nano 2015, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b03791). If the coated mesh gets contaminated with oil, it can be simply rinsed off with water and reused. The new membrane promises to be a practical technology to clean up oil spills, its developers say.
Emergency responders typically fight oil spills by burning, using booms and skimmers, or releasing chemical dispersants. Oil-water separation membranes would be faster and more effective. Although various types of membranes have been studied, they aren’t practical yet, mainly because they are easily contaminated with oil, which renders them useless, says Xiaokong Liu, a polymer chemistry and surface science researcher at the University of South Australia.
Oil-water separation membranes fall into two categories. One is a water-repelling membrane that selectively lets oil seep through. Over time, this type gets clogged with oil and loses its effectiveness. The other, more common type of membrane loves water and repels oil when it is already wet, preventing oil from crossing. This type has to be completely wetted before it can be used. If oil touches it when it’s dry or partially dry—which happens easily in an oil-spill environment—it loses its oil-water separation ability and must be cleaned using detergents.
Liu and his colleagues made a membrane of the second hydrophilic type, but with a key improvement that makes it more practical: Theirs can be quickly cleaned of oil contamination simply by water rinsing, which also means it doesn’t need to be wetted carefully before use.
The researchers prepared the membranes by coating a stainless steel mesh with a phosphorylcholine-based polymer. Phosphorylcholine is a functional group at the surface of cells, linked to the ends of the biomolecules that form cell membranes. It is composed of a negatively charged phosphate group linked to a positively charged choline group. Such dual-charged, yet neutral, molecules, called zwitterions, have an exceptionally strong affinity for water. In biological systems, phosphorylcholine creates a water barrier layer at a cell’s outer surface that keeps the surface from getting fouled.
This strong affinity for water gives the phosphorylcholine-based polymer coating its self-cleaning ability because, unlike most other surfaces, it will expel any oil stuck to it when it comes in contact with water. [+]Enlarge CLEAN COATING A zwitterionic phosphorylcholine polymer, which has a negatively charged phosphate group and a positively charged choline group, has a strong affinity for water. Attached to a stainless steel mesh (left), the polymer makes the mesh a self-cleaning, oil-water separation membrane. Credit: ACS Nano
To demonstrate the coating’s oil-spill cleaning ability, the researchers covered the bottom of a plastic tube with the membrane. They immersed the tube into a beaker of water with a 4-cm-thick petroleum layer floating on top. As they lower the tube, petroleum flows through the membrane, filling the tube. Although the mesh gets fouled when passing through the petroleum, once it hits the water, the oil comes off, and water soaks the membrane. That restores the membrane’s oil repellency, keeping the oil inside the tube but allowing water to pass. As the researchers lift the tube, a 4-cm-high oil column is lifted out.
The team was also able to lift crude oil from a crude oil-seawater mixture, showcasing the feasibility of oil-spill cleanup. Other than oil spill remediation, Liu says that the membrane could be used to treat oily wastewater and as a protective barrier in industrial sewer outlets to avoid oil discharge. In all cases, after use, the membrane could be rinsed clean with just water.
Rong Yang of Massachusetts Institute of Technology says that this is the first time self-cleaning zwitterionic coatings have been tested to lift oil from oil-water mixtures. Her concern is that the complicated synthesis method used to link the zwitterionic polymers to the steel surface might not be economically viable for large-scale production. Nonetheless, says Zhiguang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, “this work has solved an imperative challenge in the field of oil-water separation.”
-
McCarthy Says Animas River Spill Raises Big Issue
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel and Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency is looking forward to meeting its obligations in cleaning up the mine waste spill into the Animas River in Colorado, the head of the agency told state environmental officials Sept. 1.
“The good news is we're seeing concentrations of contaminants that have returned to pre-event levels,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said at a meeting of the Environmental Council of the States in Newport, R.I.
The spill, which occurred Aug. 5 when EPA contractors tried to enter the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colo., released 3 million of gallons of toxic mining waste water into the Animas River (167 DEN A-14, 8/28/15).
“It's a large issue that states need to look at,” she told Bloomberg BNA following her remarks to the group.
Environmental Justice
McCarthy said the agency is making it a priority to focus on climate change as it relates to environmental justice. “It's an opportunity for us to recognize that poor communities are overburdened by pollution and the impacts of climate change,” she said.
“They have every right to the environmental protections and benefits that everyone else has,” she said.
The EPA is trying to bring other federal agencies, like Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation, to the table to consider environmental justice issues and how communities can better be served, she said. “When you get them in a room they have a lot of resources,” she said of federal agencies.
Climate change is a priority for the EPA, and here, too, impoverished communities tend to be hit harder, McCarthy said.
“There's no greater risk to our economy and stability than climate change,” she said. Poorer communities already face inundation with storm water, something that would be expected to worsen with climate change, she said.
“It's important for people to stand up for people who don't have political power,’’ Gerald Wagner, head of the environmental program for the Blackfeet Nation, told Bloomberg BNA in an interview Sept. 1 following the EPA administrator's remarks.
House Wants Details on Spill
In a related development, two House committees are requesting information by Sept. 14 on how and why the mine waste spill in Colorado occurred and on how the EPA responded.
The committees are seeking information from Environmental Restoration LLC, the EPA contractor that worked on the Gold King Mine, and from the agency itself, according to two Aug. 31 letters addressed to McCarthy and Dennis Greaney, president of the restoration company.
The letters were signed by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chair of the House Natural Resources Committee; and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), chair of the House Oversight Subcommittee on the Interior.
These requests are part of the committees' investigation into the spill triggered by EPA investigators who were working to remediate and investigate contamination at the abandoned mine site.
Specifically, the committees are requesting EPA documents on the agency's work at Gold King Mine, its vetting and hiring of contractors, its decision making and oversight related to the abandoned mine, its response to and cleanup of the spill, its designation of any mines near the Animas River as a Superfund site, its consideration of construction of a waste treatment plant, its actions' legality related to the Gold King Mine and any other related agency investigation documents.
The committee also called for the contractor to submit information and communications related to its work on the mine, its own licenses and qualifications and review of other abandoned mines located nearby.
-
Federal Study Finds Benefits in Lifting Oil Export Ban
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Lifting restrictions on the export of U.S. crude oil could lead to increased domestic production, higher wellhead prices for producers and lower gasoline prices, according to a government report released Sept. 1.
The report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) also said relaxing the 40-year-old ban on most crude oil exports would decrease refiner margins resulting in lower profits.
No difference in projections with and without the crude oil export ban in place occurs if U.S. oil production remains below 10.6 million barrels per day, the analysis found.
“The effects of eliminating restrictions on crude oil exports depend on the level of future domestic production, which itself depends on the characterization of resources and technology as well as future crude oil prices,” the EIA said in the report, “Effects of Removing Restrictions on U.S. Crude Oil Exports.”
If domestic production in 2025 exceeds 13.6 million barrels a day, the EIA projects that lifting the crude oil trade prohibition would lead to additional production of between 400,000 barrels per day and 500,000 barrels per day and that Brent oil prices would decrease, which in turn would result in “slightly lower petroleum product prices for U.S. consumers.”
The trade prohibition, which was put in place in 1975 in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, prohibits the export of U.S. crude oil overseas, with exceptions for crude from Alaska and California and crude destined for Canada.
Opponents of the ban include oil producers such as ConocoPhillips Co. and Marathon Oil Corp., while independent refiners such as Alon USA, PBF Energy Inc., and Philadelphia Energy Solutions argue it should be left in place.
‘Final Confirmation.'
While the study corresponds with previous studies that have reported lifting the ban would decrease U.S. gasoline prices, opponents of the ban seized on the fact that the analysis released Sept. 1 was conducted by the EIA, the Energy Department's independent statistical arm.
“The EIA report provides a final, non-partisan confirmation that ‘70s-era trade restrictions on U.S. oil are bad for American consumers,” Kyle Isakower, the American Petroleum Institute's vice president of regulatory and economic policy, said in a statement. “America is now a global energy superpower, and we shouldn't have trade policies that make it harder for the U.S. to compete with other suppliers, like Iran and Russia.”
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said the report “clearly points the way for Congress and the administration to act.”
“The year of study is over,” Murkowski said in a statement.
Opponents Cite Flaws
Legislation (no bill number assigned) that would lift the trade prohibition was approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in a 12-10 vote in July .
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has said House leadership has promised a vote this fall on legislation (H.R. 702) he introduced to lift the ban.
Meanwhile, groups opposed to lifting the ban, such as Consumers & Refiners United for Domestic Energy (CRUDE), called the EIA study flawed.
“The EIA report is riddled with caveats and assumptions. It is a thin reed upon which to justify repealing our 40-year-old energy independence law,” Jay Hauck, CRUDE's executive director, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
-
Government Report Finds Economic Benefits of Oil Exports
Sep 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Christian Berthelsen
A long-awaited study by the Obama administration concludes that lifting the nation’s four-decade ban on oil exports wouldn’t increase U.S. gasoline prices and could even help lower them, raising the stakes in the debate about whether to lift or relax the ban.
The report, issued Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an analytic division of the Energy Department, is expected to provide momentum to efforts by the oil industry and its supporters in Congress eager to end the ban and tap higher-priced foreign buyers amid surging global supplies and a market rout that has dragged prices to six-year lows.
The effort has gained traction in Washington this year, though such a change still faces hurdles before Congress ultimately would adopt it.
More than a dozen oil companies—including Continental Resources Inc., ConocoPhillips Co. and Marathon Oil Corp. —have been lobbying Congress for the past year, arguing that allowing unfettered domestic oil exports would eliminate market distortions, streamline U.S. petroleum production and stimulate the domestic economy.
In response to industry requests, the administration already has taken some initial incremental steps in the past year to ease the growing glut of domestically produced oil, which is pumping at a rate of 9.3 million barrels a day—more than 70% higher than five years ago—with commercial crude stockpiles near all-time highs.
Last year, the Commerce Department began allowing companies to export ultralight oil after minimal processing, and last month it said it would begin allowing companies to exchange U.S. crude with Mexico.
Now, all the available incremental moves have been made, leaving the debate about ending the ban the last remaining impediment to unfettered trade.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the EIA’s report and referred to previous statements made by officials saying the administration’s position on oil exports hasn’t changed.
After initial hesitancy amid concern about higher gasoline prices, congressional Republicans increasingly are backing oil exports, led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio).
In recent weeks, key Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, have expressed a willingness to support some oil exports as part of a broader legislative package. It isn’t clear, however, what kind of deal that would be and whether it would have the support of both the oil industry and Democrats.
In a statement Tuesday, Sen. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) said the move would “threaten our national security and make us more dependent on OPEC and unstable foreign regions.”
“It will harm key sectors of our economy such as the U.S. refining industry. And it could lead to higher energy prices for American consumers,” he said.
The Republican-controlled House is expected to vote on legislation to lift the ban as soon as this month, with the Senate expected to consider it next year.
“The EIA has done a good and thorough job of studying this issue from multiple perspectives, and illustrates what other independent studies have found regarding consumer prices and the economic benefits to our country,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.), who supports allowing the exports, in response to Tuesday’s report. “We will continue working to lift the crude oil export ban because it will be good for our country.”
The report’s conclusions were widely expected by the industry and policy makers after the EIA conducted a series of other studies leading up to the final one during the past year, laying the groundwork for the findings. The agency launched the study in response to requests from members of Congress, including Ms. Murkowski, and the administration.
“Petroleum prices in the United States, including gasoline prices, would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude-oil exports,” the report said.
The report, whose findings are laden with caveats, said price impacts ultimately were dependent on the complex intricacies of the oil market. Still, it concluded that removal of export restrictions would encourage oil companies to produce more crude as they attempt to capture higher overseas prices, which in turn would press global prices lower if foreign producers don’t reduce their own output.
Because most U.S. retail gasoline is priced based on the global benchmark rather than the national one, it could lower prices at home, the study concludes. Global crude traded more than $4 higher than U.S. prices on Tuesday, settling at $49.56 a barrel.
With the increased use of fracking and other drilling technologies, the U.S. is no longer the energy-dependent nation it had been. The share of petroleum consumed in the U.S. from foreign sources, 27%, is at its lowest level since 1985, according to the EIA.
Exporting oil was unthinkable to most energy industry experts until the last couple of years, and support on Capitol Hill has been growing more quickly this year than many would have thought given the bipartisan concern about how exporting oil could, or could be perceived to, raise gas prices—a politically fraught election issue.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) said at an energy conference last week in Denver that he would support oil exports as part of a broader energy and climate deal.
Mr. Bennet is among the senators who are being targeted by Allied Progress, a recently launched consumer-rights organization, in a new advertising campaign that began Tuesday.
The ads, which also target senators in Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and New Mexico, urge lawmakers to oppose efforts to repeal the ban, arguing that such a move would raise gasoline prices and send U.S. jobs overseas. The organization targeted Mr. Menendez in an ad campaign last week.
-
EIA: Lifting Crude Export Ban Would Not Increase Gasoline Prices
Sep 2, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Gasoline prices would not increase if the 40-year-old ban on U.S. crude oil exports is lifted, the Energy Information Administration says.
In a long-awaited analysis on the effects of lifting the ban, EIA today concluded that gasoline and other petroleum product prices in the U.S. "would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports." EIA builds on earlier analysis, including an October 2014 EIA report noting that U.S. petroleum prices are tied much more to the international Brent oil benchmark than the U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude price.
"Although unrestricted exports of U.S. crude oil would either leave global crude prices unchanged or result in a small price reduction compared to parallel cases that maintain current restrictions on crude oil exports, other factors affecting global supply and demand will largely determine whether global crude prices remain close to their current level," EIA said today.
EIA analyzed several scenarios based on varying levels of future oil production.
The report comes as House Republicans are pushing for a vote this fall on lifting the ban. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski is leading a charge to do so in the Senate.
-
EPA Expects to Publish Clean Power Plan in October
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency anticipates publishing its final Clean Power Plan in the Federal Register by “late October,” it told a federal appellate court (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1277, response filed 8/31/15).
The EPA told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Aug. 31 that early challenges to the Clean Power Plan should be rejected, because the states suing over the rule cannot demonstrate any significant harms they will incur by waiting for the rule to be published in the Federal Register, which typically opens the window for litigation.
The EPA also argued the court lacks the authority under the All Writs Act to block implementation of the carbon dioxide standards for power plants until the rule is formally published.
“That statutory window for review should open in less than two months, but it has not opened yet,” the EPA said in its response opposing an extraordinary writ sought by 15 states. “The court consequently lacks jurisdiction and the writ is unavailable. Indeed, were this court to issue an extraordinary writ here, it would be breaking new ground and opening the floodgates for pre-publication challenges to any number of future agency actions.”
Fifteen states, led by West Virginia, have asked the court to issue an extraordinary writ under the All Writs Act to block implementation of the Clean Power Plan, arguing the rule is illegal on its face. Those challenges have been consolidated with a similar lawsuit brought by Peabody Energy Corp. that also seeks to block the rule before it is published in the Federal Register (165 DEN A-1, 8/26/15).
Released Aug. 3, the final Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets unique carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternatively mass-based targets for the power sector in each state. State regulators will be tasked with developing plans to meet the targets, which will be phased in through 2030.
Michigan officials said the state will develop a plan to comply with the carbon dioxide standards despite Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) joining the lawsuit to block the rule (see related story).
Court Previously Rejected Writ
The EPA said the states are seeking the same action the D.C. Circuit has already rejected as premature. The court previously denied states and industry groups' petition to block the Clean Power Plan as premature, because the final rule had not yet been issued by the EPA (In re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 3302015 BL 180996, D.C. Cir., 2015).
“Petitioners’ arguments here are also squarely foreclosed by Murray,” the EPA said. “In Murray, the court reasoned that the All Writs Act does not give it authority to ‘jump into the fray' in advance of the routine judicial review afforded by these authorities where doing so would allow the All Writs Act ‘to be used as a substitute' for normal appellate review... or would authorize courts ‘to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate.' ”
Sean Donahue, an attorney at Donahue & Goldberg LLP representing environmental groups supporting the EPA in the litigation, told Bloomberg BNA that the states' lawsuit seeks to circumvent the Clean Air Act's procedures for challenging air pollution regulations. Environmental groups filed their own response opposing the states' request Aug. 31.
“It's really important there be a clear rule for when you can sue,” Donahue said.
-
The EPA’s Next Big Economic Chokehold
Sep 1, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Tony Cox
This fall the Environmental Protection Agency plans to take its next grand regulatory step, following the announcement of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan over the summer. The agency is likely to introduce stringent new standards for ground-level ozone, arguing that a lower allowable level of ozone—an important component of smog—will reduce asthma in the U.S., among other claimed health benefits. Yet the EPA ignores decades of data and studies, some under the agency’s auspices, that reveal no detectable causal relation between past reductions in ozone and better public health, including reductions in asthma cases.
The new regulation may be the most expensive ever for the U.S. economy—even worse than the Clean Power Plan’s effect on coal-fired power plants. Some studies, such as one published in August by National Economic Research Associates, estimate implementation costs of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the short run, and trillions of dollars over the next two decades, as well as millions of lost jobs. Why would it be so costly? Because attacking ozone involves almost every facet of the economy—as the EPA notes, “automobiles, trucks, buses, factories, power plants” and “consumer products” all contribute to ground-level ozone.
So it is important to be clear about what health benefits, if any, such costly reductions in ambient, or surrounding, ozone levels are known to cause.
No one disputes that while average levels of ozone have fallen significantly across the nation since 2000, the number of asthma sufferers has increased. Yet advocacy and lobbying groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association claim that cutting ozone in the future will reduce asthma. The Obama White House blames increasing numbers of asthma patients on climate change.
The National Institutes of Health lists neither climate change nor ozone as a cause of asthma. It notes that the exact causes are unknown, with excessive hygiene in childhood (and resulting underdeveloped immune systems) being investigated as a hypothesis. Assertions that ambient ozone causes asthma have been criticized by many state air-quality regulators, including those in Texas, Ohio, Indiana and South Dakota.
Undaunted, the EPA forges on. Its website notes “an association between ozone levels in the outdoor air and increased hospital admissions for respiratory causes, such as asthma.” The website ignores how much of this statistical association is explained by noncausal factors, such as seasonal variations in weather and pollen that affect both asthma and ambient-ozone levels.
Nonetheless, as urged by environmental lobbyists, the Obama administration is now considering cutting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone even further than it had originally planned, from a concentration of 75 parts per billion to as low as 60 parts per billion. In many locations, that is close to the naturally occurring background levels of ozone—which is formed when sunlight falls on nitrogen oxides (naturally formed by bacteria, volcanos and lightning), together with volatile organic compounds emitted by trees and other natural sources.
The EPA’s prediction that reducing the man-made ozone level will reduce human suffering from asthma and other respiratory diseases is largely based on new and unproven statistical modeling that, in the EPA’s own words “is convenient for fitting the model, but is not accurate.” The conclusions from this inaccurate modeling are supported by the subjective opinions of experts from institutions that have received tens of millions of dollars of EPA funding (although their researchers routinely declare no conflict of interest or competing financial interests). These experts maintain, along with ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Frank Pallone, that reducing ozone will “save lives” and cause improvements in public health in the future—even if it hasn’t done so in the past.
Fortunately, there is abundant historical data on ozone levels and asthma levels in U.S. cities and counties over the past 20 years, many of which have made great strides in reducing ambient levels of ozone by complying with existing regulations. It is easy to check whether adverse outcomes, from mortality rates to asthma rates, have decreased more where ozone levels have been reduced more. They have not. Even relatively large reductions in ozone, by 20% or more, have not been found to cause detectable reductions in deaths and illnesses from cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, contrary to the EPA’s model-based predictions.
How the EPA and society proceed when confronted with a divergence between optimistic model-based predictions and practical reality will say much about what role, if any, we collectively want science and objective analysis to play in shaping crucial environmental and public-health regulations.
The cynical use of asthma patients to promote a pro-regulation political agenda that won’t actually help them undermines the credibility of regulatory science and damages the public interest.
-
Michigan to Comply With Clean Power Plan
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nora Macaluso
Michigan plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan and intends to make its initial submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by the Sept. 6, 2016, deadline, even as the attorney general pursues legal challenges to the rule, state officials said.
“The best way to protect Michigan is to develop a state plan that reflects Michigan's priorities of adaptability, affordability, reliability and protection of the environment,” Gov. Rick Snyder (R) said in a Sept. 1 statement. “We need to seize the opportunity to make Michigan's energy decisions in Lansing, not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”
“With robust stakeholder engagement, Michigan can identify a reasonable path to compliance,” Valerie Brader, director of the Michigan Agency for Energy, told reporters on a Sept. 1 conference call. “We will also initiate administrative rules that will make the plan enforceable at submission of the final plan on Sept. 6, 2018, assuming deadlines in the final rule hold.”
Brader and Department of Environmental Quality Director Dan Wyant said they believe developing a plan that meets Michigan's needs is preferable to taking no action and having the federal government impose a plan on the state.
Brader and Wyant said that while the final version of the rule provides more time for the state to comply, they were disappointed that the state won't get credit for early action it's taken to reduce carbon emissions.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), released Aug. 3, sets state-specific carbon dioxide emissions rates or alternate mass-based limits for the power sector in each state. States are charged with developing their own compliance plan to implement the rule.
Attorney General Pursues Lawsuit
The state's intention to comply with the rule reveals a disconnect between Snyder and Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R), who has said he doesn't believe the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to implement the power plant rule.
Schuette has joined 14 other states in asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block implementation of the Clean Power Plan, arguing the rule is illegal on its face.
The EPA has argued that the lawsuit is premature because the final Clean Power Plan isn't expected to be published in the Federal Register until late October (In re West Virginia, D.C. Cir. , No. 15-1277, response filed 8/31/15; see related story).
“The attorney general is pursuing that case in his individual capacity,” Brader said. “At this time, there are no plans for the state to join the current challenges.”
The attorney general is elected separately from the governor in Michigan and works from a separate office within the executive branch of state government.
Schuette “remains hopeful about the plan the governor's office is developing,” Andrea Bitely, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said in a Sept. 1 e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
“The attorney general remains committed to stopping overregulation and excessive mandates from the EPA,” Bitely said.
Stakeholder Engagement Process Planned
Meanwhile, Michigan air officials are already making plans to meet with stakeholder groups to develop the states' compliance plan.
“Legislative participation will also be critical to our plan development,” Brader said, because implementing the compliance plan requires the state to go through a lengthy administrative rules process.
Snyder has set a goal of generating 30 percent to 40 percent of energy from waste reduction and renewable energy by 2025, and “nothing in this plan makes that look like a bad idea,” Brader said (50 DEN A-10, 3/16/15).
“We were encouraged that waste reduction remains a compliance alternative in the final rule,” she said. The state, she added, will be “looking for more guidance from EPA” about how much credit it can get for waste-reduction efforts undertaken before the rule is final.
The officials wouldn't comment on the possibility of carbon trading as a means to meet the plan's goals. “I don't want to prejudge” any options before reviewing modeling data and getting stakeholder input, Wyant said.
“We do think we're going to need basically every second they've given us,” Brader said. However, she said, “we do believe we can meet those deadlines, and we intend to do so.”
Utilities Said on Board
The state's two big utilities, DTE Energy Co. and Consumers Energy Co., said they support the decision. Both are in the process of retiring much of their coal-fired generation, with plans to replace the capacity through renewables, gas-fired plants and efficiency measures.
“The Clean Power Plan confirms the need to begin this transition now,” DTE said in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA.
“The Clean Power Plan may have some aspects that will be reviewed in the courts,” DTE said. “But Michigan should begin developing a state implementation plan now, while retaining the flexibility to respond to any changes that occur before the 2018 deadline.”
“We look forward to learning more from the Michigan Agency for Energy about the stakeholder process and helping to shape a Michigan-first policy that ensures reliability and affordability for residents and businesses,” Consumers Energy said in a separate statement.
The Michigan Municipal Electric Association also was supportive.
“With carbon controls for utilities on the way, Michigan public power would much rather work with our Michigan regulators to establish the best approach, because Michigan DEQ understands the value of public power and has always worked with us to find reasonable, flexible, best-cost approaches to clean air improvements,” Jim Weeks, executive director of the association, said in a Sept. 1 statement.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
Michigan’s GOP Governor Will Comply With Power Plant Rules
Sep 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced Tuesday that his state will comply with President Obama’s new rules for power plant emissions.
Snyder’s decision runs counter to those of other Republican governors around the country, several of whom have either ruled out complying with the Clean Power Plan or suggested they will refuse to do so.The announcement also conflicts with action taken by with Michigan's Republican attorney general, Bill Schuette, who is among the state attorneys general suing to block the regulations.
The federal government will create compliance plans for states that don’t formulate their own. In a statement, Snyder said he would rather the state write a plan than turn it over to federal regulators.
"The best way to protect Michigan is to develop a state plan that reflects Michigan's priorities of adaptability, affordability, reliability and protection of the environment," Snyder said, according to Michigan Live.
"We need to seize the opportunity to make Michigan's energy decisions in Lansing, not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.," he said.
Valerie Brader, director of the Michigan Agency for Energy, distanced Snyder and his administration from Schuette's lawsuit.
"The Attorney General is pursuing that case in his independent capacity. ... There are no plans for the state to join the current challenges," she said.
A spokeswoman for Schuette said the attorney general is “hopeful about the plan the governor’s office is developing,” but also that he “remains committed to stopping overregulation and excessive mandates from the EPA.”
The Environmental Protection Agency has told Michigan to cut its emissions by 39 percent under the final rule, which the Obama administration announced in early August.
Michigan officials, including Brader and the director of the environmental quality department, echoed Snyder and said the state is better equipped than the feds to write a plan meeting that target.
States are required to submit their compliance plans by next September.
-
Court Again Denies MATS Exemption for Power Plant
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
A federal appeals court denied for the second time a Colorado power plant's bid to suspend its air toxics control requirements, but once again the judges left open the option of future litigation if the plant cannot receive administrative relief from the Environmental Protection Agency (White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, order issued 9/1/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 1 denied an emergency motion sought by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. that would have suspended mercury and air toxics standards compliance obligations for the small Nucla Station power plant.
The court said the measure was unnecessary, because the EPA has already extended the Colorado power plant's compliance deadlines. But the judges did say the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association could seek a similar court order if the EPA denies its petition for administrative relief.
Millions in Investments
Tri-State, a Colorado-based wholesale electric power supplier, had asked the D.C. 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.
The EPA had opposed that request, because it had 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 (168 DEN A-5, 8/31/15).
This is the second time the court has denied Tri-State's motion to suspend compliance obligations for the Nucla power plant. The court on Aug. 17 denied the prior request, because Nucla had not yet exhausted all of the administrative options available through the EPA or Colorado authorities (159 DEN A-1, 8/18/15).
-
Economic Lifeline Could Keep Struggling Coal Plants Open
Sep 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Scott Waldman
There could be a second act for struggling power plants — if they're deemed necessary to keep the electrical grid reliable.
Environmental and community groups cheered the news last week that NRG Energy would shutter two coal-burning power plants, Huntley and Dunkirk, which are both in the Buffalo area. Huntley is being retired, while Dunkirk is being mothballed in the wake of a lawsuit over a plan to repower the plant with natural gas. Combined, the plants could produce about 900 megawatts of power, though they have been operating at reduced capacity for years.
But the plants could also qualify for a last-ditch economic lifeline, called a reliability support service agreement. Under an RSSA, ratepayers subsidize a struggling power plant if it is determined that it is needed to maintain reliability on the electrical grid until replacement power sources can be put in place. Typically, such agreements last years.
National Grid, the state Public Service Commission and the state’s independent electrical grid operator are now studying whether shuttering the plants will impede the region’s electrical grid reliability. If it's determined that the plants are needed to keep the grid reliable, ratepayers could have to keep subsidizing the struggling plants for years to come.
National Grid has already found that the closure of Dunkirk would not affect the electrical grid, and that it could be replaced by transmission lines. The utility is currently looking at a possible replacement for Huntley, but transmission lines could likely be used to bring in adequate power there from elsewhere as well, National Grid spokesman Patrick Stella said.
“There is always some sort of the transmission solution to these closures, so we’ll be looking at that,” he said.
What’s not known right now is if both plants can be shuttered at once.
On Friday, the state Department of Public Service asked that National Grid and the New York Independent System Operator study the impact of both plants being shuttered, versus at least one of them staying fully open.
“If there are reliability impacts, then the studies should indicate potential transmission upgrades and/or alternative resources that would be needed to maintain reliability, including any cost estimates and implementation schedules,” DPS managing director Raj Addepalli wrote.
There is already recent precedent for keeping uneconomical plants from shuttering. Ratepayers in Western New York will pay almost $200 million to keep the Ginna nuclear facility online as the region’s utility works on replacement plants. The Cayuga coal-burning power plant outside of Ithaca is operating under a reliability plan until next year and is being subsidized by ratepayers by about $200 million as well. And the Danskammer plant in the Hudson Valley, once slated to be demolished, is due to come back online because of New York City’s growing power needs.
Still, NRG’s decision to close the Huntley and Dunkirk plants is a sign that the open market is working, where older and dirtier power plants can’t compete with newer and cleaner sources of power, said Jackson Morris, the eastern energy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He said the plants could be replaced with clean energy sources and improved energy efficiency. Groups that oppose coal plants are concerned the Huntley and Dunkirk are not really finished, he said.
“Until the bulldozer comes, anything can come back,” he said.
By planning to shutter both plants at the same time, NRG may be able to keep one open, said David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which opposes coal plants.
“My concern is that there may be a short-term need for one of the plants,” he said. “And you want to make sure it’s only kept up for as short as possible. You don’t want to end up with money going to repowering.” The question of what to do with plants that can’t survive on the open market could become increasingly pressing as more plants statewide face possible closure in the coming years. Almost half of the state’s power plants are more than 40 years old, and they face stiff competition from the boom in cheap natural gas that is expected to last decades.
-
Environmentalists Narrow Challenge to Coal Ash Rule
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Environmental organizations have narrowed the grounds of their legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's coal ash rule (RIN 2050-AE81), according to recent filings in a federal appeals court (Clean Water Action v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 15-01228, opposition to motion to intervene 8/20/15).
The groups informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Aug. 20 that they will not challenge the EPA's decision to regulate coal ash as a nonhazardous waste.
For years, these organizations had been calling on the EPA to treat coal ash as a hazardous waste. But the agency's Dec. 19 final rule on the disposal of coal ash, the EPA did not do this, instead choosing to classify the substance as nonhazardous waste (245 DEN A-1, 12/22/14).
The organizations filed suit against the EPA shortly after the rule's publication. Many observers had assumed the EPA's decision not to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste would be at the center of their challenge (48 DEN B-1, 3/12/15).
‘Will Be Successful.'
“We continue to believe the EPA took the wrong action,” Mary Whittle, an attorney with the environmental advocacy law firm Earthjustice, who is representing the plaintiffs, told Bloomberg BNA. “But when we looked at what was possible … we chose the claims we think will be successful and will strengthen the rule.”
Whittle said she would lay out her clients' reasons for challenging the rule in her upcoming opening briefs.
Whittle said her plaintiffs were concerned that a more broad challenge to the coal ash rule would get it thrown out entirely.
“It's most important to us that we do not lose the rule,” she said. “While it's not the rule we would've written, its better than no protection.”
In a somewhat unusual move, the plaintiffs informed the court of their pared-down strategy in a brief opposing a motion from several building materials companies asking to be added onto the case as intervenor defendants, a motion that an attorney for the companies described to Bloomberg BNA as “usually a pro forma thing.”
In the Aug. 20 brief, Whittle argued that the building materials companies, which work with recycled coal ash, do not have standing to join the case as intervenors because the outcome of the plaintiffs' narrowed legal challenge won't significantly affect them.
-
Ex-EPA Official Consulting For BP On Ozone Rule
Sep 1, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A onetime adviser to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is now working with BP to urge EPA to better account for background ozone levels as it sets its final standard.
Bob Sussman, now a principal at his own consulting firm, attended a July 13 meeting on the ozone standard with executives from BP America and acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe, according to records posted by EPA and shared with POLITICO by Clean Air Watch.
BP spokesman Brett Clanton confirmed Sussman is consulting for the company and attended the recent meeting.
“Participants in the meeting did not discuss the appropriate level of the ozone standard, but focused on a proposal for the EPA to provide relief to states with high background ozone levels,” which is especially a problem in the intermountain West, Clanton said in a statement.
In a document brought to the meeting, BP urges EPA to exclude background-related ozone levels, which in some areas of the U.S. could otherwise prevent them from reaching a lowered standard. The proposal's mechanisms to address background ozone won't provide "meaningful relief" and opens the rule up to legal challenges, the document argues.
Sussman is also a professor at Georgetown Law School, where he teaches a course on fracking. He previously served as deputy EPA administrator from 1993 to 1994.
EPA is slated to finalize a new ozone standard by Oct. 1 under a court order. It proposed lowering the standard from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb.
-
Rapid Arctic Change Adds Pressure to Climate Talks
Sep 2, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio and Dean Scott
President Barack Obama's historic trip to the rapidly warming Alaskan Arctic could help put pressure on international negotiators to successfully ink a global deal to fight climate change at a year-end summit in Paris.
Urgency has been a theme of the three-day trip: The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. Obama said it's clear that “climate is changing faster than our efforts to address it” (168 DEN A-4, 8/31/15).
With less than three months before the Paris summit begins, “there is such a thing as being too late” on climate change, he said.
“That moment is almost upon us. That's why we're here today,” the president told a meeting of policy makers, scientists and businesses in Anchorage on Aug. 31. “That's what we have to convey to our people—tomorrow, and the next day and the day after that. And that's what we have to do when we meet in Paris later this year.”
‘Backdrop' for Negotiations
Negotiators from nearly 200 nations will gather at a United Nations summit later this year to hammer out a climate deal that would for the first time commit both developed and developing countries to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that fuel climate change.
The swift “unraveling” of the Arctic could help inject some much-needed urgency into the climate talks, former State Department official Rafe Pomerance said.
“It creates a sense of urgency, a need to act, a need for the global community to come together,” Pomerance, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for environment and development during the Clinton administration, told Bloomberg BNA. “It creates a recognition of how serious things are, how much warming we've already brought, so to speak.”
Pomerance, who now leads a group of researchers called Arctic21, said “all that helps bring governments together, so it's a backdrop for the negotiations and why they need to succeed.”
The U.S., China, the European Union and other nations representing more than half the world's emissions have already submitted pledges to the UN for addressing their emissions under the global climate deal.
Putting Pressure on Paris
“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet that we've got while we still can,” Obama said at the Anchorage meeting (see related story).
In a statement issued afterwards, foreign ministers and other representatives from Arctic and non-Arctic states reaffirmed their “commitment to take urgent action to slow the pace of warming in the Arctic” and their determination to reach a successful outcome at the UN negotiations.
But talks so far have been slow-moving in the eyes of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other top UN officials (125 DEN A-14, 6/30/15).
Opportunities to Take Stock
To make sure things are on the right track before Paris, Ban plans to bring together about 40 heads of state Sept. 27 to talk about climate change on the sidelines of the UN's General Assembly in New York, Nick Nuttall, chief spokesman for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said on a call with reporters Sept. 1.
Nuttall called the leaders’ meeting a “very important” development to show global support for getting an agreement in Paris.
The Sept. 27 leaders meeting called by Ban is one of the few opportunities for world leaders to come together and take stock of progress—and push for more of it—toward the global climate deal to be negotiated in Paris.
Other opportunities include the next Group of 20 leaders' summit in Istanbul, Turkey, to be held Nov. 15-16, although leaders there are likely to focus on more economic and world security issues than on the Paris climate accord.
Climate finance—how aid can be provided to vulnerable developing nations under any Paris agreement—is likely to be on the table for finance ministers who will convene Oct. 9-11 in Lima, Peru, for World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings.
Need for ‘Continued Engagement.'
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ director of strategy and policy who is in Bonn tracking progress on the text, said Ban's decision to summon leaders to New York for a September luncheon could be crucial in signaling the need for more ambitious actions on greenhouse gas emissions and more details on long-term climate funding from developed nations.
“It's an important opportunity for some of the key leaders to get together a year after their last climate summit in New York and really talk about what they can do in Paris to make it a success,” Meyer told Bloomberg BNA. Ban held a similar summit of world leaders at the UN headquarters in September 2014(185 DEN A-1, 9/24/14).
“But it can't be a one-off event—it's got to be continued engagement” by national leaders given the Paris talks open on Nov. 30, Meyer said.
Talks Resume in Bonn
“For example, here in Bonn, people really took notice of Obama's reference to the Paris summit during his trip in Alaska, and those kinds of public commitments are going to be important” to sustain momentum for getting an agreement when the Paris talks conclude in December, Meyer said.
“But that is no substitute for leader-to-leader engagement,” he said.
Climate negotiators arrived in Bonn on Aug. 31 for five days of UN talks hoping to whittle down what is still nearly 80 pages of text to a more manageable draft deal (169 DEN A-11, 9/1/15).
In addition to the Sept. 27 leaders’ climate meeting called by Ban, negotiators from developed and developing countries also are slated to arrive in New York for the Sept. 29-30 meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. That forum brings together climate negotiators from the 16 top-emitting nations as well as the European Union.
-
EPA, States Spar Over Reach Of Judge's CWA Jurisdiction Rule Injunction
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA and a coalition of 13 states are sparring over whether a federal district court judge's order blocking the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule should apply nationwide or only in the 13 states, with EPA arguing national application would unfairly prejudge other suits over the rule but the states saying it is the only fair outcome.
Chief District Judge Ralph Erickson of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota's Southeastern Division asked the agency and the states suing over the rule for filings by Sept. 1 on the scope of his injunction, which he issued Aug. 27 on the eve of the rule's implementation. The states' suit over the rule is one of several pending district court cases, and litigation over the agency's rule is also pending in a federal appeals court.
EPA says that imposing the injunction across the United States would unfairly influence the outcome of other pending cases against the CWA regulation, and that the order can only apply in the states that asked for Erickson's injunction. The states counter that EPA says the rule is designed to provide national consistency on the CWA's reach and therefore any injunction against the policy should apply nationally and not on a limited geographic basis.
“Nationwide rules with nationwide implications should be applied consistently throughout the Nation. Failing to do so would detract from the integrated scheme of regulation for our Nation’s waters created by Congress under the Clean Water Act,” says a Sept. 1 filing by the coalition of 13 states that includes Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico and North Dakota.
“The Court’s Injunction Order properly contained no geographical limitations, and its scope should not now be restricted. A nationwide preliminary injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo pending final resolution of this matter and would prevent a patchwork of regulatory action and inconsistent application across the country,” the states argue, urging Erickson to use his authority to order that the injunction applies nationally.
The states argue that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers -- which jointly crafted the rulemaking -- have long argued that the CWA rule is vital to create national consistency and certainty about the reach of the law following Supreme Court rulings that created competing tests for determining jurisdiction.
The states say EPA and the Corps cannot as a result claim that Erickson's injunction should only apply in the 13 states pursuing the North Dakota district court case, rather than nationwide. “The Agencies cannot have it both ways. They cannot be concerned about uniform application and consistency when selling the country on the need for the Rule, but abandon those principles when faced with litigation adversity. This type of litigation tactic should not be rewarded by limiting the scope of the Court’s Injunction Order,” says the states' filing.
They also argue that Erickson has the power to impose injunctions with national reach and, “Doing so would also promote the uniform application of nationwide rules and would treat regulated entities and regulators consistently across geopolitical boundaries, particularly because watersheds do not respect such boundaries.”
EPA's Argument
EPA said last week in response to the injunction that it would heed Erickson's order only in the 13 states that filed the suit he is overseeing, applying Bush-era guidance on CWA jurisdiction in those states. In all other states EPA said it plans to implement its rule, which critics say expands the reach of the law beyond Congress' intent.
EPA's statement on the scope of the injunction prompted the states' request for Erickson to declare it applies nationwide, which in turn led the judge to ask both parties to file on the issue of the order's reach.
The agency in its Sept. 1 filing argues that national application of the injunction would run counter to legal precedent that says an injunction should be no broader than what is needed to protect against irreparable harms to a plaintiff, and that to broadly apply the injunction would harm states and other parties that are supporting the rule.
EPA also says that to nationally apply the injunction would be inappropriate because two federal district courts have denied injunctions based on belief that authority to review the CWA rule lies in the appeals courts. Justice Department (DOJ) lawyers on EPA's behalf cite the 1979 Supreme Court case, California v. Yamasaki, which says that an injunction should be “no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.”
The brief also cites a string of appeals cases, including a 2011 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling, Los Angeles Haven Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, holding that a nationwide injunction was “too broad” in favor of a narrower application that prevented enforcement of the regulation against the plaintiffs, and a 1994 9th Circuit ruling in Meinhold v. United States Department of Defense vacating an Armed Forces-wide injunction except as to individual plaintiffs.
“In contrast, giving nationwide effect to the preliminary injunction would go beyond addressing the specific irreparable harms alleged by the Plaintiffs and therefore is not a proper interpretation of the Court’s order,” DOJ says.
Moreover, DOJ points out that Erickson acknowledged in his order that he did not yet have the full record before him in issuing the injunction. “Because the preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo as to these Plaintiffs, it should not apply nationwide, encompassing waters in States that either have not challenged the Clean Water Rule or that have unsuccessfully sought to preliminarily enjoin it in separate judicial proceedings,” the brief says.
DOJ says that interpreting the injunction as applying nationally would “lead to the absurd situation” where if a single regulated sector challenged the rule in a court that issued an injunction, that injunction would have to apply nationally with respect to entities that support and benefit from the rule -- such as the seven states that are seeking to intervene on DOJ's behalf in the consolidated U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit suit over the rule.
But DOJ's interpretation indicates that in the event that a court issued an injunction in an industry suit, it would apply that injunction to only that regulated sector.
DOJ also argues that the injunction must be applied narrowly to avoid a situation in which the order, which makes it clear that Erickson finds that the district court, and not the appellate courts, has jurisdiction to hear the case, would “resolve the issue for all courts with pending challenges to the Clean Water Rule.” Most of the other courts, DOJ says, either have yet to rule on the threshold jurisdictional question or have issued stays deferring a ruling until the multidistrict litigation panel makes a decisions on consolidation. “In light of the pendency of numerous other challenges to the Clean Water Rule, a nationwide injunction would be an unnecessarily blunt tool to address the specific irreparable harms alleged by Plaintiffs here that form the basis of the Court’s August 27 order,” the brief says.
-
EPA Pledges To Finalize CERCLA Hardrock Mining Financial Rules In 2017
Sep 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA in a proposed legal agreement with environmental groups has pledged to finalize Superfund financial assurance rules for the hardrock mining industry by the end of 2017 and for the first time is committing to deadlines for deciding whether it will propose similar rules for other industry sectors.
A framework for the final rule, which EPA submitted to a federal appeals court along with the proposed settlement, indicates the agency may exclude certain types of mining facilities from the rule, and that it may require financial responsibility instruments to cover all types of Superfund section 107 liabilities, including response costs, natural resource damages and health assessment costs.
In a joint motion filed by EPA, Earthworks and other environmental groups Aug. 31 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the agency agrees to propose financial assurance rules for the hardrock mining sector by Dec. 1, 2016 -- a date several months after EPA recently said it expected to have the draft rules ready by.
But environmentalists were able to get a commitment from the agency to finalize the rules one year later, by Dec. 1, 2017 -- a much shorter timespan between the draft and final rules than EPA had previously argued for. EPA several months ago had argued it did not plan to finalize these rules until August 2019.
The agreement follows a May 19 order from the D.C. Circuit in In re: Idaho Conservation League, et al. ordering the agency to update its schedule for issuing the hardrock mining rules and heavily criticizing the agency for its lack of progress in writing the rules. While Congress required EPA by 1983 to identify classes of facilities for which to develop financial assurance requirements, it did not establish a date-certain for promulgating rules, only saying such rules should be promulgated sometime after December 1985.
In the case, environmental groups asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring EPA to finalize rules under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA). The section set out the 1983 requirement for identifying classes of facilities, and then called for issuing financial assurance rules. Financial assurance requires that owners of facilities treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste can prove they have sufficient funds to pay for cleanup and post-closure care of a facility; to pay for cleanup of any accidental releases; and to compensate third parties for any damage, EPA's website says.
EPA in 2009 identified hardrock mining as the first sector for which it will issue such rules and identified three other sectors -- chemical manufacturing; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and electric power generation, transmission, and distribution -- for which it is weighing such rules. But EPA has yet to propose any rules.
The agreement also responds to the court's call for EPA to provide a date by which it will decide whether it will require financial assurance measures for these three other sectors. Under the joint motion, EPA agrees to determine by Dec. 1, 2016, whether it will issue proposed rulemakings for any of these other sectors.
If it does decide to issue such rulemakings, it will propose the first one by July 2, 2019, and finalize it by Dec. 2, 2020; the second addressing the second of these classes -- if needed -- will be proposed by Dec. 4, 2019, and finalized by Dec. 1, 2021; and the third addressing the third of these classes -- also if needed -- will be proposed by Dec. 1, 2022, and finalized by Dec. 4, 2024, the motion says.
Mining Framework
The agency also on Aug. 31 submitted a supplemental brief requested by the court that includes the agency's "framework" for the mining rule -- a brief document that explains how various parts of the mining rule will function. In the framework, the agency says it is considering a regulatory approach based on "five foundational components." These are: "universe of facilities to be regulated; flow of funds from the financial responsibility instrument to the CERCLA cleanup; financial responsibility scope and amount; relationship of Section 108(b) financial responsibility to state, tribal, and local government law; and relationship of Section 108(b) financial responsibility to other federal law."
The document reveals that EPA is considering excluding certain classes of hardrock mines from the requirement, given their lower level of risk of injury. These include: certain placer mines, exploration mines and small mines that are less than five acres, the supplemental brief says.
In weighing the financial responsibility scope, EPA says it is "considering an approach under which owners and operators would be required to provide financial responsibility instruments to cover all Section 107 liabilities at their facilities -- response costs, natural resource damages, and covered health assessment costs.”
On the matter of amount, the agency is creating a model to "identify an amount of financial responsibility to reflect the primary site conditions that may result in future costs." The framework says "[t]he model would assign values for a facility based on facility and unit characteristics," such as open pits, tailings, and process ponds. "These values would correspond to calculated cost levels, and in turn be aggregated to form the basis for the financial responsibility amount," it says.
The agency also provides an approach it is weighing to determine how the financial assurance instruments would supplement existing CERCLA sources of funding. For instance, these instruments could be used to pay into a special account for a CERCLA settlement, it says.
The agency also notes it is "considering a fixed amount of financial responsibility for natural resource damages, and another for health assessment costs, that would be required at all facilities."
The framework also differentiates Section 108(b) requirements from state law financial assurance requirements -- many of which it says "are designed to assure compliance with state regulatory requirements, and thus are not 'in connection with liability for the release of a hazardous substance' under Section 114(d)." The agency says it will address this in the rule's preamble.
Section 108(b) requirements are also distinguishable from federal closure and reclamation bonding requirements under other laws, EPA says.
The environmental groups also submitted a supplemental brief that outlines additional materials that support its arguments that it has standing to bring the lawsuit. The court in the May ruling noted that since it was still weighing whether the petitioners have Article III standing, the petitioners could therefore file supplemental documents that make "particular reference to the imminence of harm to their members due to the absence of these financial assurance regulations, the particularized risk that the specific companies and operations identified in the declarations pose of not remediating pollution and related harms without the regulations, and how issuance of a writ of mandamus would redress any such harm caused by the absence of the financial assurance regulations."
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested