Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
[Video] Congress Works on Hundreds of Bills Every Year. Pay Attention to This One
Sep 8, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By Shawn Drury
Video can be found at: http://bluenationreview.com/congress-works-on-hundreds-of-bills-every-year-pay-attention-to-this-one/ -
Tell the Senate: We Must Act to Protect Our Kids From Dangerous Chemicals
Sep 8, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By By Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Most Americans believe that if they can buy a product at the grocery store or the hardware store, the government has tested it and determined that it’s safe. -
Toxics Across America: Who Makes Them?
Sep 8, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
A report by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility. -
40 Years And 1000s Of Untested Chemicals Later – Will Congress Finally Act?
May 3, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By Sarah Vogel
Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law. -
Revised New York TCE Policy Could Help Push For EPA Exposure Limits
Sep 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
New York state's decision to lower its risk guideline for trichloroethylene (TCE) and set an exposure limit to protect against cardiac birth defects from the solvent that backs EPA Region 9's controversial approach to the chemical could help press EPA headquarters to clarify national policy by setting exposure limits, sources say. -
Congress Poised To Put 9/11 Heroes At Risk
Sep 8, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
In less than 20 minutes, the terrorist-controlled airliners hit both towers of the World Trade Center complex on the morning of September 11, 2001 -
Planned GOP Assault on EPA Kicks Off with Hearing on Colo. Spill
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Congress begins a round of hearings this week on last month's polluted water spill from an abandoned mine in Colorado, which also affected downstream states and tribes. -
EPA's Spill Pales in Comparison to Everyday Mine Leaks
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
Politicians, activists, tribes and media outlets have expressed shock at last month's abandoned mine spill in Colorado, which sent 3 million gallons of polluted water down the Animas River. -
House Panel to Vote on Lifting Oil Export Ban
Sep 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House subcommittee will vote Thursday on whether to lift the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil. -
Environmentalists' Suit Faults EPA Air Toxics Finding
Sep 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are pursuing litigation targeting what they say is EPA's unlawful use of “surrogate” pollutants to satisfy a Clean Air Act requirement that the agency complete regulation of 90 percent of emissions of certain “persistent” and “bioaccumulative” air toxics, with the advocates hoping to force new direct regulation of the air toxics. -
Lawmakers, State Regulators to Take Fresh Aim at EPA Rule
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Daniel Bush
House Republicans on a key environment subcommittee will take aim at U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan this week as critics continue their assault on the controversial regulation. -
Carbon Rule Divides Officials Within States
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
States supporting and opposing the Clean Power Plan may end up challenging the rule in court while simultaneously working on plans to comply. -
Splits Widen Within State Governments over Clean Power Plan
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Having had just over a month to mull the Obama administration's final, 1,560-page plan to combat climate change by regulating power plant emissions, state governments of all political stripes are starting to tell their constituents how they plan to respond. -
General Mills Pledges to Slash Emissions, Spend $100M on Clean Energy
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
General Mills, the Minnesota-based food giant, is planning to boost clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply network by 28 percent. -
Coal Group Links Clinton to Climate Rule, Cap-and-Trade
Sep 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new coal industry campaign is trying to link presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to President Obama’s controversial environmental policies. -
SAB Panel Appears Poised To Finalize Biomass Carbon Accounting Report
Sep 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel that has long been reviewing the agency's revised draft biomass accounting framework (BAF) for how to discount biomass carbon dioxide (CO2) smokestack emissions to account for the materials' regrowth appears poised to finalize its report to the agency during what could be its final meeting Sept. 9. -
French President Warns Climate Talks Could Fail
Sep 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
French President François Hollande is warning that a landmark United Nations climate change conference later this year could fail. -
Md. Oil Train Disclosure Case Nudges Rail Industry Toward Transparency
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Officials in Maryland are expected to reveal oil train data this week following a legal battle over the information's disclosure.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
[Video] Congress Works on Hundreds of Bills Every Year. Pay Attention to This One
Sep 8, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By Shawn Drury
Video can be found at: http://bluenationreview.com/congress-works-on-hundreds-of-bills-every-year-pay-attention-to-this-one/
-
Tell the Senate: We Must Act to Protect Our Kids From Dangerous Chemicals
Sep 8, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By By Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.)
Most Americans believe that if they can buy a product at the grocery store or the hardware store, the government has tested it and determined that it’s safe. But that’s not true. The chemical safety law we’ve had in place since 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), allows chemicals to be used in consumer products without any evidence of safety. Even worse, because of a court case in 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lost its power to regulate or remove hazardous chemicals from the marketplace — not even asbestos, arsenic, styrene, formaldehyde, BPA or other dangerous substances that have been linked to birth defects and cancer.
In almost 40 years, the EPA has regulated just five chemicals of the over 80,000 out there. Just five. These chemicals are in products made all over the country — and the world — and sold in stores in every community. Because the EPA isn’t testing, we don’t know the full impact these chemicals are having on our health or how they interact with each other — or with medication we take.
We need to take action to ensure the EPA is the cop on the beat, regulating and testing and keeping our families safe in every state. And that’s why I’m leading a bipartisan effort to reform our nation’s chemical safety laws.
Our bill builds on the work of the late New Jersey Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, who dedicated his career to public health causes including this one and wrote the first version of the legislation. This year, we named it the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in his honor. We now have support from 52 senators — over half the Senate — from both parties. That’s incredible progress.
Some of the important things our bill would do include:
▪ Require EPA to review and approve every one of the 1,000 or so new chemicals that come on the market each year;
▪ Require the EPA to do safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce — literally thousands of chemicals;
▪ Require the EPA, when determining whether to allow a chemical to be sold or manufactured, to base its decision only on the impact of chemicals on health and the environment;
▪ Charge chemical companies a fee to help pay for the cost of regulations and testing;
▪ Ensure manufacturers share information about their chemicals with emergency officials and the public;
▪ And explicitly require the EPA to base its decisions about regulations on how chemicals impact the most vulnerable among us — children, pregnant women, the elderly, and chemical workers.Keeping our communities safe from dangerous chemicals being sold across the country can’t be done by individual states. Of the 33 states represented by the Senate cosponsors of our bill, most are unable to regulate more than a couple of chemicals without national support from the EPA. Several, like my home state of New Mexico, have no ability to regulate chemicals at all. Each day that passes without a national solution is another day that dangerous substances can accumulate in our bodies and in our children’s bodies.
I’m extremely pleased that the Senate is so close to passing this legislation that would lead to a major overhaul in chemical safety. For the first time in almost 40 years, we are steps away from being able to protect our families from dangerous chemicals. Our bill passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with a strong bipartisan 15-5 vote. The Obama administration’s lead expert on chemical safety said that our bill meets all six of the principles laid out by the president for TSCA reform. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the bill would finally give her agency the authority to regulate asbestos.
But we aren’t celebrating yet. We need the Senate leadership to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.
I hope you’ll join me in spreading the word about the importance of fixing this broken law and urge your lawmakers to support bringing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to a vote in the Senate. We have a moral obligation to act to protect our kids.
Tom Udall is in his second term as New Mexico’s senior senator.
Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/tell-the-senate-we-must-act-to-protect-our-kids-from-dangerous-chemicals/#ixzz3lARIxbUv -
Toxics Across America: Who Makes Them?
Sep 8, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
A report by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities, and infertility.
EDF’s new report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest, albeit limited, data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EDF identified which of these chemicals are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; where they are being produced or imported; and how they are being used.
An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state, and by location.
Among the report’s key findings:At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the US annually in amounts of one million pounds or more.At least 14 exceed one billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA).More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight are used in children’s products.Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals — such as those featured in our report — we know or have good reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.
The good news is that Congress is working on bipartisan legislation that — if done right — would require greater evidence of safety for both chemicals already in use and new chemicals before they enter the market. And by driving development of and access to more chemical safety data, it would give not only government but also product makers and consumers much more of the information they need to identify and avoid dangerous chemicals, and strengthen incentives to develop safer alternatives.Time for change
Americans are exposed to an untold a number of chemicals every day, and almost none of them have ever been adequately tested for safety. Our primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is badly broken and hasn’t been updated since 1976—almost 40 years. EDF is working with key policymakers and stakeholders to make a smarter, stronger law that better protects you and your family.
-
40 Years And 1000s Of Untested Chemicals Later – Will Congress Finally Act?
May 3, 2015 | Blue Nation Review
By Sarah Vogel
Congress seemed poised to fix America’s broken chemical safety law.
Expert witnesses warned about the urgent need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, telling a congressional hearing the federal law “has clearly failed.”
Their testimony made the problem clear: Thousands of chemicals are in use in everyday household products and nobody knows if they are safe. Even dangerous chemicals remain unregulated.
News stories predicted that action was “already underway” to reform the law, also known as TSCA.
The year was 1994. And Congress couldn’t get its act together to fix America’s main chemical law. Nothing would change.
The law that governs most chemicals in commerce was originally passed in 1976. It wasn’t very strong to begin with and for each year that passed, it became increasingly out of date.
It’s now so badly broken that only a small fraction of the chemicals in cleaning products, clothing, furniture and most other products have ever been reviewed for safety.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is virtually powerless to restrict even known dangers such as lead and formaldehyde.10,000 new chemicals since 1994
Indeed, since the last time Congress tried to fix this law in 1994, things have gotten bad. More than 10,000 additional chemicals have gone on the market with little review of their safety, and only a handful of chemicals already in use have been examined.
States have tried to step in, but since TSCA passed they have only managed to restrict limited uses of about 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals.
The fatal blow for sufficient regulation came in 1991, when EPA’s decade-long attempt to ban asbestos was thrown out by a federal court. Since then, EPA has never tried again to use TSCA to regulate a chemical.
It took more than a decade for legislation to be introduced again. There were bills in 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2011, but none even made it to the House or Senate floor. They just didn’t have the bi-partisan support necessary to pass.Millions of babies were exposed
Unfortunately, this failure to act has real, human consequences.
Chemicals in common use are increasingly being linked to diseases such as certain childhood cancers, asthma and diabetes that are on the rise in the American population. Research shows that environmental factors, including chemical exposures, explain a significant part of these trends.
Since 1994, 80 million babies have been born, many or all of whom have come into the world carrying toxic chemicals in their bodies.
This sad history may be about to change.
A strong, bipartisan bill introduced in March that already has 22 cosponsors split evenly among the parties is moving forward after a key Senate committee overwhelmingly approved the legislation this week. The next step is consideration by the full Senate.New, bipartisan bill brings hope
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act requires all new and existing chemicals be reviewed for safety, establishes new funding for EPA through user fees, and gives EPA new authority to require testing.
Most importantly, it sets us on a course toward a system that demands safety as a condition for market access, ending the laissez-faire approach we’ve had for 40 years.
There is a real cost to inaction. A baby girl born during those 1994 hearings would be old enough to have her own child today.
Every year Congress fails to fix our broken chemical law is another year when millions of Americans are unnecessarily exposed to toxic or untested chemicals.
H/T: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF.org)
Sarah Vogel is director of EDF’s Health program and works with a team of scientists and policy experts to protect health by reducing exposure to toxic chemicals.
Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/40-years-and-1000s-of-untested-chemicals-later-will-congress-finally-act/#ixzz3lAS9QeQz -
Revised New York TCE Policy Could Help Push For EPA Exposure Limits
Sep 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
New York state's decision to lower its risk guideline for trichloroethylene (TCE) and set an exposure limit to protect against cardiac birth defects from the solvent that backs EPA Region 9's controversial approach to the chemical could help press EPA headquarters to clarify national policy by setting exposure limits, sources say.
In an August memo, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) strengthened its risk guideline for TCE from 5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m^3) to 2 ug/m^3, adopting EPA's controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) value for the substance. State health officials also set a 20 ug/m^3 limit for immediate action to reduce TCE in indoor air, a standard similar to one Region 9 promoted last year.
"NYSDOH has concerns about exposure during pregnancy, particularly during the first trimester, to air concentrations higher than 20 [ug/m^3] because the major steps of heart development occur during this period and TCE may be a risk factor for fetal heart defects in humans," the state says in an August fact sheet.
Federal and state regulators have been struggling with how to protect against cardiac birth defects at sites contaminated with TCE since at least early 2012, shortly after EPA finalized in September 2011 an IRIS assessment that included the birth defects risk for TCE, and set a reference concentration (RfC) -- the amount of a substance the agency believes can be inhaled over a lifetime without adverse effects -- of 2 ug/m^3.
Although the assessment included the novel risk for pregnant women, implying danger from short-term exposure, EPA headquarters has not set exposure limits for protecting against cardiac birth defects.
In order to implement the IRIS assessment, EPA regional officials, led by Region 9, began crafting exposure limits, based on the RfC, for triggering mitigation to protect against cardiac birth defects from inhalation of air contaminated with TCE through vapor intrusion, which occurs when underground contamination rises into indoor air through utility line openings or other pathways.
In an Aug. 27, 2014, memo to its Superfund managers, EPA headquarters officials sought to address disparate approaches to protecting against TCE's developmental risk. The memo backed early action to protect against birth defects, but EPA also acknowledged that the question of what contamination level causes a health risk in the short-term remains unanswered.
At the time, environmentalist and industry sources said the headquarters memo failed to explicitly back the Region 9 approach or clearly state a national policy for addressing risks from short-term exposure to TCE.
Industry has continued to push back against a birth defects risk for TCE, most recently with a July 9 letterseeking White House review of the Region 9 approach, including an analysis of its costs and benefits.
National Policy
An environmentalist says New York's adoption of a policy mirroring the Region 9 approach could help quell industry push back and also pressure EPA to clarify national policy by issuing exposures limits for TCE in indoor air.
"The memo that came out of headquarters was really vague," the source says. "To the degree that states that actually do their own toxicology use EPA's [risk values, it] makes it easier for the Regions to keep doing what they're doing."
Additionally, the source says, growing support for the Region 9 approach may undercut industry opposition. "If there's consensus among agencies, [industry] might change their approach," the source says.
In the August fact sheet, NYSDOH says it strengthened its prior TCE guideline of 5 ug/m^3 because the IRIS RfC is based on information that did not exist when the state set its prior limit. New York health officials also call EPA's risk value "scientifically strong" and "adequately protective of public health."
The state recommends that TCE exposures in indoor air not exceed 2 ug/m^3 and "recommends taking immediate and effective action to reduce exposure when an air concentration is equal to, or above 20 [ug/m^3]."
In a July 9, 2014, memo, EPA Region 9 recommended early or interim mitigation measures be evaluated and implemented "quickly" when indoor air concentrations of TCE are greater than 2 ug/m^3 in residential buildings and 8 ug/m^3 in commercial buildings. When levels are above 6 ug/m^3 in residential buildings and 24 ug/m^3 in commercial buildings, Region 9 recommends immediate mitigation measures.
While NYSDOH's adoption of the RfC for setting standards and its limit for immediate action make its policy similar to Region 9's, the state also acknowledges that a birth defects risk for TCE is unproven.
"Due to the limitations of the studies, including poor or no quantitative exposure estimates, we do not know if the observed effects on fetal development in humans were caused by TCE or some other factor," NYSDOH says.
The state also notes TCE poses a risk of health effects from long-term exposure, including to nerve function, behavior, vision, hearing, muscle control and memory, ability to think, and other symptoms, such as headache and dizziness. And the state says, "epidemiological studies provide convincing evidence of a cause-effect relationship between TCE exposure and cancer."
-
Congress Poised To Put 9/11 Heroes At Risk
Sep 8, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
In less than 20 minutes, the terrorist-controlled airliners hit both towers of the World Trade Center complex on the morning of September 11, 2001. As tens of thousands of workers and residents in lower Manhattan strained to get out of the area, a group of Americans worked their way toward the buildings and an emergency situation the likes of which they’d never seen.
New York City firefighters and other first responders descended on the scene with the sole purpose of saving the lives of innocent people still trapped in the burning buildings, running up the stairwells of both towers, working to get as many people out as possible.
By 9:59 am the South Tower collapsed, with the North Tower buckling 29 minutes later, killing nearly 3,000 people, 343 who were NYC firefighters. In the hours and days that followed, those brave men and women dug through toxic rubble and breathed in asbestos-filled air as they searched for survivors.
On the eve of the 14th anniversary of that fateful day, Congress is about to vote on legislation that will put some of those first responders, rescue and recovery workers, and volunteers who worked around the clock at Ground Zero at risk.
Legislation authored by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, – H.R. 526, the so-called FACT Act – and backed by big asbestos corporations and insurance giants like Koch Industries, Honeywell, 3M, Allstate and Nationwide, will delay and deny compensation to those who are or will become sick from asbestos-related diseases likely as a result of their heroism in response to the 9/11 attacks.
And, to add insult to injury, the legislation will put asbestos victims, including first responders, at heightened risk of identity theft.
You can read more about the Farenthold bill and its implications for fire fighters and first responders in this op-ed by Heather White, executive director of EWG and EWG’s sister organization EWG Action Fund.Read the full story here.
-
Planned GOP Assault on EPA Kicks Off with Hearing on Colo. Spill
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
Congress begins a round of hearings this week on last month's polluted water spill from an abandoned mine in Colorado, which also affected downstream states and tribes.
U.S. EPA and one of its contractors caused the spill while trying to study ways of cleaning up the abandoned Gold King mine in San Juan County, Colo. Tomorrow's hearing is the first of several that congressional Republicans plan to use to criticize EPA -- a favorite GOP target.
House Science, Space & Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) was the first out of the gate demanding a hearing on the issue. Several other panels will follow suit next week.
"After spilling millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the Animas River, the EPA has an obligation to be forthcoming about what went wrong and potential long-term impacts on local communities," Smith said.
He was also quick to accuse EPA last week of failing to turn over enough documents related to the incident. Several lawmakers and panels have asked for such information.
Advertisement
"It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the EPA failed to meet the House Science Committee's reasonable deadline in turning over documents pertaining to the Gold King mine spill," Smith said.
Last week, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the House Natural Resources Committee asked EPA and Environmental Restoration LLC -- the agency's contractor for the Gold King mine project, which was on site when the incident happened -- for another trove of documents.
On Thursday, the panels' leaders sent a similar request to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. Her agency will be probing the Gold King mine spill. GOP lawmakers are questioning that move.
Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Interior Subcommittee Chairwoman Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said it "raises concerns that the reviewers are not sufficiently independent or comprehensive in their scope of review, and therefore susceptible to political influence and other considerations."
EPA, in an internal review released late last month, admitted to underestimating the potential for a spill at the mine site and not pushing for more preparation.
Smith had asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify at his hearing. Instead, he's getting Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response. Also on the witness list is the head of Environmental Restoration.
The company said last month that it was EPA's largest emergency response contractor. "We stand behind our project management team and labor force at the Silverton site," the company said in a statement.
EPA critics, many with grievances about agency environmental enforcement efforts, have used the spill to point out the irony of pollution caused by an agency charged with preventing it.
The Science panel titled this week's hearing: "Holding EPA Accountable for Polluting Western Waters." EPA has taken responsibility and has been posting cleanup and water quality updates on its website.
Environmental advocates and some Democrats say focusing only on EPA's actions in Colorado misses the point. They would rather discuss creating a system for cleaning up roughly 500,000 abandoned non-coal mine sites around the country.
Just weeks after the spill, environmental groups, tribes and Western communities petitioned the Obama administration for new rules to prevent future spills. EPA is already in the process of developing new financial assurance requirements for hardrock mines under the Superfund law.
Greens have also been asking for non-coal mining companies to pay a fee -- similar to coal producers -- to clean up pollution from sites pre-dating modern environmental rules.
The National Mining Association has accused environmental and public health groups of taking advantage of the EPA incident to make mining harder. The industry supports prospective good Samaritan legislation making it easier for groups to help clean up sites by giving them certain liability protections. Such bills may be forthcoming.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Arizona State University law professor Rhett Larson suggested allowing companies wanting to re-mine sites to be good Samaritans. He also recommended developing credits for environmental cleanups.
But environmentalists and many Democrats have opposed any effort they see as letting the broader industry off the hook for abandoned mine pollution. They also are skeptical of shielding for-profit companies from federal environmental rules.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Sept. 9, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witnesses: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator; Dennis Greaney, Environmental Restoration LLC president; Donald Benn, Navajo Nation EPA executive director; Dean Brookie, Durango, Colo., mayor; and Mark Williamsom, Geochemical Solutions LLC geochemist.
-
EPA's Spill Pales in Comparison to Everyday Mine Leaks
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
Politicians, activists, tribes and media outlets have expressed shock at last month's abandoned mine spill in Colorado, which sent 3 million gallons of polluted water down the Animas River.
But environmental advocates and groups that have for decades been trying to clean up the legacy of unregulated mining say the incident pales in comparison to the broader problem of tens of thousands of mines leaking across the country.
"The Gold King [mine] was discharging pollutants before the spill and continues after the spill. That is a well-documented situation," said Ty Churchwell, backcountry coordinator in Colorado for the conservation group Trout Unlimited.
U.S. EPA and its contractor triggered the Gold King mine blowout while trying to study ways of cleaning up the site. A collapse had clogged a mine portal, and water was dangerously building up.
"Most draining mines just drain," Churchwell said in an interview. "Thousands and thousands of these draining mines all over the United States."
Map of abandoned mine sites by the group SkyTruth based on U.S. Geological Survey data. Click here to view the interactive map. Map courtesy of SkyTruth.
Though the true scope of the abandoned mine problem around the United States is unknown, groups such as mining watchdog Earthworks and the Western Governors' Association and agencies including EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have some rough estimates.
The USGS database includes more than 260,000 sites labeled as past producers. Earthworks has the number closer to 500,000, mostly in the western United States.
The Government Accountability Office released a report on the issue in 2011, which said the public watchdog had developed a uniform definition of abandoned hardrock mines in 2008.
GAO said it had determined there were at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites in 12 Western states and Alaska. The agency said 33,000 of the sites had degraded the environment by contaminating waters or leaving "arsenic-contaminated" waste piles.
Churchwell said, "Whether it's 100,000 or 500,000, that's hundreds of thousands too many." And he said the Animas spill "has alerted the nation to the much more broad problem that many people were not paying attention to before."
Many environmental advocates and supportive Democrats on Capitol Hill have seemed hesitant to take aim at EPA, the agency trying to address the potential hazard.
Critics, including many congressional Republicans, have blasted the agency not only for the Colorado spill but also for not turning over enough related documents.
The Navajo Nation has also been particularly tough in its criticism of EPA. Environmental activist Erin Brockovich is scheduled to visit the reservation today to see the spill's effect on the San Juan River.
Many of Pennsylvania's waterways are orange, affected by acid mine drainage. Photo by Manuel Quinones.
"The impact has been devastating to our culture and economy, as well as to the peace of mind of our people," said Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch upon announcing that Hueston Hennigan LLP will represent the tribe in claims against EPA.
"With unknown amounts of this fine sediment in our water, we know we face the risk of reliving this nightmare with every major increased water flow event affecting the river," said Branch.
Alan Septoff, spokesman for Earthworks, likewise faulted the agency. "The EPA screwed up, there's no doubt about it. But why they screwed up is instructive."
Septoff also said the spill was inevitable even without the agency's mistake. "Because it was draining pollution into the Animas River already and threatened to do more, it was going to happen sooner or later. If they left it alone, same thing was going to happen."
Earthworks has long been lobbying for reform of the 1872 mining law, including charging mining companies a fee for cleaning up mines that were abandoned before modern environmental laws.
Gold King started operating in the late 1800s and ran through the early 1920s. EPA works on a polluter-pays principle, but like other such sites, Gold King has a complicated ownership and liability history.
At one point, Sunnyside Gold Corp., the owner of a nearby mine that shut down in 1991, agreed to plug its site and clean up operations in the area. But water started building up, and a treatment system ran into legal and financial troubles, EPA said. The agency was left holding the bag to prevent disaster.
Septoff said the spill has raised the alarm on the wider problem. "The Animas is shaking stuff lose, politically speaking," he said.
He added, "There's no dedicated funding source to clean up abandoned hardrock mines. There isn't even money to get a good handle of how bad the problem is."Debate over solution
Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has already introduced mining reform legislation (Greenwire, Feb. 12). Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) has said he will, too, once Congress reconvenes.
The National Mining Association has opposed current mining reform legislation, saying it would add too much red tape and hurt resource independence. The group has called the cleanup fee a dirt tax.
NMA spokesman Luke Popovich recently expressed support for good Samaritan legislation, which would provide groups with liability protections for pitching in to clean up water pollution from old mines.
Late in 2012, EPA released a memo meant to appease concerns. It said groups don't need a permit for certain discharges connected with abandoned hardrock mine cleanups under the Superfund law. Former Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) was a main proponent.
But groups like Trout Unlimited and local regulators, who often help clean up contamination and hazards from abandoned mines, say the document was not enough to clear worries about getting involved with point source pollution.
"They're the only ones that can work within the current legal framework to address the problem," Churchwell said about the "underfunded and understaffed" EPA.
"We need to provide and find some mechanism to increase the capacity of those willing to join in the fight of cleaning up those abandoned mines," he said, noting that there have been at least two other wastewater releases into the Animas in recent decades.
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) have expressed their intention of introducing good Samaritan cleanup legislation in the near future. Plans were underway even before the spill (E&E Daily, June 9). But details remain unclear.
Despite bipartisan support, such a bill is by no means guaranteed passage. Some Democrats are wary of reopening discussions surrounding the Clean Water Act and sapping support from broader reform.
"It doesn't address the funding issue," Septoff said. "That is the real problem. It may suck the political air out of efforts to really address the problem."
Arizona State University law professor Rhett Larson suggested in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that states create credits to encourage mining companies to clean up abandoned mines.
But groups like Earthworks have expressed opposition to companies getting liability protections. Septoff wonders what a private company would do if it had caused the Animas spill.
"There's a historic problem, and then there's the fact that we're not learning from this mistake," said Septoff. "That is the preferred solution to this."
Beyond abandoned mines, groups, tribes and communities petitioned the administration last month to initiate rulemaking to prevent future spills from mine sites (Greenwire, Aug. 25, 2015). They also called for reform after the Mount Polley mine tailings spill in Canada, which released more than 1 billion gallons of waste.
Popovich called the rulemaking petition "transparent opportunism on the part of mining's critics to distract policymakers away from adopting practical measures." He said, "U.S. mines don't need a poorer permit policy; they already have one of the most inefficient in all the world's mining regions."Coal
Unlike hardrock mining, coal sites abandoned prior to modern environmental laws do have a dedicated funding stream. Currently producing companies pay a fee into the abandoned mined land (AML) reclamation fund.
The Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement said last year it had collected more than $10 billion in fees and distributed more than $7.8 billion. But the shortfall remains in the billions, and there is also no national inventory of sites.
Regulators in Pennsylvania, which has the highest number of AML sites, say mine waste has fouled more than 5,000 miles of the state's streams, many of which drain into the Chesapeake Bay (Greenwire, Aug. 31).
Nonprofit groups have also been deeply involved in helping clean up abandoned mine sites and acid mine drainage. They also want stronger good Samaritan protections, related to not only the Clean Water Act but also the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. But hardrock mining cleanup advocates sometimes say the issues are different and should be addressed separately (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2012).
Congress this fall will be discussing issues related to AML, particularly the desire of states to reauthorize the fee past 2021. Some greens want to raise the fee to pre-2006 levels. But companies dealing with the coal slump warn they may not be around to pay it.
-
House Panel to Vote on Lifting Oil Export Ban
Sep 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A House subcommittee will vote Thursday on whether to lift the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil.
Lawmakers in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on energy and power will be the first ones to consider legislation by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) to open the United States’ oil market to the world.
The action follows more than a year of hearings, discussion and lobbying on Capitol Hill about whether it’s appropriate to continue restricting exports amid historically high domestic production.
Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and subpanel Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said in a statement that oil exports would bring a number of wide-ranging benefits.
“Our newfound abundance has been a game changer, making President Ford’s oil export ban obsolete,” they said.
“The benefits of lifting the ban are many — it would boost domestic energy production, create jobs, and improve our energy security.”
Previously, Upton refused to fully support exports, but said they could benefit the United States and its allies in a number of ways.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his support for exports in July as the House was leaving for the August recess.
Thursday’s subcommittee vote means that GOP leaders decided to let the legislation go through committee consideration instead of fast-tracking it for a vote on the House floor. The vote puts the measure on track for House passage this fall.
Many Democrats, along with environmentalists and some labor and oil refiner interests, want to keep the export plan in place. They say exports could boost oil consumption and increase domestic prices, a position that numerous reports, including one last week from the Energy Information Administration, refute.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted to lift the export ban in early August.
-
Environmentalists' Suit Faults EPA Air Toxics Finding
Sep 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are pursuing litigation targeting what they say is EPA's unlawful use of “surrogate” pollutants to satisfy a Clean Air Act requirement that the agency complete regulation of 90 percent of emissions of certain “persistent” and “bioaccumulative” air toxics, with the advocates hoping to force new direct regulation of the air toxics.
In Sierra Club, et al., v EPA, et al. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, advocates are challenging EPA's June 3 issuance of its “completion finding,” having earlier warned that the agency still has not adequately regulated the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in question.
The air law required EPA to by Nov. 15, 1995, list industrial sources for regulation accounting for 90 percent of seven HAPs: alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
EPA in its June 3 finding says it has achieved this through various rules already in place, some of them employing reduction of surrogate pollutants in lieu of direct limits on the seven HAPs.
The finding was years in the making after the agency issued a similar declaration in 2011 without taking notice and comment on it. Environmentalists sued, claiming that the finding should have gone through the regular public comment process as other rules do, and the D.C. Circuit in a July 2014 ruling agreed with advocates. EPA then renewed the finding as a proposal, taking comment on it and using that input to inform the June 3 declaration.
Sierra Club and other groups then sued over that finding as a final agency action subject to judicial review. In their Sept. 2 statement of non-binding issues in the suit, the groups question whether EPA's use of surrogates to set maximum achievable control technology emissions limits for three of the HAPs “is unlawful or unreasonable because EPA's chosen surrogate pollutants fail the test for surrogacy under the Clean Air Act.”
Environmentalists also say their suit will test whether “EPA has not supported its surrogacy claims with data or analysis, either in the record for the present determination or in the prior rules that EPA now claims established the surrogate standards.”
They further allege that the completion finding is unlawful “because EPA refused to entertain and respond to comments questioning the lawfulness, reasonableness, and soundness of its proposed surrogacy determinations.”
-
Lawmakers, State Regulators to Take Fresh Aim at EPA Rule
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E Daily
By Daniel Bush
House Republicans on a key environment subcommittee will take aim at U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan this week as critics continue their assault on the controversial regulation.
GOP lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment are expected to slam the agency's rule at a hearing Friday titled "How EPA's Power Plan Will Shut Down Power Plants."
Chairman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) has been a vocal critic of the final rule, which was rolled out last month, just days after House members left town for the August recess.
The plan would reduce carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Most Democrats and environmental organizations back the rule, while Republicans and industry groups say it would hurt the energy sector and have vowed to block it from taking effect.
At a full committee hearing in June, Bridenstine seized on a U.S. Energy Information Administration report on the costs and benefits of the plan to argue that it would hurt the economy and drive up electricity costs for low-income ratepayers (Greenwire, June 24).
"This is a continuation of the administration's 'war on the poor,'" Bridenstine said at the time. He added that while members of Congress "might be able to absorb higher electricity rates, many of our constituents do not have that ability."
The full committee's chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), also criticized the rule at the hearing and warned that it could have "little environmental impact."
Bridenstine, Smith and other House Republicans appear poised to step up their attacks on the rule this fall as opponents search for ways to kill it at the federal and state levels.
Last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) became the latest GOP governor to come out against the plan, announcing that his state will seek a stay on the rule (Greenwire, Sept. 3).
Schedule: The hearing is Friday, Sept. 11, at 9 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
Witness: Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Craig Butler, director of the Ohio EPA; and Jason Esidorfer, utility program director of the Oregon Public Utility Commission.Twitter: @DanielBush Email: dbush@ee
-
Carbon Rule Divides Officials Within States
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
States supporting and opposing the Clean Power Plan may end up challenging the rule in court while simultaneously working on plans to comply.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has said his state will comply, but Colorado Republican Attorney General Cynthia Coffman announced she will join a multi-state lawsuit challenging the rule when it is formally published in the Federal Register.
Meanwhile, Michigan Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette joined states requesting a stay of the rule last month, but Gov. Rick Snyder, also a Republican, last week announced his state would write a compliance plan (Greenwire, Sept. 2).
New Jersey will also seek a court stay of the rule, and officials say writing a plan is a waste of taxpayer dollars, but they haven't decided whether they will heed Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's advice and refuse to comply.
That kind of awkward fracturing will likely happen in many states. Pennsylvania, for example, could see tensions rise between Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf and the state's Republican Legislature, which, according to a law signed by the former GOP governor, holds the power to revise any compliance plan his office creates (Greenwire, Oct. 16, 2014).
In other news, Peabody Energy Corp. and several states continued their legal assault on the Clean Power Plan last week, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject an argument from U.S. EPA that the court lacks jurisdiction to postpone the rollout of the rule because the rule isn't even final until it is published in theFederal Register, EnergyWire's Ellen M. Gilmer reports for the Power Plan Hub.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more of this weekly column and to see the latest news, state summaries and developments.
-
Splits Widen Within State Governments over Clean Power Plan
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Having had just over a month to mull the Obama administration's final, 1,560-page plan to combat climate change by regulating power plant emissions, state governments of all political stripes are starting to tell their constituents how they plan to respond.
But in some states, voters are getting mixed messages.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has said the Centennial State will comply with the Clean Power Plan. But in late August, Colorado's Republican Attorney General Cynthia Coffman announced she will join a multi-state lawsuit challenging the rule when it is formally published in the Federal Register.
And while Michigan's Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette was among the 15 state attorneys general who filed an emergency petition challenging the rule in mid-August, Gov. Rick Snyder, also a Republican, last week announced his state would write a compliance plan (Greenwire, Sept. 2).
In a call with reporters last week, Michigan Agency for Energy Director Valerie Brader said Schuette "is pursuing that case in his individual capacity, and at this time there are no plans for the state to join the current challenges."
Advertisement
This development was puzzling to some.
"The jubilancy of announcing that the state of Michigan is going to submit a state plan -- that tone seemed very odd when looked at in conjunction with the lawsuit that is being brought by the attorney general of the very same state," said Matthew Larson, a utilities lawyer with Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP in Denver.
However, the fracturing of positions on the Clean Power Plan across different government branches was expected in many states, even before the final Clean Power Plan was released. Pennsylvania, for example, will likely see tensions rise between Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf and the state's Republican Legislature, which by law holds the power to revise any compliance plan his office creates (Greenwire, Oct. 16, 2014).
"When different entities have different opinions, whether it's the governor's office or the air office or the public utilities commission or the AG or the legislature -- I think that's going to be a dynamic that we see in a number of states," said Jocelyn Durkay, policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures' Environment, Energy and Transportation program.Does Mich. wrest control from D.C. bureaucrats, or not?
The Colorado attorney general's decision to try to block U.S. EPA's rule came as no surprise to Hickenlooper, who acknowledged "some disagreement" with Coffman over the issue in a speech late last month. Hickenlooper also said he believed it wouldn't be a significant challenge for the state to meet the agency's emissions reduction goals (E&ENews PM, Aug. 27).
Coffman, in contrast, said in a news release she was pursuing legal action because under the Clean Power Plan, "the face of Colorado's economy could be forever changed and that will be reflected in lost jobs, higher utility rates, and an altered energy industry."
"Before untold sums of public and private monies are spent on compliance with the Clean Power Plan, we need to settle the matter of whether it is even legal," the attorney general added.
But the Michigan governor's decision -- or at least the conservative tone of that decision -- caught at least some of EPA's critics off guard.
In its announcement, the state Department of Environmental Quality said it will craft a plan "to ensure [Michigan] retains control of its energy future."
Snyder added in a statement that this plan will "seize the opportunity to make Michigan's energy decisions in Lansing, not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C."
A spokeswoman for the Michigan Agency for Energy and Michigan Public Service Commission provided evidence of widespread local praise for the governor's decision to write a plan, including letters of support from major utilities and industry groups like Consumers Energy and the Michigan Manufacturers Association.
But the American Energy Alliance, a national group backed by the energy industry, was quick to criticize Snyder's move, saying in a statement that "implementing this regulation, when serious legal challenges persist, effectively hands over the keys to Michigan's energy future to unelected bureaucrats in Washington."
Larson called the Michigan governor's stance "a little bit strange."
"The governor is effectively making a states' rights argument within a regulatory paradigm that the attorney general argues is illegal and inconsistent with federal law," he said.
Ken Colburn, principal for the nonprofit Regulatory Assistance Project, argued it's both possible and practical for states to write compliance plans even if they are fighting the rule in court. The choice to litigate is a legal or political decision, he argued, while "the choice to plan is a pragmatic one."
In general, Colburn said, industries would prefer to work with states over federal entities when it comes to planning for the rule. Additionally, there is a risk that legal challenges to the rule will fail.
"I think it's very wise, even for states planning litigation, to be considering their best options," Colburn said.N.J. objects to 'onerous' rule but may still write a compliance plan
Last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican presidential candidate, announced his state is seeking both an administrative stay and reconsideration of the rule (Greenwire, Sept. 3).
Christie called the Clean Power Plan "yet another example of the Obama administration inappropriately reaching far beyond its legal authority to implement more onerous and more burdensome regulations on businesses and state governments alike." The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection argued that the state's earlier efforts to build up carbon-free energy sources had not been given sufficient credit in the final plan.
In a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin said the development of a state plan to comply with the rule "represents a needless and wasteful expenditure over the next three years if, as is likely, the Final Rule is overturned in the courts."
But New Jersey could still join Michigan in writing its own compliance plan -- the state has not ruled out that course of action just yet.
"The state is focused on its administrative and legal options at this time," Bob Considine, a spokesman for New Jersey DEP, said in an email. "We will determine later whether we will consider drafting a plan."
Colburn said this course of action may mean New Jersey will be working against the clock given EPA's initial compliance plan deadline of September 2016.
"Is the entire legal process likely to unravel before Sept. 6, 2016? No, it'll have to take longer than that," Colburn said.
-
General Mills Pledges to Slash Emissions, Spend $100M on Clean Energy
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
General Mills, the Minnesota-based food giant, is planning to boost clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply network by 28 percent. The company, whose portfolio includes popular consumer brands like Cheerios and Yoplait, said recently it would also spend close to $100 million on energy efficiency and clean energy initiatives.
"For 150 years, General Mills has served the world by making food people love. Our aim is to be around for another 150 years," Ken Powell, chairman and CEO, said in a press release. "We recognize that we must do our part to protect and conserve natural resources. Our business depends on it, and so does the planet."
Excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been linked to global warming and disruptions in weather patterns across the world, with some regions experiencing droughts while others deal with flooding.
A changing climate has implications for agricultural productivity, scientists say. Some declines in crop yields have been associated with rising temperatures, according to Jason Funk, a senior climate scientist at the Union for Concerned Scientists.
"While it may not be our fault, it's our problem," John Church, General Mills' executive vice president of global supply chain, said in an interview. "The facts are there. Climate change is real. The part that may be different is that we as a branded manufacturing company are taking responsibility for the entirety of the value chain as opposed [to] just the portion that's in our control" (Jonathan Berr, CBS MoneyWatch, Sept. 3). -- MVY
-
Coal Group Links Clinton to Climate Rule, Cap-and-Trade
Sep 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new coal industry campaign is trying to link presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to President Obama’s controversial environmental policies.
The video and memo labels the Obama administration’s new carbon dioxide limits for power plants as “Obama/Clinton Cap and Trade II” in an attempt to blame Clinton for both the rule and the carbon cap-and-trade legislation that failed to pass Congress in 2010.
“Last month President Obama released illegal energy regulations dressed up as his failed cap-and-trade energy plan of 2010,” the video, released Tuesday by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), says.
“Hillary Clinton has vowed to ‘defend’ and ‘build on’ President Obama’s carbon emissions regulations.”
It warns that many Democratic lawmakers who voted in 2009 to pass the House version of the cap-and-trade bill were “slaughtered” in the 2010 midterm elections.
“This illegal regulation is a dressed-up version of the unpopular ‘cap and trade’ legislation from five years ago with a new name meant to deceive the public,” an accompanying memo from the coal group says.
Coal stands to lose more than 20 percent of its market share as an electricity source by 2030 under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new climate rule, which cuts the power sector’s carbon emissions 32 percent by 2030. But the EPA expects that coal will remain a dominant source of fuel for power.
The coal industry has been among the most vocal opponents of the rule.
The memo cites a Rasmussen Reports poll from August finding that 56 percent of likely voters believe the rule would increase energy costs.
But other surveys have found different results. For example, a League of Conservation Voterspoll found that six in 10 voters support the rule.
The regulation differs significantly from a cap-and-trade plan, although individual states are allowed to use cap-and-trade to meet their specific emissions targets.
The coal group is promoting the video to journalists and is not planning to run it as an advertisement.
-
SAB Panel Appears Poised To Finalize Biomass Carbon Accounting Report
Sep 8, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel that has long been reviewing the agency's revised draft biomass accounting framework (BAF) for how to discount biomass carbon dioxide (CO2) smokestack emissions to account for the materials' regrowth appears poised to finalize its report to the agency during what could be its final meeting Sept. 9.
A draft report posted to the panel's website Aug. 27 largely supports EPA's revised BAF -- after the panel submitted a highly critical report in 2012 on the agency's original 2011 BAF -- though it retains criticisms and an endorsement of an alternative approach that the panel has been discussing.
For example, the panel's draft cover letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy praises the revised framework for adopting an "alternate fate approach" of what the net biogenic atmopsheric contribution might have been if the material were not used for energy; for including a "robust discussion of the tradeoffs inherent in the selection of a temporal scale;" for assigning BAFs by feedstock and region to allow facility-specific calculations; and for addressing leakage.
Most importantly, according to the draft letter, the revised framework includes an approach to construct an anticipated baseline to allow assessment of the additional CO2 emissions that could be attributed to biogenic feedstocks. This additionality is "critical" but should be the only option EPA allows to address the issue, the letter says, noting that the agency also includes what panelists believe is an inferior reference point baseline option as well.
The letter and draft report detail long-articulated panelist criticisms of EPA's decision not to include a policy context in the framework. The letter says a lack of a policy context made it "much more difficult to fully evaluate these frameworks. . . . The 2014 Framework lacked concreteness and was written in a way that was too flexible, with too many possibilities. For instance, EPA describes a variety of possible BAF calculation options, including representative, customized, or hybrid; reference point or anticipated baseline; marginal, average or augmented average; BAF per period, BAF average over time, or BAF cumulative; and undiscounted or discounted.
"EPA needs to make some decisions and offer justification for those choices. For proper scientific evaluation, the Framework needs to be applied in a specific policy context with specific BAF calculations and clearly defined boundaries for EPA's regulatory authority," the letter says.
Despite SAB's concern on the issue, EPA is not expected to include a policy context in its final BAF because the agency views the document as a broad framework that would later be specifically applied to individual policies.
SAB's 2012 report noted that biomass cannot ever be automatically assumed to be carbon neutral -- an approach that industry groups are pushing as long as forest stocks are increasing since the regrowth resequesters CO2.
But environmentalists have strongly resisted this, saying that biomass combustion results in significant and immediate releases that can take years to be resequestered.
EPA's second proposal, released late last year, laid out a series of formulae to determine whether CO2 emissions from biomass combustion are carbon neutral, must be fully counted, reduce emissions or are somewhere in between.
The new SAB panel draft report contains a host of other recommendations for EPA, including that the agency should propose specific BAF calculations and specify its legal authorities over upstream and downstream emissions. "It is also important to have more clarity on underlying expectations about other prevailing land use management, renewable energy and carbon policies that could impact" a BAF, the letter says.
Carbon Stocks
Another SAB panel recommendation is that EPA base its approach on carbon stocks rather than emissions because that "comports with conventional carbon accounting, has well-defined boundaries and follows conservation of mass as well as mass balance."
This approach was first touted by panel members Mark Harmon of Oregon State University and Ken Skog of the U.S. Forest Service on a July 6 call, where they said a landscape approach is much simpler and more inclusive than a smokestack one.
EPA publicly endorsed the alternative on an Aug. 6 call, where the panel appeared to near reaching agreement on its final report to EPA.
One environmentalist says the latest SAB draft "advances a simplified and more powerful approach that assesses not only cumulative emissions, but also the time course of those emissions (as opposed to the EPA approach that assesses cumulative emissions at a single point in time). This means that the radiative forcing effects of each ton of CO2 can be assessed at the time that it is emitted, and going forward. As the summary notes, the approach is applicable at any scale, from a plot to a region."
EPA still faces a lengthy road -- even if the SAB panel approves its report this week -- before it can use the framework to determine how or whether states and power plants can use biomass to comply with the agency's newly finalized greenhouse gas rule for existing facilities.
Industry groups have also criticized the alternative framework as overly complicated for use in a regulatory context such as EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS), released Aug. 3, where the agency generally endorsed use of biomass but deferred specific decisions on what types of biomass are carbon neutral and eligible to be used for ESPS compliance -- taking comment on the issue as part of its proposed federal implementation plan (FIP).
One industry source says, "The point of confusion for all of this is the government is taking comment on the FIP and asking the public to comment on questions that are directly related to the charge they've given to the states on biomass" in the ESPS.
"So states are trying to respond and prepare a" state compliance plan at the same time EPA is taking comment on biomass to inform its final policy and the FIP. "There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing going on," the source says. "Let's be careful it doesn't turn into a game of, 'Go find the rock.'"
The source also notes that ultimately it will be EPA's job to take what it gets from SAB and "translate that into a policy that works." The source cautions that no policy will be perfect and "the trick is to find an outcome that is as uncomplicated as it can be and as robust as can be. . . . The complexity of the policy will determine whether it can be implemented, and we can't lose sight that biomass is a low-value material in the marketplace. The more complicated and costly the policy, the less likely it is to be used."
The industry source also says that Congress may still weigh in on the matter and that a majority of lawmakers in both the House and Senate appear to support an approach that generally recognizes biomass as a carbon-neutral energy source based on Forest Inventory Analysis data.
-
French President Warns Climate Talks Could Fail
Sep 8, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
French President François Hollande is warning that a landmark United Nations climate change conference later this year could fail.
Hollande told reporters on Monday that early negotiations on a climate change accord have stalled over the question of financing for developing countries.
“Good intentions are there, but we are still far away from a legally binding agreement and financing that is up to the levels needed," Hollande said, according to Reuters. "There is even a risk of failure."
Government negotiators met in Bonn, Germany last week to continue working on a deal before the full U.N. talks in Paris this December. According to the report, negotiators made progress on issues like greenhouse gas emission cuts and aid for developing nations to adapt to climate change, but the latter remains a sticking point.
Holland said France will spend the next several months looking to secure at least $100 billion in annual funding for developing nations facing climate change. He said the funding is important to stem the predicted migration of people out of vulnerable countries.
"It is the key. There has to be a pre-accord on the question of financing so that leaders come to Paris knowing there is certainty we will be able to conclude," Hollande told reporters.
"If we don't conclude, and there are no substantial measures to ensure the transition, it won't be hundreds of thousands of refugees in the next 20 years, it will be millions."
European officials have begun ramping up pressure on negotiators ahead of the climate talks, where leaders hope to secure a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and stave off global warming.
In August, the European Union’s top climate chief warned that early negotiations on the climate deal were going “painfully slow” and said more nations need to submit greenhouse gas emissions plans.
President Obama’s top climate adviser, Brian Deese, is traveling to China and India this week to discuss the climate conference. The U.S. and China have already committed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, but India, a top polluter, has not.
-
Md. Oil Train Disclosure Case Nudges Rail Industry Toward Transparency
Sep 8, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Officials in Maryland are expected to reveal oil train data this week following a legal battle over the information's disclosure.
Environmentalists and some state regulators welcomed the quiet end to a pair of industry-led lawsuits Friday as a win for safety and transparency.
The U.S. Department of Transportation ordered railroads last year to share crude routing and traffic statistics with state emergency responders in the wake of several oil train derailments and fires. Freight railroads began reporting the data to commissions across the country with the expectation that it would be shielded from public records requests.
But when the McClatchy Co. and Associated Press sought oil train data from Maryland's Department of the Environment last summer, the agency found no reason to block the information's release. Two railroads hauling crude through the Maryland area, CSX Corp. and Norfolk Southern Corp., filed suit to prevent their crude oil reports from going public.
Last month, a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge ruled against the railroads but gave them until Sept. 4 to appeal (Greenwire, Aug. 17).
Advertisement
CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle said Friday that the company was not planning to appeal the court's decision, noting in a statement that "the safe movement of these shipments and every load of freight is CSX's top priority."
"The company will continue to work with state agencies and first responder organizations to ensure they have the information they need to fulfill their emergency planning responsibilities," Doolittle added.
A representative for Norfolk Southern did not reply to emails seeking comment last week, but spokesman David Pidgeon said in a statement after last month's ruling that the company would respond to the decision "at the appropriate time and venue."
A clerk at the Baltimore court said two hours before the deadline Friday that the office had not yet received an appeal from either railroad. A spokesman for the Maryland Department of Environment also said Friday that the agency had not heard whether Norfolk Southern would challenge the ruling.
The apparent resolution of the Maryland cases fits into the broader, halting shift toward transparency in the North American crude-by-rail business, often over objections from industry. For years, upon request, railroads have provided fire departments and local first responders with lists of the top hazardous materials passing through their communities. But a string of fiery oil train accidents across small towns in the United States and Canada left many leaders calling for a more comprehensive and open approach (EnergyWire, June 9, 2014).
"I think this broader interest in all these national volumes is probably causing some consternation among companies," said David Willauer, who often works between local governments and shippers as manager of transportation technological hazards at the consultancy IEM. He noted at a rail safety event Thursday that specific routing and traffic information can be closely guarded in the "very competitive" fuel logistics industry. Yet, "the best information for first responders to know is the volume [of hazardous material] transported through their community," he said.
Elisabeth Treseder, policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute, said that companies moving hazmat must perform a "balancing act" with public disclosure and public security.
"We need to tread carefully when it comes to information," she said at the same safety event, hosted by the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure.
Environmentalist groups aren't convinced by security concerns, pointing out that anyone with the patience to plan an attack on an oil train could simply keep an eye out for milelong strings of tank cars. DOT's May 2014 Emergency Order, which remains in effect, only applies to trains hauling a million or more gallons of crude from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play.
"It's no secret where there are crude trains being pulled through communities," said Devorah Ancel, an attorney with the Sierra Club. Still, she said sharing more information can help first responders as well as community members who may want to move if too many oil trains pass near their homes.
Ancel called last month's decision in Baltimore "a victory for communities in Maryland who have been threatened by the increase in crude-by-rail traffic coming through their backyards."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested