Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Nov 13
-
(ACC Mentioned) KAB Encourages Americans To Recycle Nov. 15
Nov 12, 2015 | Recycling Today
Keep America Beautiful (KAB), Stamford, Connecticut, has announced that thousands of creative recycling events are being planned for America Recycles Day (ARD), a KAB initiative that takes place on and in the weeks leading up to Nov. 15. ARD is the only nationally recognized day dedicated to promoting and celebrating recycling... -
(ACC Blog) Tying Up Loose Ends: How Transparency And Reproducibility Can Help Improve Chemical Assessments
Nov 12, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Two basic scientific principles, transparency and reproducibility, which reportedly “saved the universe as we know it,” could also help bring the scientific method back to chemical risk assessment. This post will attempt to explain why these principles are critical and how the scientific community could help make that happen. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
EPA Issues Three SNURs for Five Chemicals
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency amended significant new use rules (SNURs) for five chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices, according to a final rule (RIN 2070-AB27) scheduled for publication in the Nov. 13 Federal Register. For two of the SNURs, the language remains unchanged, and for the third, the SNUR... -
Monsanto Poisoning Bay With PCBs, Oakland Says
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E.Cutler
Monsanto Co. and its legacy businesses allowed polychlorinated biphenyls to contaminate San Francisco Bay, including through stormwater runoff from Oakland, Calif., streets, the city argued in a federal lawsuit (Oakland v. Monsanto Corp., N.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-05152, 11/10/15). -
OECD Releases Two Reports In Safety Of Nanomaterials Series
Nov 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released two reports in its environment, health and safety publication series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials: No 60 current developments in delegations on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials. This covers activities that occurred in delegations between January and July 2014; and... -
NRC Rule Doesn't Go Far Enough, Safety Advocates Say
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule to limit damage at reactors in cases of severe events such as earthquakes doesn't go far enough to protect the plants, nuclear safety advocates told Bloomberg BNA. The proposed rule would establish requirements for nuclear reactor licensees and applicants to plan... -
What You Need To Know About The Senate’s Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Bill
Nov 12, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Senate released its four-year pipeline safety reauthorization bill this week. Here are three things you should know about the bill, the Securing America’s Future Energy: Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety ( SAFE PIPES) Act: Pipeline safety programs would have a lower cap for funding. In Fiscal Year 2015, Congress... -
International Committee to Consider Explosives, Perfumery Issues
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
An international committee will hear proposals on altering classification testing requirements for certain explosives at an upcoming meeting, but explosives groups told the U.S. delegation at a Nov. 12 preparation meeting those requirements may be the start of a broader discussion on that testing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Wants Boiler Arguments Heard as Scheduled
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals court should deny a request to change the three-judge panel that will hear litigation over federal emissions standards for boilers and incinerators, because it would further delay a decision that could substantially affect compliance obligations, a coalition of industry groups said (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No... -
New Ad Ties LA. Democrat to Obama's KXL Decision
Nov 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
A super political action committee backing Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's gubernatorial bid yesterday launched a new attack against state House Minority Leader John Bel Edwards, aiming to tie the Democratic contender to President Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline. -
New York Governor Vetoes Deepwater LNG Port
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
A deepwater port for liquefied natural gas that would involve a 22-mile pipeline off Long Island's beaches was vetoed Nov. 12 by New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D). In a letter to the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, Cuomo said the proposed Port... -
Cuomo Blocks Offshore Natural Gas Project In New York
Nov 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Thursday vetoed a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas facility near Long Island. Environmental activists had pushed Cuomo to reject the Port Ambrose project, warning that it posed a risk to the Atlantic Ocean ecosystem near its proposed location, 20 miles off New York’s coast.Cuomo, who had until... -
Court Stay Won't Stop EPA Clean Power Plan, McCabe Says
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
The Environmental Protection Agency will continue working with states on developing and implementing their compliance plans, even if the Clean Power Plan is stayed by a federal court, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe said at the annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society in Washington, D.C. -
Evangelical Ads Urge Sen. Kirk To Back Clean Power Plan
Nov 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
The Evangelical Environmental Network today launched a radio campaign pressuring Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk to support U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the latest round of climate-change-policy-themed messaging aimed at swaying the Republican senator's vote. The 1-minute spot features "the voices of Christians"... -
Advocates Urge EPA To Strengthen FIP, Fearing State Critics' GHG Impacts
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Abby Smith
Environmentalists are urging EPA to strengthen its proposed federal plan for its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule, arguing that stricter requirements are needed in case states opposed to the rule, which are responsible for the bulk of its expected GHG reductions, follow through on threats to withhold their compliance plans. -
D.C. Circuit Rejects Rehearing In Chromium MACT Suit
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected environmentalists' request for rehearing in their suit over EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics standard for the chromium plating sector, letting stand a panel decision that unanimously backed EPA's rule and the process for setting similar... -
EPA Proposes Update to Unusual Air Event Policy
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A proposed update to the Environmental Protection Agency's exceptional event rule would address several state concerns, including the elimination of a demonstration requirement that states have long identified as a problem, a state air official told Bloomberg BNA. -
District Court Judge Rejects EPA Bid To Stay CWA Suit
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
A U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota judge has rejected EPA's bid to stay a suit over the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule pending an appellate court decision on whether it has authority to hear challenges to the rule, with the judge saying the agency failed to show “sufficient reason” for halting the lawsuit.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) KAB Encourages Americans To Recycle Nov. 15
Nov 12, 2015 | Recycling Today
Keep America Beautiful (KAB), Stamford, Connecticut, has announced that thousands of creative recycling events are being planned for America Recycles Day (ARD), a KAB initiative that takes place on and in the weeks leading up to Nov. 15.
ARD is the only nationally recognized day dedicated to promoting and celebrating recycling in the United States, KAB says. In its 18th year, ARD educates people about the importance of recycling to the U.S. economy and environmental well-being, and helps to motivate occasional recyclers to become everyday recyclers, according to KAB. A number of ARD special events are focusing on this year’s theme of “Bathrooms, Bags & Gadgets.” They include:
Johnson & Johnson Family of Consumer Cos. and its Care to Recycle program are giving away 10,000 bathroom recycling bags this ARD. The objective is to provide a reminder to individuals about what bathroom items are recyclable.CyclePoint® from SourceAmerica®, the 46-member nonprofit eRecycling network whose mission is to create jobs for people with disabilities, will be hosting 50 eRecycling events nationwide, including marquee events in Maryland, Michigan and Oklahoma.More than 100 collection and educational events featuring plastic bag recycling are taking place during ARD. KAB says “Bathrooms, Bags & Gadgets” shines a light on some of the everyday but not “top of mind” consumer products, which can be given another life through recycling. These include personal care items commonly found in the bathroom, such as haircare and mouthwash bottles; plastic bags and wraps used in packaging produce, paper towels, bathroom tissue or dry cleaning that can be recycled at grocery stores; and consumer electronics and gadgets, such as mobile phones, tablets, game consoles, TVs and more.
“There are so many consumer products beyond aluminum cans and plastic bottles that can be recycled and made into something new and useful, which is why this year’s theme is ‘Bathrooms, Bags and Gadgets,’” says Brenda Pulley, KAB’s senior vice president, recycling. “We also want to encourage people to participate in the ‘I Will Recycle’ online pledge sweepstakes, which is a fun and engaging way to commit to recycling this America Recycles Day.”
During ARD 2015, individuals are encouraged to take the “I Will Recycle” Pledge, which runs through Nov. 20. Individuals are encouraged to demonstrate their recycling spirit and automatically be entered in the sweepstakes by posting a photo on Twitter at @KABTweet or @RecyclesDay or @KeepAmericaBeautiful on Instagram holding a recyclable product that they pledge to recycle with the hashtags #IWillRecycle and #sweepstakes. Individuals must enable public viewing of Twitter and Instagram photos. KAB says it may share tagged social media posts with its fans and four individuals will be selected at random to win an Apple certified refurbished iPad mini 3.
KAB, in partnership with the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), Washington, and other partners, will host a congressional briefing for ARD on Wednesday, Nov. 18. The purpose of the briefing is to provide information to members of Congress and staff about the state of recycling, the business of recycling, its many benefits and the importance of engaging individuals to recycle, according to KAB.
Other featured ARD 2015 events include: New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Council Member Antonio Reynoso, who is chair of the Council Sanitation Committee, will celebrate ARD on Saturday, Nov. 14, with an event at the Cooper Park Houses in Brooklyn. The 1 p.m. event is being conducted along with the New York City Housing Authority and the city of New York Department of Sanitation, with participation by KAB and GrowNYC.In celebration of ARD, Mathy Stanislaus, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator Heather McTeer Toney will announce preliminary results of the EPA’s analysis on job creation in the recycling sector as well as a discussion about the importance of recycling to the supply chain. This Nov. 16 event will occur at the Food Recovery Summit, a meeting bringing together industry leaders to discuss steps to achieve the announced goal to reduce food loss and waste by 50 percent by 2030.For the second year in Georgia, during the week of Nov. 9-15, K-12 school students in the state of Georgia are encouraged to read books that celebrate, educate and encourage waste reduction activities through the Read for Recycle Georgia program.ARD at SandBlast 2015 on Saturday, Nov. 14, in Holmes Beach, Florida, is a sand sculpture competition that helps raise awareness about recycling. KAB says it is not too late to register an ARD event at AmericaRecyclesDay.org. Local organizers can schedule events in their communities and gain access to resources to plan, promote and host an ARD event. Events can be scheduled any time during the fall, but should be held as close to Nov. 15 as possible. Learn more about ARD at http://americarecyclesday.org, locate recycling events nearby, register to host an event, or discover more information about how, when and where to recycle in each community.
ARD is made possible through the support of Amcor, American Chemistry Council, CyclePoint® from Source America®, Johnson & Johnson Family of Consumer Cos., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Pilot Corporation of America (Pilot Pen).
KAB says it is a leading national nonprofit that inspires and educates people to take action every day to improve and beautify their community environment. Established in 1953, KAB says it provides the expertise, programs and resources to help people end littering in America, increase recycling in America and beautify America’s communities. The organization is driven by the work and passion of more than 600 community-based KAB affiliates, millions of volunteers and the support of corporate partners, municipalities, elected officials and individuals. -
Nov 12, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Two basic scientific principles, transparency and reproducibility, which reportedly “saved the universe as we know it,” could also help bring the scientific method back to chemical risk assessment. This post will attempt to explain why these principles are critical and how the scientific community could help make that happen.
Back in 2011, scientists appeared to make a startling discovery while working at the Large Hadron Collider at the multi-billion-dollar CERN laboratory outside Geneva; they found a particle that could travel faster than the speed of light. However, as Einstein’s theory of special relativity makes clear, that kind of observation shouldn’t be possible. Nothing can travel faster than light, right?
But, wait a minute. Weren’t the people who made this unlikely discovery supposed to be the “Einsteins” of our generation? And doesn’t “new science” almost always trump the old? And by the time the study makes its way into the daily news, hasn’t the data been checked and rechecked, the experiment replicated, and the findings confirmed?
Well, no, not really.
In this exciting case of faster-than-light particle travel, the world seemed to willfully suspend disbelief – if only for a little while. That still gave the media plenty of time to put together a what-if story and share it with the world. And why not?
But soon after the media firestorm came the proverbial wet blanket. Researchers reviewed the data and ran the experiment again, and again, and again before they made a very different kind of discovery. The original experiment that found faster-than-light travel and that would have upended a century of scientific research was the result of… a loose cable.
Of all the billion and one pieces that went into this multi-billion-dollar investment beneath the Swiss and French Alps, something as simple as a loose cable was ultimately responsible for the apparent threat to Einstein’s legacy, not to mention a lot of newspaper ink.
So what are we supposed to take away from what happened in 2011? This video, produced by the National Science Foundation does a pretty good job of explaining why researchers can jump the gun and forget about the importance of reproducibility in science.
The story has a happy ending and productive conclusion. Thanks to the willingness on the part of the CERN researchers to share their data, methods, and allow other scientists the opportunity to run the test themselves, sound science ultimately prevailed.
Transparency and reproducibility: Two hallmarks of the scientific method
The thing about scientific data is that it isn’t meant to be mute – it’s supposed to be presented so it can speak for itself. . That is, the researcher conducting the experiment shouldn’t need to be there explaining away discrepancies or complicated interpretations. However, without the data, other scientists cannot possibly try to reproduce the results and verify them.
This video offers a hilarious but real illustration of just how hard it can be to get the original data from an important study:
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Center for Open Science (COS) in Charlottesville, VA is spearheading an effort to restore greater transparency and reproducibility in scientific research, which the COS says are “critical aspects of science that are frequently overlooked in the pursuit of novelty and impact.” So far, the COS has the support of at least 41 organizations and 114 journals – but there are a few key players still missing, and that has to change.
Brian Nosek, Executive Director of the Center for Open Science and Professor of Psychology and the University of Virginia, and Chris Chambers, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at Cardiff University, make it clear why the entire scientific community needs to rally together:
Transparency and reproducibility are the beating heart of the scientific enterprise. Transparency ensures that all aspects of scientific methods and results are available for critique, compliment, or reuse. This not only meets a social imperative, it also allows others to test new questions with existing data, makes it easier to identify and correct errors, and helps unmask academic fraud. Transparent practices such as sharing data and computer code, in turn, safeguard reproducibility: the idea that for a scientific observation to count as a discovery it must reveal something real and repeatable about the natural world…. As any scientist will tell you, the fierce competition of academia rewards those who secure large grants and publish innovative – if tentative – findings in prestigious journals, not scholars who instead focus on being transparent and careful. The incentives that drive individual scientists are out of step with what is best for science as a social enterprise.
As ACC’s Nancy Beck noted in our blog last November, more than 30 major scientific journals, have made a new commitment to improving reproducibility, rigor, transparency and independent verification. This is great progress, however not all the journals that toxicologists and risk assessors publish in have signed on to this effort.
A Washington Post article published earlier this year by Joel Achenbach, noted that “too often, experimental results can’t be reproduced” and that “an irreproducible result is inherently squishy.” As Achenbach reports:
And so there’s a movement afoot, and building momentum rapidly. Roughly four centuries after the invention of the scientific method, the leaders of the scientific community are recalibrating their requirements, pushing for the sharing of data and greater experimental transparency.
It’s time we make all the pieces visible and publically available so the broader community can understand how they fit together, this includes the opportune to attempt to take apart and reassemble the data to see if we get the same results.
The new Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines, developed by COS, lay out eight standards for journals that nudge the scientific community to provide greater openness. Many important scientific journals in the fields of toxicology, environmental health, and risk assessment currently do not meet the standard. They are at level 0. What can the scientific community do to improve the approaches of researchers and publishers, including important and impactful journals such as Toxicological Sciences and Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), to ensure movement towards achieving a higher TOP standard?
Perhaps a good place to start building a more transparent and open research community would be to have researchers and publishers agree that we should all strive to meet at least the level 1 goals for published articles. For that that to happen, influential journals need to increase requirements for potential authors to encourage more transparency regarding the information and methods used to support conclusions in publications.
These basic but important changes would help foster the public’s trust and confidence in scientific research and would thus increase the value and credibility of published studies. This would be of benefit to journals, authors and the public as a whole.
-
EPA Issues Three SNURs for Five Chemicals
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency amended significant new use rules (SNURs) for five chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices, according to a final rule (RIN 2070-AB27) scheduled for publication in the Nov. 13 Federal Register. For two of the SNURs, the language remains unchanged, and for the third, the SNUR will remove from its scope any use where the chemical substance is incorporated or encapsulated in plastic. The final rule, made under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, amends the SNURS to allow certain uses without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN) and extends SNUN requirements to certain additional uses. On April 9, the EPA proposed a rule to update restrictions it had previously imposed on 24 chemicals to reflect uses the agency has deemed acceptable (80 Fed. Reg. 19,037; 68 DEN A-14, 4/9/15). On June 30, the EPA issued SNURs for 19 of the 24 substances in a final rule (80 Fed. Reg. 37,161; 127 DEN A-8, 7/2/15). The five chemicals in the Nov. 13 action fall within three chemical groups: oxirane, 2,2'-(1,6-hexanediylbis (oxymethylene)) bis-; titanate [Ti6)O13(2-)], dipotassium; and partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols (generic).
-
Monsanto Poisoning Bay With PCBs, Oakland Says
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E.Cutler
Monsanto Co. and its legacy businesses allowed polychlorinated biphenyls to contaminate San Francisco Bay, including through stormwater runoff from Oakland, Calif., streets, the city argued in a federal lawsuit (Oakland v. Monsanto Corp., N.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-05152, 11/10/15).
Oakland, which is facing potential action from the State Water Resources Control Board over PCB-containing stormwater runoff, accused Monsanto of creating public nuisance through the leaching of the chemical, which was banned decades ago, and poisoning water, wildlife and fish in a complaint filed Nov. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
“Although Monsanto knew for decades that PCBs were toxic and knew that they were widely contaminating all natural resources and living organisms, Monsanto concealed these facts and continued producing PCBs until Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), which banned the manufacture and most uses of PCBs as of January 1, 1979,” the city said in its lawsuit.
The lawsuit names as defendants Monsanto, Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia LLC, successor to the original Monsanto and now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.
Solutia referred requests for comment to Monsanto. Monsanto is reviewing the lawsuit, spokeswoman Charla Lord said in a Nov. 10 e-mail.
“However, Monsanto is not responsible for the costs alleged in this matter. PCBs sold at the time were a lawful and useful product that was then incorporated by third parties into other useful products. If improper disposal or other improper uses created the necessity for clean-up costs, then these other third parties would bear responsibility for these costs,” Lord said.
Monsanto in 1935-1979 was the sole U.S. manufacturer of PCBs.
Permit, Liability Issues
The SWRCB recently issued a tentative order that may require a reduction in Oakland's total maximum daily load of PCBs under the city's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the lawsuit said.
“The new, stricter TMDL requirements will cost plaintiff additional money in order to improve procedures, methods, and facilities, in order to reduce PCB discharge to new and future TMDL levels,” the lawsuit said.
“The company that is responsible for this vast contamination should bear the burden of cleaning up our environment, not the taxpayers of Oakland and California,” Oakland city attorney Barbara Parker said in a statement.
Oakland estimates the cleanup cost for Alameda County at $1 billion.
Oakland historically was the site of PCB manufacturing operations, and recent monitoring has found the highest concentrations in sediment off the Oakland Army Base and Oakland Inner Harbor, George Torgun, San Francisco Baykeeper managing attorney, told Bloomberg BNA in a Nov. 10 e-mail.
The same counsel in the Oakland filing represent San Diego and its Port Authority in a lawsuit over PCB pollution in San Diego Bay (San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Monsanto Co., S.D. Cal., No. 3:15-cv-00578, 3/13/15)(51 DEN A-8, 3/17/15).
Oakland is represented by John H. Gomez and John P. Fiske of Gomez Trial Attorneys, San Diego; Scott Summy, Carla Burke and Celeste Evangelisti of Baron & Budd P.C., Dallas; and Barbara Parker, Otis McGee Jr. and Maria Bee in the Oakland City Attorney's Office, Oakland, Calif.
-
OECD Releases Two Reports In Safety Of Nanomaterials Series
Nov 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has released two reports in its environment, health and safety publication series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials:
No 60 current developments in delegations on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials. This covers activities that occurred in delegations between January and July 2014; and
No 61 current developments in delegations on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials, which captures activities that occurred in delegations before September 2015.
The purpose of the reports is to provide delegations the opportunity to describe recent or planned national initiatives and/or events, related to the safety of manufactured nanomaterials.
The documents are published under the responsibility of the Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and Working Party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology of the OECD.
-
NRC Rule Doesn't Go Far Enough, Safety Advocates Say
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule to limit damage at reactors in cases of severe events such as earthquakes doesn't go far enough to protect the plants, nuclear safety advocates told Bloomberg BNA.
The proposed rule would establish requirements for nuclear reactor licensees and applicants to plan for ways to reduce the damage of “beyond-design-basis events” such as earthquakes. Among other things, it calls for improvements in emergency response capabilities and in the ability to assess the release of radioactive material.
The rule was developed in response to the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan after it was wrecked by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Some nuclear safety advocates said that the commission should have included severe accident management guidelines (SAMGs) as requirements. The industry follows SAMGs on a voluntary basis.
The NRC estimated that its proposed rule would cost $7.2 million, or $111,000 per site.
The nuclear industry is facing economic challenges in competitive energy markets, with eight reactors either in the process of decommissioning or planning to do so in the next five years(207 DEN A-8, 10/27/15).
Voluntary Measures
The NRC staff originally proposed including the SAMGs as requirements in the draft proposed rule, but the majority of the commissioners voted in August against that plan.
NRC Chairman Stephen Burns and Commissioner William Ostendorff said in their edits of the draft proposed rule, published on Aug. 27, that the industry was doing a sufficient job maintaining the SAMGs on a voluntary basis.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear industry, said in an Oct. 22 statement that, based on an industrywide initiative, each nuclear reactor licensee plans to send a letter to the NRC by the end of 2015 detailing its site-specific SAMG commitments.
The Nuclear Energy Institute was reviewing the 135-page rule and would not be prepared to provide comment until the end of the week of Nov. 16, spokesman Tom Kauffman told Bloomberg BNA on Nov. 12.
Safety Advocates Object
Matthew McKinzie, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's nuclear program, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 12 he was “disappointed that the NRC seemed to rely on quantitative measures and made the SAMGs voluntary.”
Similarly, Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 12 that requiring the SAMGs “makes sense because they are an integral part of the emergency response to a beyond-design-basis accident.”
The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register Nov. 13, and comments are due 90 days later in mid-February.
-
What You Need To Know About The Senate’s Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Bill
Nov 12, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Senate released its four-year pipeline safety reauthorization bill this week. Here are three things you should know about the bill, the Securing America’s Future Energy: Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety ( SAFE PIPES) Act:
Pipeline safety programs would have a lower cap for funding. In Fiscal Year 2015, Congress appropriated $146 million, up nearly $27 million from the actual funding levels in FY 2014. Now the maximum allowable funding level for these programs in FY 2016 would be $127 million, increasing each year through 2019 to hit $135 million.
Existing mandates and certain “significant” rules already begun would generally need to be completed before new rules could be started. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration—where the pipeline safety programs are housed—received a long list of mandates during its 2012 reauthorization. The agency still hasn’t completed all of them. Industry and pipeline safety watchdog groups called for few or no new mandates to be added during this reauthorization. Congress appears, in many ways, to have complied. This could be lawmakers’ way of saying, “Get it done.”
A hodgepodge of studies, reviews, rules and other mandates are required. For example, PHMSA would be required to develop rules for underground natural gas storage facilities, and to add a user fee for them; to consider the impact or worst-case scenario of any hazardous liquid discharge into certain waters or shorelines; and to deem the Great Lakes a “USA ecological resource,” essentially ensuring more stringent pipeline safety requirements for those waters.
The pipeline reauthorization proposal comes more than a month after the previous pipeline safety law expired. It isn’t immediately clear how quickly the Senate will take up its bill.
-
International Committee to Consider Explosives, Perfumery Issues
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
An international committee will hear proposals on altering classification testing requirements for certain explosives at an upcoming meeting, but explosives groups told the U.S. delegation at a Nov. 12 preparation meeting those requirements may be the start of a broader discussion on that testing.
Meanwhile, the U.S. delegation, which includes Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration staff, and a hazmat shipping group appeared to clash at the meeting over a special provision regarding exempting perfumery and certain other products from certain international requirements. Several other proposals on issues ranging from international lithium battery requirements to labeling dimensions also were discussed.
The PHMSA meeting was held ahead of a United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods meeting that begins Nov. 30. That is the second of four meetings leading up to the December 2016 UN Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods and on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals meeting.
If amendments are approved by the committee, they will be incorporated into the 20th Revised Edition of the UN Model Regulations and would be considered for certain air and marine documents.
One of the provisions that received attention was a proposal by Canada expanding the types of explosives that must be classified using a specific method known as a 6(d) test under the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria. The U.S. plans to support the proposal.
The 6(d) tests are used under Special Provision 347 to classify how hazardous certain substances are, essentially aiming to ensure that hazardous effects that are accidentally initiated are restricted to within the package. As it stands, PHMSA believes Canada appropriately identified 10 additional explosives entries that are classified in 1.4s—meaning explosives that are packaged or designed in a way not to hinder emergency response efforts—that should be tested using the 6(d) method.
David Boston, a representative of the Institute of Makers of Explosives, said that his group didn't have a “real objection” with the paper, especially given that many of those products already were classified using the 6(d) test. However, Boston and Ben Barrett, a consultant representing the Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, said it may be warranted to reconsider globally the criteria for the 6(d) test in the future.
“As we go on through this biennium we need to look at 6(d) based on what we've learned from using it and be sure that it is crafted such that it doesn't give us unintended classifications in the wrong area,” Boston said.
A representative of the Defense Department Explosives Safety Board said he was concerned about the department having to go back and re-classify thousands of materials stored globally due to changes in what explosives must use a 6(d) test. Industry members also requested that any changes come with a reasonable transition period.
Special Provision Proposal
Another widely discussed working paper offered by the Association of Hazmat Shippers would create a special provision to exempt certain small amounts of consumer and pharmaceutical products that contain ethyl alcohol from UN Model Regulations, if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the proposal—Working Paper 45—would apply to limited amounts of extracts, flavoring liquids, “perfumery” products and ethyl alcohol.
While the U.S. supported the idea in principle, PHMSA representatives said this proposal wouldn't maintain equivalent safety levels to domestic hazardous material transportation rules, pointing to inner packaging limit concerns, among others. Ben Smith, a special agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, expressed concern that this provision could cause confusion, for example, with respect to training.
“We do support provisions that are within our regulations and, to the extent that we can do that internationally, we support them there,” Duane Pfund, who spoke on behalf of PHMSA, said. “When they start to vary greatly from what we have, that's where it causes some difficulties for us.”
“Understood,” Larry Bierlein, who spoke on behalf of the association, said. “It's meant to be more restrictive, rather than less.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Wants Boiler Arguments Heard as Scheduled
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals court should deny a request to change the three-judge panel that will hear litigation over federal emissions standards for boilers and incinerators, because it would further delay a decision that could substantially affect compliance obligations, a coalition of industry groups said (U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1108, response filed 11/12/15; Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1125, response filed 11/12/15; Am. Chemistry Council v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1141, response filed 11/12/15).
The industry petitioners, which include the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, American Chemistry Council and American Forest & Paper Association, filed a Nov. 12 response that urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to uphold the existing oral argument schedule, which calls for three separate lawsuits over Environmental Protection Agency rules to be argued on Dec. 3 before a panel consisting of Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith.
The three lawsuits challenge the EPA's national hazardous air pollution standards for major source boilers (RIN 2060-AQ25; RIN 2060-AR13), area source boilers (RIN 2060-AM44; RIN 2060-AR14) and commercial and solid waste incinerators (RIN 2060-AO12; RIN 2060-AR15). Those rules set maximum achievable control technology, or MACT, standards based on the emissions levels achieved by the best performing facilities in a source category.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups involved in the litigation filed a Nov. 6 motion asking the court to alter the panel that will hear the three cases. The environmental groups said the cases should be heard by the same three-judge panel that decided a related case over the EPA's nonhazardous secondary materials rule (RIN 2060–AR15 and 2050–AG44), which consisted of Judges David Tatel, Robert Wilkins and David Sentelle(216 DEN A-2, 11/9/15).
The industry petitioners argued that there was nothing in a Feb. 26, D.C. Circuit order that scheduled the secondary materials rule arguments that required the same panel to hear all four cases. Instead, the industry groups contended, the order specified that the three lawsuits over the boiler and incinerator standards would remain coordinated with each other for argument by the same panel.
The D.C. Circuit in June upheld the nonhazardous secondary materials rule, which is related to the boiler and incinerator litigation because it affects how combustion units are regulated under the Clean Air Act (Eco Servs. Operations LLC v. EPA, 2015 BL 175759, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1189, 6/3/15; 107 DEN A-5, 6/4/15).
Compliance Date Nearing
Granting the request to reassign the panel would “prejudice” the industry petitioners because it would likely result in a rescheduled date for oral argument, the petitioners said.
The petitioners cited the Jan. 31, 2016, compliance deadline for the major source boiler standards, commonly referred to as boiler MACT, as a reason for the court to maintain the current argument schedule. Those standards cover more than 14,000 existing boilers at chemical plants, petroleum refineries and other industrial facilities. The standards are estimated by the EPA to cost industry $1.6 billion annually.
“Industry petitioners have already endured substantial delays in this litigation to accommodate EPA's remand for further administrative proceedings, with no stay of the Jan. 31, 2016, compliance date,” the industry groups said. “Any further delay in the oral argument schedule will substantially increase the real risk that this court will render a decision after the compliance date.”
The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners and the American Chemistry Council in July told Bloomberg BNA that the proximity of the Dec. 3 oral arguments to the boiler MACT compliance date meant that industrial facilities needed to work to comply with the standards as written, despite the ongoing litigation (141 DEN A-4, 7/23/15).
A decision issued after the compliance date would place additional burdens on industry and put sources at the risk of potential enforcement and citizen lawsuits over standards that could be substantially changed by the D.C. Circuit.
Industry: Environmental Groups Misread Order
The industry petitioners also argued that the panel assigned to hear the boiler and incinerator arguments would not prejudice any party involved, including the environmental groups.
The environmental groups said they structured their briefs in the boiler and incinerator lawsuits based on the belief that the cases would be heard by the same panel that heard the secondary materials rule litigation. However, the industry petitioners said the panel in Eco Servs. Operations LLC v. EPA would not have gained a “more fulsome understanding” of the statutory scheme behind promulgation of the boiler and incinerator standards because the secondary materials rule was promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, not the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said in a Nov. 10 court filing that it does not have an opinion on the environmental groups' request for panel reassignment.
-
New Ad Ties LA. Democrat to Obama's KXL Decision
Nov 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
A super political action committee backing Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's gubernatorial bid yesterday launched a new attack against state House Minority Leader John Bel Edwards, aiming to tie the Democratic contender to President Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.
Edwards and Vitter are competing in a Nov. 21 runoff election for the right to succeed term-limited Gov. Bobby Jindal (R).
The Fund for Louisiana's Future released a 30-second spot that criticizes the Obama administration's decision to block TransCanada Corp.'s proposed Alberta-to-Gulf-of-Mexico pipeline over environmental concerns.
"With oil prices down, our economy is bleeding. Obama's killing of the Keystone pipeline will cost Louisiana thousands more good-paying jobs, just like Obama's oil moratorium in our Gulf," a narrator states, referring to a temporary ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
The ad continues: "Obama is on Louisiana's ballot, but his name is John Bel Edwards. As a liberal, Edwards is a strong Obama supporter. David Vitter fights for Louisiana energy and is Obama's toughest opponent. Think about that when you vote."
Both the super PAC and Vitter's own campaign have sought to link Edwards to Obama in the runoff election, given that the president remains unpopular in the Pelican State.
The Louisiana Democratic Party refuted the ad yesterday, pointing to statements Edwards made at a Tuesday debate in which he criticized the White House's decision.
"Just the other day, I stood up and opposed the decision not to go forward with the Keystone pipeline because that is the wrong decision for our country and our state," Edwards said at the debate. "It would create jobs, allow for energy independence. ... So if you believe sitting here tonight that the president poses the biggest threat to our future in Louisiana, you need to stay in Washington and deal with that."
Despite expectations that Edwards would be an underdog in the November election, recent polling has shown the Democrat leading Vitter in the runoff contest (E&E Daily, Nov. 6).
Democrats have not won a statewide election in Louisiana since 2007, but Vitter faced a contentious primary battle with other Republicans who put a new focus on the senator's role in a 2007 prostitution scandal, and Edwards has continued to harp on that issue in the runoff.
The Democrat recently aired a campaign ad accusing Vitter of choosing "prostitutes over patriots" (Greenwire, Nov. 11).
During a Tuesday debate, Vitter called the spot "the most vicious negative ad" in the campaign.
-
New York Governor Vetoes Deepwater LNG Port
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
A deepwater port for liquefied natural gas that would involve a 22-mile pipeline off Long Island's beaches was vetoed Nov. 12 by New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D).
In a letter to the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, Cuomo said the proposed Port Ambrose project “presents risks to New York's security and economy” while hurting the potential for wind energy development in the waters off Long Island's South Shore.
“Together, these unmitigated concerns cumulatively outweigh the project's intermittent impact on natural gas supply,” he said.
A federal license for the project, proposed by Liberty Natural Gas LLC of Jersey City, N.J., requires approval under the Deepwater Port Act from New York and New Jersey, as adjacent coastal states connected directly to the port by the pipeline.
The plan calls for the pipeline to be laid 19 miles off New York's Jones Beach, to transport gas to an existing Transco pipeline that feeds into Long Beach, N.Y., and New Jersey, Cuomo's letter said.
“My administration carefully reviewed this project from all angles, and we have determined that the security and economic risks far outweigh any potential benefits,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Superstorm Sandy taught us how quickly things can go from bad to worse when major infrastructure fails—and the potential for disaster with this project during extreme weather or amid other security risks is simply unacceptable.”
The proposed facility would be located in offshore waters between New York Harbor's main shipping channels, making it a potential terrorist target, and would “create a dangerous mix of massive LNG tankers and weak fixed infrastructure in close proximity to shipping lanes for the biggest port on the East Coast,” he said in the letter.
Cuomo also said the proposal would disrupt commercial squid and scallop fisheries with annual catches worth tens of millions of dollars, as well as commercial navigation. In 2014, he said, $200 billion in cargo passed through New York Harbor.
Company: ‘Very Surprised.'
In a statement, Roger Whelan, chief executive officer of Liberty Natural Gas, said, “We are disappointed and very surprised with Governor Cuomo's decision today to not allow a cleaner, more affordable energy supply to reach New York consumers.”
He said company officials had hoped that the safety and environmental concerns raised by Cuomo “had been thoroughly addressed and dismissed” in the project's final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
The FEIS has been posted for public comment by the U.S. Coast Guard, with comments due Nov. 30 (80 Fed. Reg. 62,596).
In a joint statement, Environmental Advocates of New York and the National Wildlife Federation welcomed Cuomo's action.
“Governor Cuomo's rejection of yet another dangerous proposal based on the dirty fuels of the past is another great step forward towards a healthier, cleaner New York,” Peter Iwanowicz, Environmental Advocates executive director, said in a statement.
Offshore Wind Project Proposed
An offshore wind project proposed by the New York Power Authority for the waters south of Long Island is designed to generate 350 megawatts of electricity for the Long Island and New York City region, with the ability to expand generation capacity to as much as 700 megawatts, the environmental groups said (03 DEN A-10, 1/4/13).
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-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; 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;}
-
Cuomo Blocks Offshore Natural Gas Project In New York
Nov 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) on Thursday vetoed a proposed offshore liquefied natural gas facility near Long Island.
Environmental activists had pushed Cuomo to reject the Port Ambrose project, warning that it posed a risk to the Atlantic Ocean ecosystem near its proposed location, 20 miles off New York’s coast.Cuomo, who had until mid-December to decide on the fate of the project, agreed. In a letter to federal regulators, he raised questions about security on Port Ambrose, its vulnerability to severe weather and its impact on local fishing industries.
“We have determined that the security and economic risks far outweigh any potential benefits,” Cuomo said in his letter, Newsday reported.
He added that Port Ambrose would “hinder the local maritime economy in a way that negatively impacts businesses throughout Long Island, and that is simply unacceptable. This is a common-sense decision, because vetoing this project is in the best interests of New Yorkers."
The project’s developer, Liberty Natural Gas, told Newsday that it was “surprised and disappointed” by the decision.
The company had hoped to invest $600 million into the Port Ambrose project, which would have pumped an average of 400 million cubic feed of natural gas per day into area gas pipelines.
But Cuomo said he was worried another storm like Hurricane Sandy could put the project at risk. He also cited the conflict between the project and a potential offshore wind farm, something federal officials are pushing.
Green groups welcomed the decision Thursday.
“Increasingly, Governor Cuomo has demonstrated his commitment to being a leader in the fight to protect our communities from dangerous pollution and the devastating effects of the climate crisis,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement.
“New York can and should be a national and global leader in growing the booming clean energy economy. The decisiveness Governor Cuomo has continued to demonstrate helps clear a path to further spur that growth.”
-
Court Stay Won't Stop EPA Clean Power Plan, McCabe Says
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
The Environmental Protection Agency will continue working with states on developing and implementing their compliance plans, even if the Clean Power Plan is stayed by a federal court, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe said at the annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society in Washington, D.C.
“It is my intent and it is Administrator McCarthy's intent that we continue to work constructively with the states even while this (litigation) is going on, even if the rule is stayed,” she said. “The President is very committed to making progress on this issue so, from our perspective, it is very important that we move forward with this rule and the implementation activities.” However, McCabe said the EPA does not think the standards for a court stay will be met.
The EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) sets power sector carbon emissions limits for states. States must submit their compliance plans by September 2016 or apply for an extension (149 DEN B-1, 8/4/15).
Twenty-seven states have filed lawsuits to overturn the rule, and 18 states have intervened to defend it ( West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, motion filed 11/4/15; 214 DEN A-3, 11/5/15).
McCabe said that cutting carbon emissions “is too important of an issue to lose a couple of years in the courts.”
Role of Nuclear Power
In her remarks on nuclear energy's role in the Clean Power Plan, McCabe said that, although the plan “does not focus specifically on nuclear, it relies on it” remaining a key component of the U.S. clean energy mix.
“At EPA we believe nuclear power has very important role,” she said.
Other panelists challenged that contention. Exelon Vice President of Government Affairs Kathleen Barron argued that while the nation can't meet its carbon goals without nuclear power, the Clean Power Plan “does not adequately value” the country's existing nuclear fleet.
If all 10 “at risk” nuclear power plants in the country were to retire, the loss of zero-emissions energy would negate 17 percent of carbon reductions required under the Clean Power Plan, she said.
-
Evangelical Ads Urge Sen. Kirk To Back Clean Power Plan
Nov 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
The Evangelical Environmental Network today launched a radio campaign pressuring Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk to support U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, the latest round of climate-change-policy-themed messaging aimed at swaying the Republican senator's vote.
The 1-minute spot features "the voices of Christians" urging Kirk to endorse clean air and clean water regulations and "protect what God created."
"Climate change is real. It endangers the health of our children, worsens poverty through the world and threatens our economy," a male narrator continues. "But the Clean Power Plan of the Environmental Protection Agency will help create a healthier, more prosperous future. Call Sen. Mark Kirk and tell him as pro-life Christians, we believe reducing pollution is one of the greatest moral opportunities of our time."
The ad will air on Christian and talk radio stations in the Springfield, Ill., and Chicago media markets. EEN officials said the ad will cost "five figures" but could not offer a specific amount.
In a news conference today, EEN's president, the Rev. Mitchell Hescox, said Kirk should vote against two resolutions offered under the Congressional Review Act that are designed to curb the carbon emission regulations (E&ENews PM, Nov. 3).
"Support the Clean Power Plan, and if Congress acts later we'll take a look, but don't block something that protects our children, builds a new economy and provides jobs for Illinois," Hescox said. He later added, "There is strong support for him to vote against the CRA and not block the Clean Power Plan."
Kirk -- who recently formed a Senate Republican working group on energy and environmental policy with New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham -- has recently been the target of similar online ads sponsored by EDF Action (Greenwire, Nov. 5). He also has faced pressure from the Sierra Club (E&ENews PM, Nov. 10).
The Republican senator faces a competitive re-election bid next year and is a top target for Democrats as the party looks to flip the five seats it needs to recapture the Senate majority.
Among the Democrats hoping to knock Kirk out of office are Rep. Tammy Duckworth and former Chicago Urban League President Andrea Zopp. State Sen. Napoleon Harris is also expected to compete.
-
Advocates Urge EPA To Strengthen FIP, Fearing State Critics' GHG Impacts
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Abby Smith
Environmentalists are urging EPA to strengthen its proposed federal plan for its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule, arguing that stricter requirements are needed in case states opposed to the rule, which are responsible for the bulk of its expected GHG reductions, follow through on threats to withhold their compliance plans.
At a Nov. 12 public hearing here in the heart of coal country, the first of four the agency is holding over the coming week, agency officials were met with overwhelming calls from advocates to strengthen the proposal to ensure states that refuse to comply still meet their targets.
Jamin Bogi of the Group Against Smog and Pollution told the hearing that the state coalition suing to block the existing source performance standards (ESPS) -- which includes 27 states led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) -- are responsible for 80 percent of the reductions required by the rule. “We need a strong federal plan ready to go if any of these states follow through on their promise to do nothing,” he said.
Several speakers urged the agency to prioritize “clean” energy sources, such as energy efficiency, solar and wind energy, while opposing biomass generation. Others raised concerns about the use of trading as a compliance tool, fearing it will impose health burdens on local communities where coal- and gas-generation would be able to continue to run.
Even some business groups that support the rule weighed in, previewing a new report they plan to release next week that downplays the rule's impacts on electricity costs to manufacturers, especially given costs of climate change risks.
While environmentalists like Bogi are concerned that states may not submit compliance plans, many states -- even those most opposed to the rule like West Virginia and Oklahoma -- have indicated they will at least submit initial compliance plans that are due next September.
That runs counter to calls from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who urged states to “just say no” and withhold their compliance plans, arguing it would undermine the rule. But the federal implementation plan (FIP) that EPA proposed is significantly narrower than what states can do under their own authority, prompting many utilities to urge states to at least develop initial compliance plans.
While most states appear to be developing initial compliance plans, their commitment to final plans, due in 2018, is less certain. For example, some states, like North Carolina, have considered whether a compliance plan should only address efficiencies at coal-fired power plants.
The proposed FIP, issued Aug. 3 alongside the final ESPS and companion new source rule, will serve as a federally enforceable backstop for any state that refuses to submit an implementation plan or that submits an insufficient plan.
EPA's proposal will serve as the basis for state-specific FIPs the agency will finalize if a state fails to submit an adequate plan, but, as EPA’s Mike Koerber noted at the hearing, states subject to the FIP can exit it at any time by submitting an approvable state plan to the agency. Koerber added that states can also “adopt complementary measures outside of” the FIP in order to help with compliance.
As part of the FIP, EPA also detailed model trading rules for both the mass- and the rate-based compliance pathways. Koerber said at the hearing that EPA will finalize both model trading rules next summer, mitigating utilities’ concern that the agency might only finalize one model trading rule, prior to the Sept. 6, 2016, date for states to submit initial or final plans.
Coal Testimony
Despite the FIP's significance, in a state that is the fifth largest coal producer in the country, as well as home to a booming natural gas industry, EPA heard little testimony from the fossil fuel industry at its first FIP public hearing.
Of the stakeholders slated to speak on the second day of the Pittsburgh hearing Nov. 13, only one -- Bill Raney, president of West Virginia Coal Association -- appears to represent the fossil fuel industry.
Rather, during Nov. 12 testimony, environmental activists, advocacy groups and private citizens pressed the agency to strengthen the FIP so it requires even more use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures for states to meet their emissions reduction requirements.
“The FIP should be the gold standard for a plan,” said Jordan Estevao, representing National People’s Action, which had dozens of supporters testify at the hearing. “Ideally it would be a plan that goes furthest to prioritize renewables and energy efficiency, rather than encouraging states to rely more on natural gas and fracking, nuclear energy and incinerated biomass,” he added.
Several speakers encouraged the agency to further prioritize wind and solar energy projects, warning that other types of zero-carbon energy -- such as nuclear plants and biomass facilities -- pose threats to the environment. “Renewable energy is a broad term,” said Margaret Parsons of the American Lung Association (ALA), noting that EPA should “expand the use of solar and wind energy” in the ESPS, while leaving behind the burning of wood and biomass for fuel, which she says triggers asthma and respiratory disease.
“We are pleased that the FIP would not allow these fuel options, and we encourage EPA to strengthen the model rule to not allow those as well,” Parsons said.
Joy Bergey of the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PPI) echoed Parsons’ opposition to biomass as an ESPS compliance option. “EPA should provide leadership in the FIP on this issue, because the treatment of bioenergy in the Clean Power Plan is so murky, states will likely rely greatly on the FIP for guidance,” Bergey said during her testimony.
PPI, as well as other advocacy groups, are pressing EPA to include strict controls on burning biomass at power plants -- at least as stringent as what EPA approves in states’ own compliance plans -- in its FIP and model trading rules. The groups argue that biomass combustion should be subject to the same restrictions as fossil fuels because the initial burn releases large quantities of carbon dioxide that takes decades to be resequestered by forest regrowth, though industry groups argue that sustainably harvest biomass is carbon neutral.
“[I]f EPA allows bioenergy as compliance under the FIP, the agency will be in the peculiar position of claiming that biomass reduces emissions when it actually increases them. With regard to co-firing at a [power plant] that’s covered by the rule, we’re not even sure how this can be legal,” PPI’s Bergey said at the hearing.
She added: “The 111(d) rule is supposed to reduce emissions from the existing power sector, but co-firing biomass will, demonstrably, increase the heat rate, decrease facility efficiency, and thus increase the tons of CO2 that are emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. Does EPA really want to be in the position of defending this as a compliance measure?”
Trading Concerns
Kevin Stewart, also of ALA, stressed the need for an ESPS “strong enough to achieve all the health benefits EPA has estimated.” Stewart noted the group's concern with an emissions trading system, a compliance mechanism that EPA touts as a cost-effective option for states throughout the ESPS.
“We are concerned that carbon trading risks leaving part of the population we serve bearing the burden for others. Therefore, we recommend that EPA take steps to ensure that reductions in carbon emissions be secured from all sources lacking reasonable controls, rather than by means of an emissions trading mechanism that would allow many facilities to continue to remain inefficient and highly polluting,” Stewart said.
He also highlighted the potential problem of emissions leakage, which Stewart noted would allow a state to “claim to be meeting its requirements under the [rule] while the actual emissions reductions it claims fail to materialize on the global balance sheet.”
To combat such leakage, Stewart added, “all carbon emissions reductions must be demonstrated to occur from a global perspective and without delay in order to be claimed for credit for a Clean Power Plan.”
While few business representatives weighed in, Elizabeth Kerr, communications director at Business Forward -- whose member companies include large technology companies, airlines, financial entities and energy producers -- highlighted business support of the rule, noting that many businesses back climate action, and consequentially the ESPS, because not acting would prove more costly than any regulation curbing carbon emissions.
In her testimony, Kerr previewed a new report the group is releasing next week that downplays concerns that the final version of the rule will hike electricity costs for manufacturers. The report found that “the industry’s total cost would rise less than 0.029 percent, since the EPA reduced its prediction of electricity rate increases to 3.2 percent,” Kerr said.
She added: “In other words, a part that costs a manufacturer $100 would increase less than 3 cents as a result of changes in electricity rates due to [ESPS]-related policies and market effects.” This cost projection, she notes, is less than what manufacturers would have faced under the proposed ESPS.
In contrast, the cost to manufacturers of severe weather events is substantial, Kerr said. In an assembly plant that produces about 300,000 vehicles every year, the report found that “each hour of weather-related shut downs can cost . . . $1.25 million or more in lost production.” “By comparison, the cost of higher electricity rates to that plant is modest,” Kerr said.
-
D.C. Circuit Rejects Rehearing In Chromium MACT Suit
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected environmentalists' request for rehearing in their suit over EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics standard for the chromium plating sector, letting stand a panel decision that unanimously backed EPA's rule and the process for setting similar standards.
In an unsigned Nov. 10 order, the court denies without comment advocates' motion for rehearing en banc that sought to overturn a unanimous three-judge panel's ruling for EPA in National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF), et al. v. EPA, et al.
The panel's July 21 ruling sided against environmentalists' arguments that faulted EPA's process for setting air standards as inadequate -- a decision that California Communities Against Toxics, the Clean Air Council and Sierra Club claimed in their rehearing petition conflicts with the Clean Air Act.
EPA in September 2012 issued its residual risk and technology review of its existing chromium MACT, in order to meet a Clean Air Act mandate to review its air toxics rules eight years after their implementation and determine whether lingering health risks from pollution or availability of new air controls warrants a stricter MACT.
Advocates had hoped to convince the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider prior rulings upholding the agency's approach for setting MACT standards, after the three-judge panel focused largely on the challenges to the chromium rule in particular.
The panel's July 21 ruling also rejected claims by NASF and its industry allies that EPA's 2012 revised standard for the chromium sector is unnecessarily strict, but those groups did not seek rehearing.
-
EPA Proposes Update to Unusual Air Event Policy
Nov 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A proposed update to the Environmental Protection Agency's exceptional event rule would address several state concerns, including the elimination of a demonstration requirement that states have long identified as a problem, a state air official told Bloomberg BNA.
The proposed rule (RIN 2060-AS02), released late Nov. 12, would make a number of changes to the exceptional events policy that the agency said would provide clarity to states and improve efficiencies in the process for developing and processing requests for the exclusion of data influenced by wildfires, volcano eruptions and other uncontrollable pollution events.
The proposed changes include various language updates to more closely align the regulation with Clean Air Act language, allowing states to use approved pollution control plans to satisfy the criterion that the event was “not reasonably controllable or preventable” and removing the criterion that states show a regulatory violation wouldn't have occurred “but for” the event.
More states are expected to look to use the exceptional events policy to ensure that uncontrollable pollution events aren't considered in the designations process for the recently revised ozone standards (RIN 2060- AP38) of 70 parts per billion. The rulemaking is intended to address state concerns that the current process for obtaining an exceptional events designation is too costly and unpredictable (124 DEN B-1, 6/29/15).
Dan Johnson, executive director of the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR), told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 12 that upon initial review of the proposal, it appears that the EPA aimed to address various concerns raised by states since the exceptional events rule was first promulgated in 2007.
“I'm cautiously optimistic that EPA is addressing the concerns that we've expressed through the years,” Johnson said.
Frank O'Donnell, president of the nonprofit advocacy group Clean Air Watch, told Bloomberg BNA that many environmental groups have concerns that the proposal may “go too far” in allowing states to exclude high pollution events from regulatory consideration.
Focus on Three Conditions
The EPA said its proposal would focus the exceptional events demonstration criteria on the following three core statutory elements of Section 319(b) of the Clean Air Act:
• there is a “clear causal relationship” between a specific event and a monitored violation of an air quality standard.
• the event was not reasonably controllable or preventable; and
• the event was either a natural event or an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location.
The agency said in its proposal that the “explicit intent” of that section of the Clean Air Act is that when those three conditions are met, the data should be excluded from regulatory decisions so states wouldn't be required to enact unreasonable or unnecessary additional pollution control measures.
Four Issues Highlighted
Johnson said WESTAR, which represents 15 state environmental agencies, highlighted four specific issues for the EPA to address in its exceptional events rulemaking, which he said appears to have been addressed with various degrees of success.
First, Johnson said, the agency had a tendency to issue guidance in lieu of rules. While the agency did issue draft guidance on wildfires (RIN 2060-ZA21) alongside the exceptional events proposal, Johnson said the agency clearly recognized that there were issues that could only be addressed through revisions to the underlying exceptional events regulations.
Johnson also highlighted the EPA's decision to remove the criterion that states must demonstrate that an exceedance or violation would not have occurred “but for” an event. State officials have long identified the “but for” requirement as a problem, which the agency has now recognized, he said.
The EPA in the proposal acknowledged state concerns that it's often not possible to separately quantify and distinguish the air quality effects of a wildfire or other uncontrollable pollution event from the effects of other pollution sources. The agency also said even when the effects of pollution events can be confidently quantified, state agencies must dedicate a significant amount of resources to making the “but for” demonstration.
“I'll give them passing grades on that one for sure,” Johnson said.
States Have ‘Reasonable Control' Concerns
The EPA included several other provisions in its proposal intended to address the resource burdens associated with an exceptional events request package, which can require months of work and a significant amount of money. For example, in April, a Wyoming air official told a House subcommittee that it would take states 15 months and contractor assistance of $150,000 to develop a demonstration that a wildfire should be designated as an exceptional event.
Johnson said he is still reviewing those provisions, which include screening procedures to allow for the quick identification of events that obviously qualify for the exceptional events designation. He said it appears the agency is “pointed in the right direction” in its efforts to minimize the resource burden on state and local agencies.
Johnson had concerns on at least one aspect of the proposal after his initial review: a provision requiring states to demonstrate that sources of air pollution are “reasonably controlled” in order to qualify for an exceptional events designation. Under the proposal, the EPA is allowing areas to rely on pollution controls included in a state implementation plan to satisfy the “reasonably controlled” criterion, as long as the plan was approved within five years of the request.
Will Only Benefit Certain Areas
However, Johnson said that will only benefit existing nonattainment areas or areas under a maintenance plan, because the EPA will not allow states to use provisions of their infrastructure state implementation plan to fulfill that requirement. The EPA said in its proposal that the infrastructure SIPs, which all states must submit, are not required to demonstrate that pollution controls are “reasonable.”
“Thus, in general, EPA-approved infrastructure SIPs do not necessarily constitute a robust assessment of those controls that are reasonable to have in place to address air quality impacts from particular types of events that may become the focus of exceptional events demonstrations,” the agency said.
Johnson said states that don't have approved nonattainment or maintenance SIPs will be left to guess what EPA regional offices will consider to be a “reasonable control.” In addition, Johnson said, many states have limited authority to go beyond federal air pollution control requirements, so they don't have the authority to require new controls beyond what is in their infrastructure SIP.
Environmental Groups Reviewing Proposal
O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch said environmental organizations are still reviewing the EPA's exceptional events proposal. However, he said an initial review of the proposal does raise concerns.
“It seems like the entire purpose of the proposal is to cut a break for states that have been bellyaching about so-called natural emissions,” O'Donnell said. “Certainly alarm bells are going off.”
O'Donnell said it appears that under the proposal, downwind states will not need to make any showing that pollution from an upwind state was reasonably controlled, even if the regulatory exceedance is caused by a mix of naturally occurring pollution events and emissions from anthropogenic sources that cross state lines. That seems like a “pretty big loophole” in the regulation, O'Donnell said.
The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the original 2007 exceptional events rule, which it had argued was overly broad. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2009 upheld the rule on procedural grounds (NRDC v. EPA, 559 F.3d 561, 68 ERC 1385, 2009 BL 58097 (D.C. Cir. 2009); 53 DEN A-1, 3/23/09).
Public Hearing Planned
The EPA will hold a Dec. 8 public hearing on its exceptional events proposal and the draft wildfires guidance. The hearing will be held at an Arizona Department of Environmental Quality office building in Phoenix.
The agency also will accept comment on the proposed rule and draft guidance through Jan. 19. Comments on the proposed rule can be filed at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0572, while comments on the guidance can be submitted under Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0229.
-
District Court Judge Rejects EPA Bid To Stay CWA Suit
Nov 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
A U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota judge has rejected EPA's bid to stay a suit over the agency's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule pending an appellate court decision on whether it has authority to hear challenges to the rule, with the judge saying the agency failed to show “sufficient reason” for halting the lawsuit.
“At this stage of the litigation, what is required of defendants is that they file a certified index to the administrative record, so that any questions about completeness of the record may then be addressed,” U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal wrote in a Nov. 10 order in the case State of North Dakota, et al., v. EPA, et al. North Dakota and 10 other states are pursuing a challenge to the CWA rule on its merits.
“Defendants have not demonstrated sufficient reason why that process should not begin,” says Senechal's order, ensuring that the suit will proceed over the Department of Justice's (DOJ) objections.
DOJ on behalf of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers -- which jointly crafted the CWA rule -- recently urged the district court to stay its suit pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on whether it has authority to hear consolidated challenges to the rule.
In a Nov. 9 reply brief, DOJ said, "There is no reason to proceed on this issue when the Sixth Circuit is poised to opine on the jurisdictional question," and therefore the court should stay the lawsuit.
The 11 states in earlier briefs urged the court to proceed with the litigation, asking it to set a schedule for hearing motions for summary judgment, and arguing against a stay on the grounds that a decision by the 6th Circuit will bind the states because a favorable ruling for EPA in the appellate court means the district court suits could be dismissed.
Senechal in her order says that weighing potential prejudice to the state plaintiffs if a stay is granted and the potential hardship to EPA and the Corps if the suit proceeds, the court concluded that the stay is not warranted.
Moreover, if the 6th Circuit determines that it has exclusive jurisdiction, defendants may then move to dismiss the suit in the district court, and the reasoning in the 6th Circuit ruling “may well inform a decision” on a motion to dismiss this case. “But, any binding effect of the Sixth Circuit’s ruling will be decided if there is a motion to dismiss this case, and need not be addressed now,” the order says.
Senechal in the order sets a Nov. 20 deadline for DOJ to file a certified index to the administrative record, with any motions to supplement the record due by Dec. 4. The states' motion for summary judgment is due Jan. 4, 2016, with a reply brief due by Feb. 29, 2016, and DOJ's motion is due by Feb. 15, 2016, with final briefs due by March 21, 2016.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested