Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 15
-
Field Hearing To Examine Energy Technology Innovation And Deployment – Opportunities For Alaska’s Energy Future
Feb 15, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center, 420 Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway, Bethel, Alaska/ 03:30 PM -
(ACC Mentioned) Can Consumer Education Increase Recycling Rates?
Feb 12, 2016 | Greener Package
By Anne Marie Mohan
A Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) campaign in Vancouver, WA, has helped to more than double collection of plastic film wraps and bags through return-to-retail recycling programs, according to a new case study conducted with the City of Vancouver’s Environmental Resources Division. Notably, the report also found a 75% ... -
(ACC Mentioned) States to Congress: Preserve Our Authority Over Chemicals
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
State authority to regulate chemicals must be preserved as House and Senate legislators work to complete legislation updating the Toxic Substances Control Act, four state organizations said Feb. 12. “Over the past 30 years states have played, and continue to play, an important role in regulation where federal action has been delayed or absent,” wrote... -
(ACC Mentioned) Consultation Paper On Nicnas Reform Needs Work, Industry Says
Feb 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
Industry, government and NGO responses to the first consultation paper on reforms to Nicnas, Australia’s national chemical agency, have highlighted concerns related to international risk assessment, matrix banding and existing chemicals. Almost all of the 34 responses said Nicnas needed to accept more international assessments. -
Massachusetts Again to Test Waste Sites for Vapor Intrusion
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is about to begin contacting owners of waste sites previously cleaned of trichloroethylene contamination, out of concern that remaining TCE vapors may be harmful if pregnant women are exposed, Paul Locke, DEP assistant commissioner, said. -
EPA Region 2 Plans To Expand PFOA Focus, Apply Stricter Safety Level
Feb 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Propelled by contamination from a persistent perfluorinated chemical (PFC) found in drinking water in a New York community, EPA Region 2 officials are at the beginning stages of an effort to identify other locations with similar drinking water contamination, and will likely apply a non-enforceable health safety level more stringent ... -
Are You a Toxic Waste Disposal Site?
Feb 13, 2016 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof
Even if you’re not in Flint, Mich., there are toxic chemicals in your home. For that matter, in you. Scientists have identified more than 200 industrial chemicals — from pesticides, flame retardants, jet fuel — as well as neurotoxins like lead in the blood or breast milk of Americans, indeed, in people all over our planet. -
CDC: Lumber Liquidators’ Flooring Has Low Cancer Risk
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matt Townsend
Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. flooring, tested by U.S. regulators after an outcry over formaldehyde, was found to have a low risk of causing cancer, though it could potentially trigger irritation and breathing problems. The Consumer Product Safety Commission tested the health impact of formaldehyde released into indoor... -
Rule on Significant New Use for Rubber Additive Finalized
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency published Feb. 12 final significant new use rules for three chemical substances often used as additives in rubber and paint over objections from the chemicals' manufacturers. The final rule (RIN 2070-AB27) for the three very long-chain chlorinated paraffin substances uses the same language the EPA offered... -
Vermont Lawsuit May Proceed Against MTBE Manufacturer
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Vermont courts have jurisdiction over a gas-additive manufacturer incorporated in another state for MTBE-related contamination of the state's waters, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled Feb. 12 (State v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Vt., No. 2015-204, 2/12/16). The court affirmed the finding of personal jurisdiction over Total Petrochemicals... -
EPA Simplifies Rules for Lead Paint Renovators
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue on Feb. 17 a final rule revising its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule and the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule (RIN 2070-AK02). The regulation will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. In a prepublication copy of the rule, released Feb. 12... -
(ACC Mentioned) Babin: Watch out for drones
Feb 14, 2016 | Beaumont Enterprises
By Brandon Scott
With plants and refineries fearful of safety and espionage threats posed by drones, a Southeast Texas congressman wants strict new guidelines for operating unmonitored aircraft near those facilities. U.S. Rep. Brian Babin has offered two amendments to the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act to address a mounting security concern... -
Feds Issue Warnings About Oil Tank Hazards
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Mike Soraghan
Federal worker-safety agencies amplified their warnings today about the dangers oil workers face when checking storage tanks. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued a hazard alert identifying the potentially lethal risks involved in "manual tank gauging." -
OSHA Issues Hazard Alert For Tank Gauging
Feb 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Marianne LeVine
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a hazard alert today for workers at oil and gas extraction sites. The hazard alert warns workers make be exposed to hazardous gases and vapors, as well as fires and explosions, when they open tank hatches to collect fluid samples. -
European Chemicals Official Says Work Remains for REACH
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Registration under the European Union's REACH chemicals law has allowed the EU to collect information on some 14,000 substances since 2010, but work remains to improve data quality and the transparency of how companies are using nanomaterials, a European Chemicals Agency official said. -
Court Allows Case On Local Oil Transport Ordinance
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A pipeline company's challenge of a city ordinance that would effectively block it from moving crude oil from Canada to South Portland, Maine, can move forward, a federal court has ruled (Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, D. Me., No. 2:15-cv-00054, 2/11/16). -
San Francisco Bay City Rejects Valero Oil Train Plan
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Planning commissioners for the city of Benicia, Calif., have rejected Valero Refining Co.'s plan to build a rail loading terminal at its facility in the small town located on the Carquinez Strait in the San Francisco Bay. The company will evaluate its options for appeal of the Feb. 11 vote, Valero spokesman Chris Howe told... -
Workers Close Off Methane Leak In California
Feb 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Work crews have begun injecting a stopping compound into a damaged natural gas well in California that has been leaking methane into the air for months. Southern California Gas Co. said Thursday that there is no longer any more methane leaking from the damaged storage well in Porter Ranch, Calif., outside of Los Angeles. -
Clean Power Plan Foes Urge ‘Pencils Down' After Stay
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
States should drop plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan and “put their pencils down” after the carbon dioxide standards were stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, opponents leading the fight against the rule said in a letter to state regulators. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Texas Attorney ... -
Major Cases To Be Impacted By Scalia's Death
Feb 13, 2016 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia Saturday could have a grave impact on cases now before the court. In a blog post Saturday, Tom Goldstein, an appellate advocate and the publisher of SCOTUSblog, said votes that Scalia cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void. -
Justice Scalia’s Irreplaceable Views on CO2 and Climate
Feb 13, 2016 | The New York Times
By Andrew C. Revkin
Tens of thousands of words will flow in the coming days on the significance of the life and death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Texas resort. Adam Liptak leads Times coverage here. His death came just a few days after an unprecedented move by the court put a roadblock in the way of President ... -
Greens Faced With Nightmare Scenario At The Supreme Court
Feb 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to halt President Obama’s sweeping climate change regulation for power plants is causing environmentalists and experts to wonder whether they need a backup plan. The Obama administration has repeatedly said, both before and after the judicial stay was ordered, that it does not have a Plan ... -
Scalia Death Raises Stakes In Battle For Senate Control
Feb 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Kevin Robillard
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death Saturday highlighted the stakes not just of the presidential campaign but of the razor-close battle for control of the Senate, where Republicans’ 54-seat majority is in serious danger in 2016. The Court vacancy won’t remake the political map, but it will intensify the fight over it. -
Scalia's Death Plunges Campaigns, Climate Cases Into Chaos
Feb 14, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Evan Lehmann
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia instantly infused the presidential race with sharpened urgency and increased optimism among Democrats that the president's climate initiatives would survive legal challenges. Republicans looked to the sudden opening on the Supreme Court as a coalescing moment for conservatives. -
New Era Begins For Environmental Law, Obama's Climate Rule
Feb 14, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Jeremy P. Jacobs
Justice Antonin Scalia's death will likely spur a tectonic shift in environmental law. The loss of the conservative firebrand, who was found dead yesterday at a Texas resort, sending shock waves through the worlds of law and politics. Lawyers are watching to see how the departure of the Supreme Court's strongest... -
Bill Would Strike Clean Air Act's International Provision
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
ep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bill to eliminate Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, an obscure provision addressing international air pollution that some legal scholars have argued the Environmental Protection Agency should use to regulate greenhouse gases. The Energy Sovereignty Act (H.R. 4544), introduced Feb. 11, comes in the wake... -
Oversight Committee to Hold Second Flint Hearing
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) will join Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify before a House committee at an unspecified date to examine failures at the federal, state and local level that led to excessive levels of lead in Flint, Mich.'s, drinking water. -
Top House Democrat Eyes Bill To Codify Equity Protections After Flint Crisis
Feb 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is planning a new environmental justice bill that could attempt to codify legal protections for equity communities, in response to the Flint, MI, drinking water crisis where critics allege state and federal regulators failed to protect low-income and minority residents. -
Michigan Governor, EPA Chief To Testify On Flint
Feb 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Oversight Committee will hear testimony from Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy during an upcoming hearing on the water crisis in Flint, Mich. The hearing — which has yet to be scheduled — will likely focus on top officials' roles in precipitating and responding to the crisis in Flint, where corroded water...
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Feb 15, 2016 | U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources
Location: Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center, 420 Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway, Bethel, Alaska/ 03:30 PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Can Consumer Education Increase Recycling Rates?
Feb 12, 2016 | Greener Package
By Anne Marie Mohan
A Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) campaign in Vancouver, WA, has helped to more than double collection of plastic film wraps and bags through return-to-retail recycling programs, according to a new case study conducted with the City of Vancouver’s Environmental Resources Division. Notably, the report also found a 75% decrease in plastic bag contamination at a local municipal recycling facility (MRF) by residents who had received regional educational outreach materials.
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG) partnered with The City of Vancouver, Clark County, Safeway, and the Trex Company to implement this program known as “Recycle Wrap/Beyond Bags.” The campaign sought to increase consumer awareness and recycling of many types of flexible polyethylene film packaging in select Vancouver-area Safeway stores, while decreasing unwanted plastic bags/film placed in curbside carts.
Key outcomes:
• A 125% increase in the amount of plastic wraps, films, and bags collected at stores• Of that, a 500% increase in collection of consumer product packaging—beyond bags (e.g., case wrap, product wrap, bread bags, produce bags, etc.) at stores
• A 75% reduction in plastic bag contamination at a local MRF by customers who received campaign outreach materials
• An insignificant (less than 2%) increase in contamination at stores
Key insights:
• The availability of store drop-off programs for plastic film recycling is important to consumers; nearly 20% of post-campaign survey respondents said they were more likely to choose a particular store because of the recycling program• The cart tagging was an important means of alerting consumers (31% of post-campaign survey respondents reported) about the ability to recycle plastic bags and film at the store, followed by the visible presence of a well-labeled store recycling bin (25% of survey respondents reported)
• A collaborative approach between retailers, local governments, and recycling organizations proved necessary to effectively convey information to the public to take material back to the store for recycling
“This was really a model campaign. It goes to show how effective WRAP can be when we all work together,” says Shari Jackson, Director of ACC’s Flexible Film Recycling Group. “We showed we could get the word out to increase wraps, bag, and film collection at retail stores with negligible contamination.”
The return-to-store WRAP public outreach campaign and technical support tools fit seamlessly with a Recycling Done Right campaign and grant-funded waste characterization study conducted throughout Clark County, WA, including within the City of Vancouver.
“Leveraging partnerships, we were able to educate residents to keep this material out of our curbside program and divert it to the retail drop-off infrastructure, where it belongs,” says Tanya Gray, Solid Waste Supervisor at the City of Vancouver. “Importantly, these efforts have raised awareness of the ease and opportunity to recycle a variety of plastic film, beyond the bag.”
WRAP, a scalable program with national reach, continues to gain momentum; in addition to Vancouver, WRAP just released the results of a similar public education campaign in Milwaukee, WI, which also showed a measurable increase in at-store collection of PE film. Furthermore, North Carolina recently announced that it plans to implement a WRAP program this year, and additional states are expected to announce soon.
Plastic film is one of the fastest growing areas of recycling in the U.S. The 2014 National Postconsumer Plastic Bag and Film Recycling Report, authored by Moore Recycling Associates Inc., announced an 80% increase in plastic film recycling since just 2005. During that time, film recycling has grown from 652 million pounds to 1.17 billion pounds annually, and based on EPA’s data, the recycling rate for film has grown from 6.6% to 17% of production.
Currently, more than 90% of Americans have access to a local program that collects PE wraps and bags, primarily at more than 18,000 major grocery and retail stores.
-
(ACC Mentioned) States to Congress: Preserve Our Authority Over Chemicals
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
State authority to regulate chemicals must be preserved as House and Senate legislators work to complete legislation updating the Toxic Substances Control Act, four state organizations said Feb. 12.
“Over the past 30 years states have played, and continue to play, an important role in regulation where federal action has been delayed or absent,” wrote the executive directors of the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials in a letter sent to the House and Senate leadership.
“States' chemical evaluation procedures augment the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency under TSCA,” they wrote.
“The ability of states to develop and impose standards pending final EPA rules on some or all of the substances addressed by TSCA should be maintained,” according to the groups.
House, Senate to Merge Two Bills
The House and Senate are negotiating ways they could merge the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), which sailed through the House June 23, 2015, on a 398–1 vote, and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which the Senate approved unanimously by voice vote Dec. 17, 2015. Prior to the vote, the Senate bill was designated S. 697, but it passed as a substitute amendment (S. Admt. 2932) to H.R. 2576.
The Senate bill would temporarily stop—or set a regulatory pause—on state regulations concerning a high priority chemical once the EPA announces the scope of its planned risk assessment.
The bill's preemption language would, however, allow states to issue certain types of regulations during that regulatory pause. States also could seek waivers to issue regulations and could issue regulations if the EPA's assessment is delayed past certain deadlines in the bill. Bloomberg BNA provided more details on preemption and other issues in a recent side-by-side of the measure it published (22 DEN A-14, 2/3/16).
The House bill would not preempt state regulations until after completion of EPA assessments.
Yet in other ways, the scope of prevention in the House bill would be broader than in the Senate's bill, attorneys general from California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington said in a Jan. 21 letter they sent to House and Senate leaders (14 DEN A-3, 1/22/16).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 10 House negotiators aren't moving fast enough in their efforts to merge their narrowly focused TSCA-reform bill with the Senate's more comprehensive TSCA overhaul (29 DEN A-11, 2/12/16).
Letter Timed to Influence Negotiations
Elena Waskey, press secretary for the National Governors Association, said that before legislators meet in a formal conference, the organizations wanted to reemphasize their view that states retain some ability to regulate in any final TSCA reform measure. In June 2015, the NGA sent Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), and Frank Pallone (D-N.J. a letter commending the House bill.
Melanie Condon, a policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures, told Bloomberg BNA it was important to issue a joint statement as negotiations proceed on the two bills.
“It was important for us to make our unified positions known. I think it says a lot that these four groups can come together on this issue of state preemption, and we hope it will be a powerful push to the lawmakers to put the best language in the final bill,” Condon said.
State Authority Key Issue for Years
The extent to which EPA decisions and regulations about chemicals would preempt state authorities, and the timing of the preemption, has been the central issue during the years-long discussions, hearings and legislative changes that led to the House and Senate passage of their respective bills.
The American Chemistry Council is among the industry associations that has chosen not to voice a position on the House or Senate bill, but support passage of an updated TSCA.
Concerns about divergent state-based regulation of chemicals has been, however, a concern that led many trade associations and chemical companies to support TSCA modernization.
State organizations and attorney generals, meanwhile, have increasingly said state authority to regulate chemicals must be preserved in any TSCA reauthorization bill.
A recent analysis distributed, but not produced, by ECOS identified specific provisions in the House and Senate bill that states supported or disagreed with and identified provisions in other laws that might be included in a final bill revising TSCA (06 DEN A-2, 1/11/16).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Consultation Paper On Nicnas Reform Needs Work, Industry Says
Feb 15, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
Industry, government and NGO responses to the first consultation paper on reforms to Nicnas, Australia’s national chemical agency, have highlighted concerns related to international risk assessment, matrix banding and existing chemicals.
Almost all of the 34 responses said Nicnas needed to accept more international assessments. This despite a 2014 government directive asking the agency to do this. The responses suggest industry feels it is an area that has not been satisfactorily addressed.
Unilever, which views the proposed system as “highly complex”, said it would require considerable expertise to run evaluations. A pathway optimising international risk assessments was therefore essential.
Cosmetics Europe said it welcomed the reforms. However, it “strongly encouraged” Nicnas to automatically consider products that already have a safety assessment – and comply with the EU cosmetics Regulation – as low risk. It believes Nicnas should take into account existing regulation on cosmetic products at the international level.
And the Australian Paint Manufacturers’ Federation (APMF) questioned why US assessments were not considered fit for purpose, when those from Canada and the EU are – even if they are not used as extensively as industry would like. It argued that they must be included in the future framework.
Problematic matrix
Other responses said the class 1, 2 and 3 chemical matrix was problematic. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the exposure bands were very restrictive in what was a “very complicated pre-market indicative risk-based system.” It recommended they be aligned in both health and environmental risk matrices to reduce complexity.
Unilever said the matrix should be based on bands, rather than classes, to avoid confusion with other regulations that use a class system, such as the dangerous goods Code.
The APMF and the Plastics and Chemicals Industry Association (Pacia) said the proposed benefits for Class 1 chemicals were limited to only a few applications. They recommended the scope be expanded.
The NGO National Toxics Network (NTN) said the proposed reforms are “fundamentally unacceptable” as they do not address the 85% of existing, unassessed chemicals listed on the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances (AICS). These, they said, represent the greatest volume and number of chemicals with unknown hazards and unquantified risks.
NTN said: “The reform process makes no mention of how it proposes to manage [these] … Instead, this entire reform process focuses on the 7% of chemicals that are new chemicals.”
It also expressed concern that the proposed reforms would abolish the prior existing chemicals (Pec) assessment process and “the issue of unassessed existing chemicals will now just be swept under the carpet.”
-
Massachusetts Again to Test Waste Sites for Vapor Intrusion
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is about to begin contacting owners of waste sites previously cleaned of trichloroethylene contamination, out of concern that remaining TCE vapors may be harmful if pregnant women are exposed, Paul Locke, DEP assistant commissioner, said.
About 200 owners will receive a phone call and letter from DEP, explaining the actions they must take against TCE, a volatile organic chemical that acts as a solvent and is used to clean grease. TCE has been found to damage the heart of developing fetuses, Locke said.
“Our concern is there may be people out there being exposed and they may not know it,” Locke told Bloomberg BNA in an interview Feb. 12.
Not Enforcement
The DEP is not taking enforcement action against the party responsible for the property, Locke said.
The DEP will ask property owners to test indoor air based on a 2011 standard issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that is considered protective of human health against TCE (189 DEN A-12, 9/29/11).
The owners will be asked to test the groundwater and air in and around their buildings for TCE, and to take steps to protect the health of women of childbearing age in particular, if the levels are above those considered safe, Locke said.
Property owners may hire their own licensed professional to do the testing, rather than going through the DEP, he said. The agency will assist owners who need help, Locke said.
If TCE vapors are found and they are considered high, people must be evacuated so as not to be exposed, until the TCE can be remediated or exposure mitigated by sealing cracks in a basement floor and other measures, Locke said.
EPA Vapor Rule
The vaporizing of toxic chemicals and their impact on human health has gained more attention in recent years through the courts and by the EPA.
The EPA announced a proposed rule Feb. 4 to include vapor intrusion when ranking the most hazardous federal Superfund sites ((24 DEN A-4, 2/5/16) ).
Massachusetts is out front in its action against TCE, Lenny Siegel, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, in Mountain View, Calif., told Bloomberg BNA in an interview Feb. 12.
“A lot of states have very weak environmental programs,” Siegel said.
From Groundwater to Vapors
Historically, the Massachusetts DEP regulated TCE in groundwater. From 1993 to 2006, Massachusetts had set a limit for the allowable level of TCE in groundwater of 300 micrograms per liter. In 2006, it dropped the limit to 30 micrograms. In 2014, it dropped it down to 5 micrograms per liter.
The DEP decided to act on indoor TCE exposure after the EPA published new toxicity information about the cancer risk and non-cancer risk of TCE, in September 2011, as part of the EPA's Final Assessment for TCE, published on its Integrated Risk Information System.
EPA Reference Dose
The EPA also set a health standard, a limit or reference dose for the chronic exposure of TCE vapors in indoor air, of 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air, to avoid immune affects and developmental harm to fetuses.
Massachusetts began issuing guidance about TCE in indoor air on Jan. 23, 2013. It issued its most recent guidance Aug. 15, 2014.
Massachusetts began applying the TCE vapor standard to sites that were in the process of being cleaned. Over time, the DEP has learned enough that now it is ready to assist owners of older sites to monitor the air of their buildings for TCE, Locke said.
“What we were working out was how to do the contracting, how to get people out to address these issues in a short time frame. Now we understand what needs to be done,” Locke said.
The state is most concerned about waste sites which were previously cleaned using the 300 microgram standard, Locke said. There are about 200 of those sites out of 40,000 waste sites in the state.
“We are conservative. We are erring on the side of being careful,” Locke said.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
EPA Region 2 Plans To Expand PFOA Focus, Apply Stricter Safety Level
Feb 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Propelled by contamination from a persistent perfluorinated chemical (PFC) found in drinking water in a New York community, EPA Region 2 officials are at the beginning stages of an effort to identify other locations with similar drinking water contamination, and will likely apply a non-enforceable health safety level more stringent than the agency’s existing short-term exposure advisory level of 400 parts per trillion (ppt), according to a regional official.
In an "exercise of caution," EPA Region 2 will use a limit of 100 ppt of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water as a "watch guide," in the Village of Hoosick Falls and Town of Hoosick, NY, "and presumably elsewhere," EPA Region 2 Emergency & Remedial Response Division Director Walter Mugdan told Inside EPA on the sidelines of a Feb. 4 American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education course titled Environmental Law 2016, in Washington, D.C.
EPA for now is applying the 100 ppt level as a "more prudent and cautious number than the 400 parts per trillion," he said, referring to health safety levels. He noted that EPA's 400 ppt health advisory is designed for short-term exposures such as that occurring over weeks or months, whereas the 100 ppt level is likely more appropriate to apply to long-term exposures.
Region 2 last month instructed residents of the Hoosick Falls community not to consume drinking water with PFOA levels above 100 ppt, saying in a Jan. 28 statement that it is not waiting for finalization of its health advisory for chronic exposure of PFOA in drinking water before applying the 100 ppt value.
The agency in a PFOA toxicity report that underwent external peer review in 2014 identified a toxicity value for the chemical that would result in a lifetime health advisory of 100 ppt, an EPA spokeswoman said in late January. She stressed that EPA has not yet finalized the figure as its lifetime health advisory for the chemical but decided to "share the best available science to protect public health" in this case and is using the figure "out of an abundance of caution."
The agency is also under pressure from high-level New York state officials to set an enforceable drinking water standard for the chemical -- something EPA is currently not developing.
PFCs are a class of extremely persistent, toxic chemicals that have been widely used for various commercial and industrial applications due to their non-stick, water resistant qualities. The chemicals are emerging contaminants but currently not federally regulated, although EPA is in the midst of finalizing risk estimates for chronic drinking water exposures to PFOA and a related PFC -- values that will eventually allow regulators to craft long-term health advisory levels and cleanup requirements at sites with the contaminants.
Other Locations
Mugdan said that in addition to addressing concerns over PFOA contamination at Hoosick Falls, Region 2 is also beginning to explore whether other locations in the region may have PFOA drinking water contamination. He said the regional office is working with the states of New York and New Jersey to find out whether they have information about other locations, based on the agency's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) results, where PFOA has been found in drinking water. The region will also be working with those states to ask about locations of factories that used or made PFOA "where we should be having a look at the water.”
He noted that regulators "are at the very beginning of that process.”
While Mugdan could not speak for other EPA regional offices, he says he has "no doubt" all of the regions "are paying heightened concern to any kind of situation where municipal drinking water supplies or other drinking water supplies could be contaminated.” Where the agency has some information about that, it needs to ensure that it quickly takes action in the best interests of public health, he said.
Under the third UCMR, EPA required public water systems to report from 2013 to 2015 on PFOA occurrences, among 29 other emerging contaminants, in drinking water above the minimum reporting level (MRL) of 0.02 micrograms/Liter, which in this case is equivalent to 0.02 parts per billion (ppb). A summary of data published last October by EPA on the UCMR found just 103 of a total of 4,764 public water systems tested with PFOA greater than the MRL and none of the systems were found to have levels above the reference concentration of 0.4 ppb, or 400 ppt.
Mugdan noted that smaller public water systems are not required to test for PFOA and other emerging contaminants under the UCMR, but said the agency nonetheless may investigate a location if a company in the area had used PFOA, for example by EPA itself conducting testing, or requesting the company or municipality to test for it.
Region 2's interest in focusing on PFOA in drinking water, even before any decision has been made on whether the agency will pursue an enforceable drinking water standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), comes as environmentalists are pressuring New Jersey regulators to act quickly to set drinking water standards in the state for PFCs, including PFOA. The environmentalists are also criticizing EPA's level for reporting PFOA under the UCMR in drinking water systems.
In a Jan. 20 letter to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin, Delaware Riverkeeper Network calls for the state to take immediate action on PFCs by setting drinking water standards aimed at removing PFCs from drinking water, investigating contamination sources and engaging responsible parties in cleanup. The group contends state regulators appear to be dragging their feet on adopting safe drinking water and groundwater standards for PFOA and a related chemical.
New Studies
The group notes that, according to UCMR data, PFOA is more frequently found in New Jersey public water systems than nationally, but argues that EPA's "unreasonably high reporting level" means "this could just be the tip of the iceberg.”
"Recent studies that set a safe level much lower (.001 ppb) than DEP's guidance level and EPA's reporting level elevates this issue even further," the group says, pointing to an August 2015 study by authors from the Harvard School of Public Health and University of Massachusetts at Lowell. "Not only does this recent Harvard report propose a much lower level as safe, it also highlights the inadequacy of EPA's reporting level of .02 ppb, which is far too high to accurately reflect the occurrence of PFCs in drinking water sources."
The Harvard report, which looked at health risks of PFCs, says, "Existing drinking water limits are based on less complete evidence tha[n] was available before 2008 and may be more than 100-fold too high.”
A source with Delaware Riverkeeper Network says she believes that the study’s 0.001 ppb level “is an important conclusion that should be part of the equation in setting a safe drinking water standard.”
EPA is also under pressure from New York state officials to more widely and thoroughly address PFOA contamination, with New York Department of Environmental Conservation Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos and Department of Health Commissioner Howard Zucker appealing to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to aggressively address PFOA by lowering the 400 ppt provisional health advisory for the chemical in order to account for "the most current scientific evidence," and to expeditiously adopt an MCL for the chemical, among other actions.
Mugdan said the agency is expected to respond soon to the request.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has also joined the calls for EPA to expedite its response to PFOA contamination, writing in a Feb. 1 letter to EPA Region 2 that she is "extremely concerned" about the water in Hoosick Falls. "The residents of Hoosick Falls deserve to know that every available resource at both the state and federal levels is being used to fully investigate the source of the PFOA contamination, and that aggressive steps are being taken by the EPA to identify the responsible parties and ensure that full remediation will occur," the letter says.
-
Are You a Toxic Waste Disposal Site?
Feb 13, 2016 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof
Even if you’re not in Flint, Mich., there are toxic chemicals in your home. For that matter, in you.
Scientists have identified more than 200 industrial chemicals — from pesticides, flame retardants, jet fuel — as well as neurotoxins like lead in the blood or breast milk of Americans, indeed, in people all over our planet.
These have been linked to cancer, genital deformities, lower sperm count, obesity and diminished I.Q. Medical organizations from the President’s Cancer Panel to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have demanded tougher regulations or warned people to avoid them, and the cancer panel has warned that “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’”
They have all been drowned out by chemical industry lobbyists.■ Politicians are (belatedly!) condemning the catastrophe of lead poisoning in Flint. But few acknowledge that lead poisoning in many places in America is even worse than in Flint. Kids are more likely to suffer lead poisoning in Pennsylvania or Illinois or even most of New York State than in Flint. More on that later.
■ Americans are panicking about the mosquito-borne Zika virus and the prospect that widespread infection may reach the United States. That’s a legitimate concern, but public health experts say that toxic substances around us seem to pose an even greater threat.
“I cannot imagine that Zika virus will damage any more than a small fraction of the total number of children who are damaged by lead in deteriorated, poor housing in the United States,” says Dr. Philip Landrigan, a prominent pediatrician and the dean for global health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
“Lead, mercury, PCBs, flame retardants and pesticides cause prenatal brain damage to tens of thousands of children in this country every year,” he noted.
Yet one measure of our broken political system is that chemical companies, by spending vast sums on lobbying — $100,000 per member of Congress last year — block serious oversight. Almost none of the chemicals in products we use daily have been tested for safety.
Maybe, just maybe, the crisis in Flint can be used to galvanize a public health revolution.
In 1854, a British doctor named John Snow started such a revolution. Thousands were dying of cholera at the time, but doctors were resigned to the idea that all they could do was treat sick patients. Then Snow figured out that a water pump on Broad Street in London was the source of the cholera. The water company furiously rejected that conclusion, but Snow blocked use of the water pump, and the cholera outbreak pretty much ended.
This revelation led to the germ theory of disease and to investments in sanitation and clean water. Millions of lives were saved.
Now we need a similar public health revolution focusing on the early roots of many pathologies.
For example, it’s scandalous that 535,000 American children ages 1 to 5 still suffer lead poisoning, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The poisoning is mostly a result of chipped lead paint in old houses or of lead-contaminated soil being tracked into homes, although some areas like Flint also have tainted tap water. While the data sets are weak, many parts of America have even higher rates of child lead poisoning than Flint, where 4.9 percent of children tested have had elevated lead levels in their blood. In New York State outside New York City, it’s 6.7 percent. In Pennsylvania, 8.5 percent. In part of Detroit, it’s 20 percent. The victims are often poor or black.
Infants who absorb lead are more likely to grow up with shrunken brains and diminished I.Q. They are more likely as young adults to engage in risky sexual behavior, to disrupt school and to commit violent crimes. Many researchers believe that the worldwide decline in violent crime beginning in the 1990s is partly a result of lead being taken out of gasoline in the late 1970s. The stakes are enormous, for individual opportunity and for social cohesion.
Fortunately, we have some new Dr. Snows for the 21st century.
A group of scholars, led by David L. Shern of Mental Health America, argue that the world today needs a new public health revolution focused on young children, parallel to the one mounted for sanitation after Snow’s revelations about cholera in 1854. Once again, we have information about how to prevent pathologies, not just treat them — if we will act.
The reason for a new effort is a vast amount of recent research showing that brain development at the beginning of life affects physical and mental health decades later. That means protecting the developing brain from dangerous substances and also from “toxic stress” — often a byproduct of poverty — to prevent high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which impairs brain development.
A starting point of this public health revolution should be to protect infants and fetuses from toxic substances, which means taking on the companies that buy lawmakers to prevent regulation. Just as water companies tried to obstruct the 19th-century efforts, industry has tried to block recent progress.
Back in 1786, Benjamin Franklin commented extensively on the perils of lead poisoning, but industry ignored the dangers and marketed lead aggressively. In the 1920s, an advertisement for the National Lead Company declared, “Lead helps to guard your health,” praising the use of lead pipes for plumbing and lead paint for homes. And what the lead companies did for decades, and the tobacco companies did, too, the chemical companies do today. Photo A 1920s ad for lead.
Lead poisoning is just “the tip of the iceberg,” says Tracey Woodruff, an environmental health specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. Flame-retardant chemicals have very similar effects, she says, and they’re in the couches we sit on.
The challenge is that the casualties aren’t obvious, as they are with cholera, but stealthy and long term. These are silent epidemics, so they don’t generate as much public alarm as they should.
“Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain” have been linked to conditions like autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, noted The Lancet Neurology, a peer-reviewed medical journal. Yet we still don’t have a clear enough sense of what is safe, because many industrial chemicals aren’t safety tested before they are put on the market. Meanwhile, Congress has dragged out efforts to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act and test more chemicals for safety. Continue reading the main story Nicholas Kristof's Newsletter
Sign up to receive my emails about each column and other occasional commentary.
The President’s Cancer Panel recommended that people eat organic if possible, filter water and avoid microwaving food in plastic containers. All good advice, but that’s like telling people to avoid cholera without providing clean water.
And that’s why we need another public health revolution in the 21st century.
-
CDC: Lumber Liquidators’ Flooring Has Low Cancer Risk
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matt Townsend
Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. flooring, tested by U.S. regulators after an outcry over formaldehyde, was found to have a low risk of causing cancer, though it could potentially trigger irritation and breathing problems.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission tested the health impact of formaldehyde released into indoor air from Lumber Liquidators' laminate flooring, according to a report released Feb. 10 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The products—the subject of a “60 Minutes” investigation in 2015—were produced in China between 2012 and 2014.
“Breathing in very high levels of formaldehyde over many years has been linked to rare nose and throat cancers in workers,” the CDC said in the report. “Formaldehyde exposure from the tested laminate flooring would be much lower and would last for less time than the exposures linked to cancer. We estimated the risk of cancer from exposure to this flooring and it's low.”
The company's stock rose as much as 7.8 percent to $13.03 after the report was released. It had plummeted more than 70 percent since the March 2015 airing of the “60 Minutes” story, which alleged that Lumber Liquidators' flooring had potentially dangerous levels of formaldehyde. While the CDC's findings may help the company, it still faces consumer lawsuits over the issue (214 DEN A-8, 11/5/15).
The crux of the allegations was that Lumber Liquidators sold laminate flooring with levels of formaldehyde above regulations in California, which has the strictest standards in the country. The “60 Minutes” piece showed customers ripping floors out of their homes, along with undercover video of managers at Chinese suppliers saying they were labeling flooring as compliant with California regulations when it wasn't.
After the “60 Minutes” story, the company raised doubts about the testing that the show had used, saying it wasn't measuring the amount of formaldehyde that may be released in a person's home. The CPSC used a testing method to replicate “in-home exposure” and then let the CDC analyze the results.
The company said in a statement that it supports the report's recommendations and will continue working with the commission.
Still, the CDC recommends that people who bought the flooring from 2012 to 2014 should see a doctor if they experience symptoms. The agency also recommended they reduce their exposure to other sources of formaldehyde such as tobacco.
-
Rule on Significant New Use for Rubber Additive Finalized
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency published Feb. 12 final significant new use rules for three chemical substances often used as additives in rubber and paint over objections from the chemicals' manufacturers.
The final rule (RIN 2070-AB27) for the three very long-chain chlorinated paraffin substances uses the same language the EPA offered in its proposed version. The Chlorinated Paraffins Industry Association has said production and use of the chemicals pose low risk to the environment and public health. But in the final rule, the EPA said the chemicals would persist in the environment and potentially degrade into higher risk chemicals—short-chain chlorinated paraffin.
“After consideration of these comments, because the potential remains for increased exposure that formed the basis for the proposed SNURs, EPA is issuing the final rules as they were proposed for the chemical substances,” the agency said in its final rule (81 Fed. Reg. 7,455).
The EPA took these actions for the very long-chain chlorinated paraffin chemicals under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The chemicals are alkanes, C22-30-branched and linear, chloro (PMN P-13-107; CAS No. 1401947-24-0); alkanes, C24-28, chloro (PMN P-13-109; CAS No. 1402738-52-6); and alkanes, C21-34-branched and linear, chloro (PMN P-12-539; CAS No. 1417900-96-9).
The EPA already has allowed each of the three chemicals to go into production with protective measures outlined in the premanufacture notices the original manufacturer submitted to the agency or through consent orders if these were negotiated with the original manufacturers.
The new use rules are designed to apply the manufacturing and use conditions the EPA already has reviewed and by which the original manufacturer is bound, so they would apply to other manufacturers that want to make the same substances.
Any use of any of the chemicals that does not take into account the protective measures—releases to water above specified limits, for example—would be considered a new use and require notification to the EPA. The notice must be filed 90 days prior to the proposed new manufacturing or use of the chemical.
The rule will take effect April 12.
-
Vermont Lawsuit May Proceed Against MTBE Manufacturer
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Vermont courts have jurisdiction over a gas-additive manufacturer incorporated in another state for MTBE-related contamination of the state's waters, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled Feb. 12 (State v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Vt., No. 2015-204, 2/12/16).
The court affirmed the finding of personal jurisdiction over Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., under the stream of commerce doctrine based on the company's conduct and contacts with Vermont via the nationwide gasoline distribution system.
A state may exercise jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in that state.
The court rejected the company's argument that it didn't have the required minimum contacts with Vermont to establish jurisdiction.
Total Petrochemicals & Refining is incorporated in Delaware and has never manufactured or processed MTBE in Vermont.
The state alleges that TPRI, along with 28 other defendants, contaminated the waters of the state with methyl tertiary butyl ether which is carcinogenic.
Judge Paul L. Reiber wrote the opinion.
Pawa Law Group PC, in Newton Centre, Mass., Weitz & Luxenberg PC in New York, N.Y. and Baron & Budd PC, in Dallas, Texas, represent the state.
Ryan Smith & Carbine Ltd. in Rutland, Vt., and Bracewell LLP in Houston represent TPRI.
-
EPA Simplifies Rules for Lead Paint Renovators
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue on Feb. 17 a final rule revising its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule and the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule (RIN 2070-AK02). The regulation will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. In a prepublication copy of the rule, released Feb. 12, the agency said the revisions are intended to reduce industry's burden and clarify language for training providers while retaining the protections provided by the original rules. For example, the EPA will allow renovators working with lead paint to receive refresher training courses online rather than require in-person training. The online course would save renovators time and money. Eliminating jurisdictions would increase efficiencies for all involved, lower burdens and costs for applicants and save the EPA time processing applications, the agency said. The prepublication copy of the final lead rule is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-03216.pdf.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Babin: Watch out for drones
Feb 14, 2016 | Beaumont Enterprises
By Brandon Scott
With plants and refineries fearful of safety and espionage threats posed by drones, a Southeast Texas congressman wants strict new guidelines for operating unmonitored aircraft near those facilities.
U.S. Rep. Brian Babin has offered two amendments to the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act to address a mounting security concern and help safeguard chemical facilities, representatives with American Chemistry Council said Friday.
The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously approved the amendments this week.
More than 50 large chemical plants in Jefferson, Orange and Hardin counties risk exposure of trade secrets, though no cases have been reported by law enforcement officials.
The unease is based on a concern that freelancers will take aerial photos at plant sites and try to sell them to competitors, John Durkay, legal counsel for Southeast Texas Plant Managers Forum said previously.
Durkay called the drone business "a tremendous opportunity for industrial espionage," which he said facilities worry about.
A smaller concern is that a drone operator could lose control and the aircraft could crash into a valve or hit an electrical wire.
"That can't possibly be good," Durkay said of those scenarios. "I think all of the industrial facilities are going to welcome (the law)."
The provisions, which still need approval from the full House of Representatives, carefully target the potential misuse of drones for illicit purposes without interfering with their growing use by the public both recreationally and commercially, the ACC wrote in a statement.
ACC spokesperson Scott Jensen said the organization has not tracked complaints, but drones at chemical plants have become a growing concern among its members.
Security teams at these facilities are tasked with identifying potential risks.
"A year ago I don't think this was necessarily on anyone's radar," Jensen said. "I think they have recognized it, even though it may not have occurred on their facility yet. Of course, you'd rather identify it before it happens, but I think there have been some facilities that might have had those issues."
-
Feds Issue Warnings About Oil Tank Hazards
Feb 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Mike Soraghan
Federal worker-safety agencies amplified their warnings today about the dangers oil workers face when checking storage tanks.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued a hazard alert identifying the potentially lethal risks involved in "manual tank gauging."
"When a worker opens a tank, the worker's breathing zone can immediately become an acutely toxic mix of concentrated hydrocarbon gases and vapors," the alert states. "Depending on weather conditions, the plume may disperse or engulf workers atop and around tank batteries."
Federal officials said the alert was triggered by a series of preventable deaths related to manual gauging of tanks (EnergyWire, Jan. 15).
The alert provides specific recommendations for companies to try to protect workers, suggesting safety equipment, better practices and simply not doing the gauging by hand.
"It has been known for years that oil and gas extraction is extremely dangerous work, with high rates of workplace fatalities. We also know that every incident is preventable," OSHA chief David Michaels said in an agency release.
The alert highlights federal research showing workers at oil and gas extraction sites can be exposed to very high concentrations of toxic petroleum vapors when they open "thief hatches" atop tanks. The vapors can displace oxygen, to the point where those exposed can't breathe, resulting in loss of consciousness and even death. Workers also face the risk of fires or explosions if the vapors ignite.
The agencies described today's alert as a supplement to one issued last year by an industry group and federal agencies (EnergyWire, April 27).
OSHA last week closed cases against two companies cited after a worker collapsed and died while checking tanks at a Colorado oil production site (EnergyWire, Feb. 12).
OSHA is also investigating the December death of a gas well worker in West Virginia as a possible similar case (EnergyWire, Jan. 28).
-
OSHA Issues Hazard Alert For Tank Gauging
Feb 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Marianne LeVine
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a hazard alert today for workers at oil and gas extraction sites.
The hazard alert warns workers make be exposed to hazardous gases and vapors, as well as fires and explosions, when they open tank hatches to collect fluid samples.
OSHA, along with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, recommended companies “implement alternative tank gauging and sampling procedures to monitor tank fluid levels and take samples without opening the tank hatch.” In addition, the agencies advise that workers wear flame-resistant clothing and impermeable gloves, among other measures.
-
European Chemicals Official Says Work Remains for REACH
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Registration under the European Union's REACH chemicals law has allowed the EU to collect information on some 14,000 substances since 2010, but work remains to improve data quality and the transparency of how companies are using nanomaterials, a European Chemicals Agency official said.
Since 2010, REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) has required companies to submit in registration dossiers extensive substance information, including data on substance properties and guidance on safe use, as a condition of access to the EU market.
Of the 14,000 dossiers received so far, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has “verified” data in some 1,500, said Christel Musset, director of registration at ECHA.
Musset said the REACH process has so far identified 168 substances of very high concern and produced 460 proposals for substance risk management.
“But that is just the beginning of a continuous process” in which competent authorities and agencies examine registration data in dossiers and prioritize certain substances based on risks, she said.
Musset spoke Feb. 11 during a press conference outside Paris at France's main chemical manufacturers lobby (l'Union des Industries Chimiques, or UIC), to discuss how an upcoming REACH deadline will affect French manufacturers.
Transparency and Nanoforums
REACH required companies to register by Nov. 30, 2010, every substance they import or manufacture on the EU market in amounts of 1,000 metric tons or more annually or one ton or more for substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic.
The deadline for substances in the 100-1,000 metric ton range was May 31, 2013. For substances in the 1-100 metric ton range, the registration deadline is May 31, 2018.
Musset said the agency expects companies will submit around 60,000 registrations for as many as 25,000 chemicals by the 2018 deadline. Since nanomaterials are used in far smaller quantities than bulk forms of substances, the agency hopes to see several registrations of nanomaterials by then, she said, but she declined to estimate how many.
EU officials have previously indicated that very few nanomaterials, fewer than 10, have been registered under REACH (228 DEN A-7, 11/26/14).
Musset said REACH requires companies to indicate, in their substance dossiers, how much of a substance they use in nano form, and the nanoform properties, but they can include this information in the same dossier as for the bulk form of the chemical.
No separate dossier is required, despite the fact that nanoforums of substances can have very different properties from their bulk forms.
And for companies that register nanoforms in dossiers for bulk substances, “they do it in a way that is not very transparent. So it is difficult for us to judge if there is a nanoform in the dossier,” said Musset.
Clarification on Nanomaterials
The European Commission is expected to propose a regulation in 2016 to amend REACH annexes to clarify information on nanomaterials, among other things, by adding a definition of a nanomaterial, and requiring that nanomaterials are adequately characterized in REACH registration dossiers (08 DEN B-13, 1/13/16).
Musset said ECHA also “plans to provide computer tools that we hope will help companies give us much more information on nanomaterials.”
More generally, the agency plans several efforts to get companies to improve the quality of data in their registration dossiers, she said. “When a substance is registered the work is not finished. Dossiers have to be constantly updated with new data and new knowledge about substances.”
The ECHA official said REACH does not address so-called cocktail effects of mixes of several chemicals, but ECHA is contributing to work that the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is doing on that subject. REACH also does not yet address chemical substances included in manufactured articles, although that could come in future work, she said.
-
Court Allows Case On Local Oil Transport Ordinance
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A pipeline company's challenge of a city ordinance that would effectively block it from moving crude oil from Canada to South Portland, Maine, can move forward, a federal court has ruled (Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, D. Me., No. 2:15-cv-00054, 2/11/16).
Portland Pipe Line Corp.'s lawsuit is ripe and the company has standing, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine said in its Feb. 11 ruling. The court also disputed the city's claim that ruling on the merits of this case would constitute an unconstitutional advisory opinion, instead pointing to its “real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief.”
The case centers on South Portland's Clear Skies Ordinance that would block any bulk loading of oil sands onto tanker ships, and ban the construction of oil sands transport-related infrastructure through the city. Enforcement of the ordinance would jeopardize the ability of the pipeline company to reverse its flow of oil to move oil from Canada to South Portland through its existing pipeline or other means. Its line currently moves oil from Maine to Canada, moving crude oil unloaded from oil tankers at the harbor in South Portland.
South Portland's city council approved the ordinance in July 2014. Portland Pipe Line, which is a subsidiary of Montreal Pipe Line Ltd., sued the city in February 2015. American Waterways Operators also is a plaintiff in the case (141 DEN A-13, 7/23/14).
Ripe, Standing
The court determined the suit was ripe in part because the pipeline company demonstrated that it would begin plans to reverse the flow of crude oil, barring the enforcement of the ordinance and other hurdles would not realistically stop the company's action. There is hardship because “if the Court concludes that the South Portland Ordinance is enforceable, PPLC's proposal to reverse the flow is doomed,” the court said, among other reasons it cites.
The court ruled that the pipeline company had standing, as well. It said an injury occurred because “the Plaintiffs on these facts confront—and seek to challenge—a barrier that the Defendants have erected to keep them from doing what they have otherwise resolved to do: bring oil from Canada to South Portland.”
The city has until Feb. 29 to submit a response to the order. The nine counts in the case fall under a number of laws, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Pipeline Safety Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and the Maine Oil Discharge Prevention Law.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-language:AR-SA;}
-
San Francisco Bay City Rejects Valero Oil Train Plan
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Planning commissioners for the city of Benicia, Calif., have rejected Valero Refining Co.'s plan to build a rail loading terminal at its facility in the small town located on the Carquinez Strait in the San Francisco Bay.
The company will evaluate its options for appeal of the Feb. 11 vote, Valero spokesman Chris Howe told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 12 e-mail.
Valero wants to upgrade its waterfront refinery so it can begin receiving North American crude oil by rail cars. The proposal seeks a use permit to replace up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil a day it currently receives via marine vessels with an equivalent amount transported by rail.
City staff had recommended the six-member commission approve the use permit and certify the environmental impact report prepared for the project. Commissioners decided the trains posed too much of a threat to the public and environment.
An appeal would put the project's fate in the hands of the city council.
Opposition Voiced at Hearings
The commission's decision followed four nights of hearings where many citizens testified in opposition to the project, citing the potential for explosive derailments or other incidents that could harm the public and environment. Local officials from Sacramento and other communities the railcars would pass through sought stronger safety protections in the use permit.
“We are disappointed that the Planning Commission did not agree with the staff recommendation to certify the project EIR and approve the use permit,” Howe said. “Most disappointing was the commissioners disregard for the opinions of a multitude of environmental and legal experts who spent over three years to evaluate this project.”
Released Jan. 5, the final environmental analysis concluded the project's potentially significant impacts on air quality, biological resources, energy conservation, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Some of the impacts, however, would be “unavoidable,” the report said.
With locomotive shipments replacing marine vessel deliveries, the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 225,000 tons a year, the report said.
The city also would benefit financially, the report said. If approved, the project would generate nearly $200,000 in annual sales tax revenue for the city and an additional $175,000 more in property taxes. Also, it would create 20 permanent jobs at the refinery and as many 40 other jobs in the region, the report said.
Valero bought the refinery, built in 1969, from Exxon in 2000. The refinery receives most of crude supplies by marine vessels and some by pipeline.
-
Workers Close Off Methane Leak In California
Feb 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Work crews have begun injecting a stopping compound into a damaged natural gas well in California that has been leaking methane into the air for months.
Southern California Gas Co. said Thursday that there is no longer any more methane leaking from the damaged storage well in Porter Ranch, Calif., outside of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that nearby residents were no longer smelling a gaseous odor in their city. Officials in the area said it was a good first step, but now the storage facility needs to be declared fully safe before the area can return to normal.
Officials discovered the methane leak in October, with the damaged well soon spewing up to 130,000 pounds of methane into the air per hour. Thousands of residents evacuated the city, driven out while officials undertook the slow work of plugging the well.
The cause of the leak is unknown, and initial efforts to plug it by injecting a chemical solution into the well failed due to obstructions several hundred feet down.
Southern California Gas then began drilling two relief wells in order to pump the plugging solution closer to the natural gas reservoir, buried 8,500 feet below ground. That work began on Dec. 4 and ended this week.
The leak has so far cost Southern California Gas $300 million, with 67 lawsuits against the company pending, according to the Times.
-
Clean Power Plan Foes Urge ‘Pencils Down' After Stay
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
States should drop plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan and “put their pencils down” after the carbon dioxide standards were stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, opponents leading the fight against the rule said in a letter to state regulators.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in the Feb. 12 letter that states are under no obligations to continue their work on compliance measures for the Clean Power Plan, which would have been due to the EPA on Sept. 6, prior to the Supreme Court's unprecedented decision.
“If public officials in states wish to spend taxpayer money voluntarily to comply with the rule—even though it likely will never go into effect and even if upheld, will have extended deadlines—that is, of course, their decision,” the attorneys general said. “But there should be no mistake about that. The decisions by state officials to move ‘forward' in preparing for a stayed and likely-unlawful Power Plan are not required or compelled by the Power Plan or any of its presently-void deadlines.”
The letter comes after EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the state regulators Feb. 11 that the agency will continue to support any voluntary state efforts to prepare for eventual compliance with the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector in each state (29 DEN A-1, 2/12/16).
“The result of the stay is clear: the Power Plan has no legal effect whatsoever during the entire judicial review process,” the attorneys general said. “In granting the stay, the Supreme Court considered whether the Power Plan is likely unlawful and whether it is causing irreparable harm now. We believe the court's decision to grant the stay for the duration of the litigation—including any Supreme Court review—means that the states, their agencies and EPA should put their pencils down. Any taxpayers dollars spent during the judicial review process are unnecessary and likely to be entirely wasted.”
Foes Issue ‘Stop Work' Orders
The American Energy Alliance, the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, also urged states to halt their compliance efforts, sending a series of “Stop Work Orders”to governors and environmental regulators.
The Supreme Court Feb. 9 issued a 5-4 decision staying the Clean Power Plan until it can be fully litigated (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, order issued 2/9/16; 27 DEN A-1, 2/10/16).
Some states such as Alabama have already halted their compliance efforts in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision while others like Colorado are moving ahead in the event the rule is ultimately upheld, fearing delays now would leave the state at a disadvantage later (28 DEN A-1, 2/11/16).
However, Paxton and Morrisey argued those efforts are unnecessary now because even if the Clean Power Plan is upheld, the EPA would be forced to reset all of its compliance deadlines as a result of the stay.
“It is also well-understood that in the unlikely event that the Power Plan is ultimately upheld, EPA would be forced to completely reset all Power Plan deadlines,” the letter said.
-
Major Cases To Be Impacted By Scalia's Death
Feb 13, 2016 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia Saturday could have a grave impact on cases now before the court.
In a blog post Saturday, Tom Goldstein, an appellate advocate and the publisher of SCOTUSblog, said votes that Scalia cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void.
If Scalia’s vote, however, did not affect the case's outcome, he said the case will still be decided but only by an eight-member court.
Major cases that have been argued but not publicly decided include Fisher v. University of Texas, which challenges the use of affirmative action. The justices appeared closely divided during arguments in December.
Scalia made headlines for comments he made from the bench that suggested minority students might belong in “less-advanced schools” than their white peers.
“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” he said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.”
A decision is also still pending in a Texas redistricting case, Evenwel v. Abbott, which challenges the “one-person, one-vote” principle used when drawing equal legislative districts.
Goldstein also pointed to Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which threatens union shops in public workplaces. If Scalia was part of a 5-4 majority decision, the court would now be divided 4-4. In that case, the lower court’s ruling would stand, he wrote.
-
Justice Scalia’s Irreplaceable Views on CO2 and Climate
Feb 13, 2016 | The New York Times
By Andrew C. Revkin
Tens of thousands of words will flow in the coming days on the significance of the life and death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Texas resort. Adam Liptak leads Times coverage here.
His death came just a few days after an unprecedented move by the court put a roadblock in the way of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulating carbon dioxide from power plants. (David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council does a good job here of dissecting the meaning of the stay in the context of a broad suite of factors driving greenhouse gas reductions in the United States.)
I won’t delve in depth on Scalia’s untimely passing. There were so many facets to the man and his interpretations of the Constitution. I simply want to draw your attention to a fascinating exchange I was lucky to witness during 2012 commencement activities at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute:
Justice Scalia was engaged in an onstage conversation with the school’s remarkable president, Shirley Ann Jackson, a physicist. She asked him to explain his dissent in the 2007 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
“The issue was simply whether carbon was an environmental pollutant or not,” he said. “I did not think it was ever regarded as that. It is not the Atmospheric Protection Agency. It’s the Environmental Protection Agency. That was the basis for my dissent.”
I hope you’ll listen to the full exchange, and perhaps explore the longer conversation, which included Steven Chu, then President Obama’s secretary of energy, the computer scientist Edward A. Feigenbaum and others.
In 2009, when the E.P.A. first exerted its authority to rein in carbon dioxide, I wrote a post that in part looked back at Scalia’s skepticism about this gas fitting under a statute created to cut eye-stinging, lung-searing smog. I use this slide in talks for two reasons — both to illustrate Scalia’s views on global warming but also because his comment reflects a broader sense of discomfort with “dealing with global warming.” Photodefinitions were clarified as James Milkey, representing the state of Massachusetts, argued that carbon dioxide merited regulation under the Clean Air Act in 2006.
Here’s an excerpt from that piece:
Over all, carbon dioxide and climate remain a very tough fit for the legislative and legal arenas. This reality was on display during Supreme Court arguments in November 2006 that laid the legal foundation for today’s announcement. Confusion arose over which layer of the atmosphere was the repository for smokestack and tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide. James Milkey, assistant attorney general of Massachusetts, corrected Justice Antonin Scalia, saying: “Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It’s the troposphere.”
“Troposphere, whatever,” Justice Scalia replied. “I told you before I’m not a scientist.” Over a brief flutter of laughter from observers, he added, “That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.”
It looks like the courts will have to deal more with global warming in the months and years to come.
As recent events bear out, the Supreme Court will indeed be dealing more with global warming.
I enjoyed meeting Scalia in that visit to Rensselaer. He was candid and engaging and fiercely devoted to his view of the law. I offer condolences to his family and friends.
-
Greens Faced With Nightmare Scenario At The Supreme Court
Feb 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to halt President Obama’s sweeping climate change regulation for power plants is causing environmentalists and experts to wonder whether they need a backup plan.
The Obama administration has repeatedly said, both before and after the judicial stay was ordered, that it does not have a Plan B if the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan gets overturned.Officials insist that a backup plan isn’t necessary because once the high court hears the case, it will find that the rule is well within the boundaries of the Clean Air Act and the Constitution.
“We remain confident that when this is given its day in court, it’s going to be upheld on the merits,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters.
“Plan A’s a good one, and I don’t want anyone to think it isn’t,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in January.
But the unexpected move by the Supreme Court nonetheless caused a jolt among environmentalists, reminding them that the nine justices at the Supreme Court might interpret the law differently than they do.
“The Supreme Court took unprecedented action, so of course it makes everyone pause and reevaluate,” said John Coequyt, global climate policy director for the Sierra Club.
“I would suspect that people at EPA have already been thinking about that question” of what to do if the rule is overturned, said Justin Pidot, a University of Denver law professor and former Justice Department environmental attorney.
“The prospect that the Supreme Court is going to ultimately invalidate all or some of the Clean Power Plan has been a real possibility for a while,” he said.
The court’s stay order came in 5-4 vote, likely reflecting a break between the liberal and conservative wings.
The order from the justices was brief, with no explanation provided.
It is the first time the high court has stayed a regulation after a lower court refused to do so, and the first time the justices have issued a stay before any court heard the merits of the case.
Now the EPA cannot enforce any parts of the rule until the litigation is over, a major win for the states and energy interests who argued that, if the rule were allowed to proceed and later be overturned, they would experience irreparable harm.
But since the Clean Power Plan is such a major piece of the administration’s climate policy, its downfall would make it difficult to achieve the emissions cuts needed to slow global warming and to meet the country’s pledge under last year’s Paris climate agreement.
Complicating the matter is the timing. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has to hear the case and rule before the Supreme Court takes it up, putting any decision about the next steps in the hands of the next president.
Additionally, if the Supreme Court rules against the EPA, its decision could be narrow — allowing the agency to try to rewrite the rule — or it could be broad, potentially prohibiting any future greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.
Environmentalists were generally tight-lipped about what a Plan B might look like, instead repeating their confidence that the rule will stand.
“We always are working on additional plans. There’s always multiple approaches, and we’re always looking for new ways of moving forward,” said David Doniger, climate program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been credited with forming the general structure of the rule that the EPA adopted.
Coequyt said the federal government is likely to look at the Clean Air Act for future climate regulations.
“I think the only tools that exist for the administration to achieve large-scale reductions that are in front of us are the tools under the Clean Air Act and other administrative options,” he said.
Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said predicting the backup plan is hard without knowing much about the case against the rule.
“It’s a really hard prediction, because the case has not been briefed on the merits yet at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals or at the Supreme Court,” he said. “And the order the Supreme Court issued doesn’t say on what basis it issued the stay.”
Burger and colleagues put out a paper recently arguing that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA wide authority to implement new climate rules based on international harms from greenhouse gases, something the Obama administration has not said it plans to pursue.
But there’s wide agreement that green advocates probably cannot turn to Congress for a solution to climate change if the court isn’t friendly.
“I wouldn’t say we have plans to pass new legislation in the coming Congress,” said Doniger.
“It just doesn’t seem like the Republicans are interested in solving climate change,” Coequyt added.
The rule’s opponents don’t think there should be a replacement, and they predicted that the Supreme Court’s ruling would make it impossible for that to happen.
“We definitely think that the Clean Air Act does not provide EPA with the authority to do what they tried to do with the Clean Power Plan,” said Dan Simmons, vice president of policy at the American Energy Alliance, a free-market group backed by fossil fuel companies.
“If the Clean Power Plan is overturned, we don’t think it should be replaced,” he said, adding that the Clean Air Act “simply wasn't made to do what the environmentalists and EPA want it to do.”
-
Scalia Death Raises Stakes In Battle For Senate Control
Feb 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Kevin Robillard
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death Saturday highlighted the stakes not just of the presidential campaign but of the razor-close battle for control of the Senate, where Republicans’ 54-seat majority is in serious danger in 2016. The Court vacancy won’t remake the political map, but it will intensify the fight over it.
GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Saturday night that the Supreme Court vacancy “should not be filled until we have a new president,” a call that presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio joined. But while McConnell’s tack might take the decision out of President Barack Obama’s hands, it may also hand consent of the new appointment to a new Democratic Senate next year.
That potential Democratic Senate could confirm a nominee who would change the balance of power on the Supreme Court, affecting everything from abortion to civil rights to the government’s response to climate change. On the other hand, a renewed Republican Senate majority could confirm a new justice who would continue a string of close, conservative Court decisions over the last few years.
Republicans are already fighting to defend seats in six states Obama carried twice: Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin. Democrats not only have fewer seats to defend, but the ones that are most at risk come from Colorado and Nevada, territory that has leaned Democratic in recent years.
And already, many GOP strategists believe that the Democratic leans of Illinois and Wisconsin give their opponents an edge of Sens. Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson, despite the fundraising and other preparation those two incumbents have been doing.
The battleground maps for the presidential race and the Senate have much in common, heightening the chance that the next president takes office with a friendly Senate majority in place.
The purple hue of those battleground states — compared to the 2014 Senate map, which was heavier on red states — may split the priorities of GOP senators preparing for tough November races from those worried about primaries earlier in 2016.
While Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, whose primary is in just over two weeks on March 1, quickly echoed the call from McConnell and GOP presidential candidates to block any new Supreme Court appointment until Obama is out of office, none of the incumbents from those battleground states have done the same yet. After Republicans spent 2015 arguing that they have sped up congressional business and made Washington work since taking full control of Congress, blocking a Supreme Court nominee could put Johnson, Kirk, New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, and Ohio’s Rob Portman in a tough spot.
"It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat," said retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whose seat in Nevada is one of the battlegrounds of 2016. "Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential Constitutional responsibilities."
None were in the Senate the last time it voted on a Supreme Court appointment.
Their early statements focused simply on mourning the loss of Scalia.
"#RIP Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest constitutional scholars to ever serve #US on the bench," Kirk wrote on Twitter. "Thoughts are with his family."
"Our condolences to the Scalia family," wrote Portman. "We've lost an intellectual giant & an extraordinary Supreme Court justice in Justice Scalia."
"Justice Scalia was a man of unwavering principles who stood for the constitution and the rule of law," wrote Rep. Joe Heck, the GOP’s leading Senate candidate in Nevada. "Members of all branches of government would do well to follow his example when adhering to their oaths of office."
That stood in contrast to the statements from McConnell and conservatives involved in primaries, like Shelby.
“Justice Scalia’s replacement should be considered carefully and thoughtfully because it is vital to our nation’s future that we confirm a justice who will continue his legacy," Shelby said. "I will adamantly oppose any attempt by President Obama to fill this vacancy during the remainder of his term."
In Colorado, where more than a dozen Republicans are running to take on Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, state Sen. Tim Neville said Scalia’s replacement on the Court must be a conservative. "Constitutionally sound Republican Senators must preserve Justice Scalia's conservative legacy,” Neville wrote.
Democrats appeared poised to strike against McConnell’s plan on the campaign trail.
"Mitch McConnell's partisan obstructionism isn't just unprecedented but it's indefensible," said Shripal Shah, a spokesman for Senate Majority PAC, the main Democratic super PAC focused on the Senate. "His refusal to do his job undermines our country's judicial system and today he just made his entire caucus that much more vulnerable this November, especially considering voters are already fed up with dysfunction in Washington. So much for all that rhetoric about how the 'majority is working' under Republican control."
-
Scalia's Death Plunges Campaigns, Climate Cases Into Chaos
Feb 14, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Evan Lehmann
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia instantly infused the presidential race with sharpened urgency and increased optimism among Democrats that the president's climate initiatives would survive legal challenges.
Republicans looked to the sudden opening on the Supreme Court as a coalescing moment for conservatives. They warned another Democrat in the White House would expand President Obama's liberal policies on everything from immigration to abortion.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a leading presidential candidate, cautioned last night in a Republican debate that "two branches of government hang in the balance" of the election.
In Congress, Scalia's death is already inflaming partisan battles that observers say threaten to overwhelm potential points of bipartisanship on criminal justice reform and energy. With 10 months left in Obama's term, experts say Republican efforts to block a new justice's nomination could be record-breaking.
Obama ceded no ground yesterday, alerting lawmakers and the nation that he will name Scalia's successor "in due time." If successful, the move stands to tip the balance of the court out of conservative control.
Scalia's death leaves the nine-person bench ideologically tied at four to four. Scalia was found dead yesterday at a Texas resort.
"There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote," Obama said. "These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They're bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy."
Among Scalia's last decisions was his support Tuesday enabling the high court's 5-4 ruling to delay the Clean Power Plan, Obama's signature regulation to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the electricity sector.
That order stands. But his death casts uncertainty over the future of Obama's executive actions. If Republicans refuse to vote on a nominee or reject Obama's choice, lower-court decisions take prominence. That magnifies attention on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is set to rule on the overall legality of the Clean Power Plan later this year (see related story).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Obama yesterday that any nominee faces a Republican-led chamber that's opposed to helping a Democratic president upend the balance of the court in the waning months of his second term. He told Obama to let the next president pick Scalia's successor.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," McConnell said.
That ignited instant attacks from Democrats, who alluded to the idea that a GOP delay seems to challenge the originalist principles of constitutionalism hewed to by Scalia.
"It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates," Hillary Clinton said at a fundraiser in Denver last night, according to The New York Times.
"Barack Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017," she added. "That is a fact, my friends, whether Republicans like it or not."
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, mocked Republicans today by saying the Constitution doesn't require the president to fill vacancies on the high court "except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic president."
"It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that -- empty talk," Warren added.
Greens now optimistic on Clean Power Plan
History shows that the responsibility for making a lifetime appointment to the court is shared by the president and 100 senators. The executive is given discretion for nominating a justice, but his or her confirmation is in the hands of the Senate.
Of the 160 nominations made since 1789, the Senate has confirmed 124 of them, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service last year. Eleven of those were rejected outright, raising the possibility that Obama's choice would make historic waves if the Senate voted the jurist down.
"That would be politically earthshaking," said Tom Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former Justice Department lawyer who defended U.S. EPA rules.
Perhaps more likely, the Senate could stall until Obama leaves office. Historically, 25 nominees failed to be appointed after withdrawing or not receiving a vote. Under that scenario, Obama's pick could have a leg up under the next president if a Democrat wins in November.
But even a long delay would be historically notable. Obama has 341 days remaining in office. Since 1975, the average length of time it's taken the Senate to vote is 67 days. The longest is 108 days. That was for Robert Bork, who the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected 58 to 42.
Now, like then, the nomination threatens to fuel an intractable amount of rancor.
"The Senate will almost certainly come to full stop," said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy strategist.
Among the jurists being mentioned as possible successors to Scalia is Sri Srinivasan, a D.C. Circuit judge who was confirmed by the Senate in 2013 in a 97-0 vote. Others include D.C. Circuit judge Patricia Ann Millett and Loretta Lynch, Obama's attorney general.
Paul Bledsoe, a former climate aide under President Clinton, predicted that a prolonged delay to vote by the Senate could "backfire politically" at the height of an election year.
He also sees brighter days ahead for Obama's executive actions on climate change.
"The court's stay of the Clean Power Plan now seems even more a case of partisan overreach," Bledsoe said in an email, adding, "the likelihood that the CPP will be upheld by the court has just increased dramatically."
-
New Era Begins For Environmental Law, Obama's Climate Rule
Feb 14, 2016 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender and Jeremy P. Jacobs
Justice Antonin Scalia's death will likely spur a tectonic shift in environmental law.
The loss of the conservative firebrand, who was found dead yesterday at a Texas resort, sending shock waves through the worlds of law and politics. Lawyers are watching to see how the departure of the Supreme Court's strongest conservative will affect the court's ideological balance.
Scalia, an outsized and at times bombastic personality who was equally sharp in his questions at oral arguments as he was in his opinions and dissents, reshaped conservative legal theory -- bending it to focus on what the framers of the Constitution meant when it was ratified.
Some viewed the Trenton, N.J., native as U.S. EPA and environmentalists' biggest enemy on the Supreme Court due to some of his more scathing opinions reining in federal regulations.
In the short term, his absence on the bench has major implications for a series of high-stakes energy and environmental cases the court has agreed to take on this term, since the court is now evenly split along ideological lines. Over the longer term, his death will impact how big environmental cases -- including the epic battle over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan -- play out.
President Obama has pledged to nominate Scalia's successor, and rumors already abound about who may be on the short list to replace him. But prospects for any Obama pick clearing the GOP-led Senate this year are highly uncertain as Republican leaders are pushing to stall a confirmation until the next president takes the White House (see related story).
Scalia was beloved by critics of environmental regulations and feared by proponents of expansive federal regulation. In his three decades on the high court, he penned a series of sharply worded opinions rolling back environmental rules.
"He was a stalwart of the court, not only because of his conservative views, but the power of his expression," said James Rubin, an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney. Rubin called Scalia the court's "most outspoken" critic of EPA.
Todd Aagaard, vice dean and professor at Villanova University School of Law, said "regardless of whether you agree with him," Scalia's opinions were "very tightly reasoned, and they don't pull any punches." That "made people worry more about the implications of his opinions," Aagaard added.
Scalia wrote no fewer than 10 majority opinions in environmental cases, many of which shaped the principles of the country's major environmental laws that were still in their infancies when he was confirmed to the high court in 1986.
Perhaps his biggest impact was on the concept of standing, meaning when environmental groups and others could show they were "injured" and, therefore, qualified to challenge regulations and agency actions in court.
In three majority opinions, Scalia sharply narrowed the scope of that key legal hurdle. Most notably, in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the justice in 1992 wrote that the environmental group lacked standing to challenge Endangered Species Act protections.
The decision is still frequently cited and discussed in environmental lawsuits, and Scalia reiterated his view of standing in two subsequent majority opinions in environmental cases, one in 1998 and another in 2008.
More recently, Scalia had emerged as a foe of far-reaching EPA regulations, suggesting that the agency must consider the cost and economic impact of implementation.
Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau said Scalia "basically established the principle that economic interests are presumptively in and environmental interests are not. He consistently sided with property rights over protection of wildlife, wetlands or other natural resources."
He wasn't seen as a solid vote against EPA, however.
Although he was very concerned about agencies "overstepping authorities," Rubin said, "I wouldn't call him anti-environmentalist."
Environmental lawyers point to a major 2001 case called Whitman v. American Trucking Associations as a landmark opinion where Scalia took a pro-environment stance. In the majority opinion he penned, the court found that EPA could not consider costs when setting national limits for air pollutants.
Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said that opinion showed Scalia strove to separate the environmental and public health aspects of a case from the fundamental legal question.
"Justice Scalia may have written opinions very critical of environmentalist positions, but he also wrote the majority in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, which he believed was guided by well-established principles of administrative law."
Murky outlooks for major cases
This term was shaping up to be a major one for environmental cases, with several high-profile issues on the court's docket. But Scalia's death means the court is likely to have just eight justices for the rest of the term, and may not be issuing precedential opinions on some big cases.
If the justices split 4-4 on a case -- as they're likely to do if they divide along ideological lines -- the court simply upholds the decision of a lower court without setting new precedent.
Historically, the court has also avoided far-reaching opinions when there are only eight justices on the bench, choosing instead to issue more minor, procedural rulings to avoid the 4-4 splits.
So far this term, the court has issued just one major energy opinion, when the justices split 6-2 to uphold a controversial energy conservation rule. In that case over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's demand-response rule, Scalia authored the sharply worded dissent, contending that the agency had overstepped its authority.
Other cases in the pipeline that will be impacted by Scalia's absence on the court include cases over whether the National Park Service can ban a moose hunter's hovercraft from an Alaskan refuge, state incentives for power generation and whether landowners can challenge government determinations that their properties contain wetlands.
Clean Power Plan's fate
Environmental lawyers are scrambling to figure out what Scalia's death means for the Obama administration's landmark climate change rule, which is slated to be the most significant environmental case in coming years.
Just last week, the court issued a 5-4 order halting the rule while the legal battle plays out, with Scalia on the side of the majority voting to freeze the regulation.
The high court's rebuke of the Clean Power Plan was widely viewed as a sign that the nine justices could ultimately decide to torpedo the rule after digging into the merits of the lawsuits.
But with the pending arrival of a new justice -- and the possibility that the court could soon shift to the left -- the fate of the Clean Power Plan is far from certain.
"I think Scalia was probably going to be the most aggressive challenger of the Clean Power Plan," Parenteau said.
The case is still playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with oral arguments slated for early June.
Interestingly, one of the D.C. Circuit judges selected to hear the case is Sri Srinivasan, who was appointed to the court by Obama and is widely cited as a possible nominee to fill Scalia's seat.
If he's nominated before the case is heard in June, Srinivasan may recuse himself from hearing the Clean Power Plan case in the lower court. That would mean another judge would be picked and could impact the outcome in that court.
The three-judge panel slated to hear the case in the D.C. Circuit is seen as favorable to the Obama administration, with two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee. A potential Srinivasan recusal has the potential to shift the dynamics of the case.
And Scalia's death may have revived the rule's chances of withstanding the high court's scrutiny.
If the D.C. Circuit upholds the rule and it goes to the Supreme Court before a new justice is confirmed, a 4-4 split from the court would uphold the lower court's decision. If Obama or another Democratic administration appoints the next justice, the court may also shift to uphold the rule.
Conversely, if the D.C. Circuit knocks down the rule, a 4-4 Supreme Court split would keep that decision in place, or a Republican appointee to the court could represent a fifth vote on the high court to vacate the regulation.
Another wrinkle could be the timing of a potential Srinivasan nomination. If he were nominated after he hears and rules on the Clean Power Plan case while it is at the D.C. Circuit, he would have to recuse himself from the case should it reach the Supreme Court.
Similar questions are now arising over the fate of major environmental rules currently being challenged in lower courts, including the Obama administration's so-called Waters of the United States rule, tightened air quality standards for ozone and many others.
"There's still a lot of uncertainty about what might happen to some of these cases depending on who eventually takes that seat," Parenteau said.
Obama's short list
The legal parlor game of who Obama may nominate is already in full swing.
He's widely expected to pick someone fairly moderate and with stellar credentials, given that he's facing an uphill battle to get anyone confirmed by a GOP-held Senate during an election year.
Many attorneys expect Srinivasan to be at the top of Obama's list.
He was dubbed "The Supreme Court Nominee-in-Waiting" by New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin in 2013, and he has several important factors on his side.
He's young, at 48, meaning Obama would be picking a nominee who could have a lasting impact on the court for several decades. He also has a limited record as a judge -- having only served on the D.C. Circuit since 2013. That could play into his favor, as it means Republicans would have fewer decisions to dig into in opposition.
One of Obama's previous picks to the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan, similarly had a relatively short paper trail, having never served as a judge previously.
Lastly, the Senate voted 97-0 to confirm Srinivasan to the D.C. Circuit in May 2013.
Prior to joining the D.C. Circuit in 2013, he was principal deputy solicitor general during the Obama administration and previously worked for the law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. He was also a law clerk for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Among the many other names that are circulating as possible picks are D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Paul Watford and Jacqueline Nguyen.
-
Bill Would Strike Clean Air Act's International Provision
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bill to eliminate Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, an obscure provision addressing international air pollution that some legal scholars have argued the Environmental Protection Agency should use to regulate greenhouse gases.
The Energy Sovereignty Act (H.R. 4544), introduced Feb. 11, comes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to stay the EPA's Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the Obama administration's efforts to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions (West Virginia v. EPA, U.S., No. 15A773, order issued 2/9/16; 27 DEN A-1, 2/10/16).
Since that decision some attorneys and environmental advocates have called on the EPA to use its authority to address international air pollution under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to address climate change. Advocates of that approach said Perry's bill appears to be a direct response to that suggestion.
“Rep. Perry's bill obviously is responding to that” discussion, Frank O'Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Watch, told Bloomberg BNA. “This is like a giant legal chess match, with the fate of the planet possibly at stake. Perry—and his supporters—hope to knock Section 115 off the board before it becomes EPA's white knight.”
Section 115 would permit the EPA to require states to reduce air pollution emissions that cross international boundaries if other countries are taking reciprocal action, a trigger advocates said came with the international Paris Climate Agreement reached in December 2015.
Advocates have argued Section 115 could serve as a backup approach for the EPA to utilize should the Supreme Court ultimately reject its Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which would set carbon dioxide limits for the power sector in each state (28 DEN A-5, 2/11/16).
A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee did not respond to request for comment on whether the panel would take up the legislation.
‘Trying to Head EPA Off.'
Brian Potts, a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP, told Bloomberg BNA the bill appeared designed to eliminate the use of Section 115 as an alternative for the Clean Power Plan should that regulation ultimately not survive judicial review.
“Given the Court's strong signal that the Clean Power Plan is illegal, [Section 115] might be the EPA's only viable option left,” Potts said. “Congressman Perry and his Republican colleagues are just trying to head EPA off at the pass.”
Potts argued in favor of using Section 115 for future greenhouse gas regulations in a recent op-ed. Environmental legal scholars made the same argument in a January report.
Jason Schwartz, legal director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law and one of the lead authors of that report, told Bloomberg BNA the international section of the Clean Air Act would help streamline greenhouse gas regulations and should still be utilized regardless of the Clean Power Plan's fate.
“Section 115, if it's no longer available for greenhouse gas regulation, that's only going to increase compliance costs for industry,” Schwartz said. “We actually presently see Section 115 as supplementing the Clean Power Plan and other existing regulations. We hope the Clean Power Plan survives and then we'll figure out how to use Section 115 after that.”
Even industry attorneys have previously argued Section 115 would offer a less burdensome way of controlling greenhouse gas emissions than current sector-by-sector regulations or the complicated permitting process (43 DEN B-1, 3/9/09).
-
Oversight Committee to Hold Second Flint Hearing
Feb 15, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) will join Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to testify before a House committee at an unspecified date to examine failures at the federal, state and local level that led to excessive levels of lead in Flint, Mich.'s, drinking water.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced the second hearing Feb. 12, saying “Their perspectives on this issue are important as we seek to ensure a crisis of this magnitude never occurs in another American city.”
The committee held its first hearing Feb. 10 when it examined the EPA's role in the events that led to a drinking water emergency in Flint. At that hearing, Republicans blamed the EPA for failing to take action, while Democrats generally said Michigan officials were to blame by ignoring reports of contamination (23 DEN A-1, 2/4/16).
Chaffetz' announcement came the same day Snyder released e-mails from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality related to the water emergency in Flint (see related story).
Also testifying at the oversight hearing will be former EPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman, EPA Region 5 water expert Miguel Del Toral, former Michigan-appointed Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, Former Flint Mayor Dayne Walling and Marc Edwards, environmental and water engineering professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
The city's tap water was contaminated by lead leaching from the aged pipes, following the April 2014 decision by the state-appointed emergency manager Earley to switch to the nearby Flint River for the city's water supply without ensuring that anti-corrosion measures were in place. The move led to the discovery of elevated lead levels in the blood of some children in Flint and subsequent resignations of state and EPA officials.
State, Federal Investigation of Flint Water Crisis
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) and the U.S. Attorney General Office in Detroit are investigating whether any criminal laws were broken in the decisions leading up to switching the city's water supply. The Federal Bureau of Investigation joined the investigation Feb. 3 (22 DEN A-1, 2/3/16).
Snyder wasn't invited to the oversight committee's first hearing Feb. 3, a move that drew widespread criticism from Democrats in the House and Senate as well as those in the state's legislature. The Michigan governor, however, was invited but he declined to testify at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing on Feb. 10 (28 DEN A-17, 2/11/16).
Among the witnesses invited to the second oversight hearing was Earley who had declined to testify at the first hearing, prompting a subpoena from Chaffetz who vowed to send the U.S. Marshall after him. Hedman also wasn't invited to testify at the first oversight hearing, and her absence was criticized by Republicans. She resigned in January after it became known that the EPA Region 5 buried an interim report by Del Toral who began alerting the agency and state about the extent of the lead contamination problem in the city's tap water, starting in February 2015.
Edwards did testify at the first hearing. His team of Virginia Polytechnic Institute researchers in October 2015 were responsible for releasing state e-mails, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that disclosed publicly for the first time that Flint didn't implement proper corrosion controls when it switched the water supply to the Flint River. Edwards was hired by the city in January to lead the task force charged with testing the waters.
Democrats Pleased
House Democrats welcomed the news about Snyder. In particular, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the oversight committee's ranking member, thanked Chaffetz in a Feb. 12 statement for agreeing to Democrats’ repeated request to have Snyder testify.
“However, contrary to Governor Snyder's recent claim that he requested this ‘opportunity to testify,’ the reality is that he is finally bowing to mounting public pressure to answer questions before Congress about the central and critical role his administration played in this man-made disaster,” Cummings said.
Likewise, Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), whose district includes Flint, welcomed news that Snyder agreed to testify under oath.
“The governor's administration and his state-appointed emergency financial managers created this crisis and he must answer questions so that the whole truth can be found,” Kildee said in a Feb. 12 statement, adding that “Flint families deserve answers from the governor and immediate solutions from the state about what is being done to make things right for the people of Flint.”
Attorney General Asked to Investigate
Additionally, 35 members of Congress Feb. 12 asked U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate reports that Michigan officials knew about possible tap water contamination in Flint, well before the state publicly acknowledged the problem.
“In particular, we are concerned that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality revised a city report by excluding two water samples that were high in lead in August of 2015. The dropping of these samples allowed the city to meet the federal standard for lead content in drinking water, which it would have otherwise exceeded,” the letter said.
Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, authored the Feb. 12 letter following the FBI's decision to participate in the federal investigation.
-
Top House Democrat Eyes Bill To Codify Equity Protections After Flint Crisis
Feb 12, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is planning a new environmental justice bill that could attempt to codify legal protections for equity communities, in response to the Flint, MI, drinking water crisis where critics allege state and federal regulators failed to protect low-income and minority residents.
Speaking at a Feb. 10 hearing hosted by the House Democratic Caucus' Steering and Policy Committee, Grijalva said he hopes to work with stakeholders who were affected by lead contamination in Flint -- a predominantly African-American city -- to develop equity legislation, though details of the bill are yet to be decided.
“One thing that we hope to work on with you is dealing with that environmental justice issue: The metrics, procedures and legislation that could be possible so that we offer a level of legal protection, codified in law, to communities down the road but to Flint in particular,” Grijalva said during the hearing.
A Grijalva staffer says that an environment justice bill “has been on [the lawmaker's] radar for some time,” but specific goals for such legislation are still under discussion. Nevertheless, the source says, “he definitely plans to introduce legislation. . . . Flint is giving him that extra push to actually introduce a bill.”
Advocates, Democrats and Republicans have criticized state, local and federal officials for failing to act quickly after high lead levels were detected in Flint's water, with rights groups in particular charging that regulators considered the city a low priority because of its high proportion of poor and minority residents.
“The state of Michigan appears to have known for months about the elevated lead levels in children,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said during the Feb. 10 Democratic hearing.
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) queried how much contact Flint Mayor Karen Weaver -- who attended the hearing -- and other city officials have had with Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) on the crisis, and asked whether he has told local authorities when the state government was first aware of lead issues in Flint. He expressed concerns that other states have obscured drinking water contamination within their borders.
“We can't treat this as if it's happened only in Flint,” Becerra said.
Weaver replied that she has similar questions, adding, “I try to work with [Snyder] because he is the governor.”
Snyder declined an opportunity to testify at the hearing, but the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced Feb. 12 it is planning a future hearing where Synder has agreed to attend. Also attending the currently unscheduled hearing will be EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and former agency Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman, who resigned over the Flint crisis.
Citizens' Concerns
Claims that state and federal regulators did not act on their knowledge of lead contamination in Flint extend beyond the state government to include EPA.
Advocates who filed a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) citizen suit against Michigan and local authorities said in their Jan. 27 complaint that the agency was aware of elevated lead levels in Flint as early as February 2015. Residents previously wrote letters complaining of health effects from drinking or bathing in the city's water, but regulators took no action for more than seven months.
So far no groups have filed a civil rights suit against EPA or Michigan, but the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Michael Steinberg said on a Jan. 27 conference call that, "There's no doubt that this neglectful policy has had a disparate impact on people of color, and we're very concerned about the civil rights implications.”
Steinberg continued that ACLU is considering “further action,” potentially including civil rights litigation.
Grijalva at the hearing announced his intent to craft a bill shortly after the House approved H.R. 4470, another response to the Flint crisis that would strengthen the requirements for EPA to notify residents when their drinking water exceeds SDWA “action levels” for lead.
H.R. 4470 would require any EPA employee aware of such incidents to notify state officials and the operator of the water system. It also sets a 120-day deadline for EPA to craft a strategic plan for itself and states to conduct “targeted outreach, education, technical assistance, and risk communication” to residents after high lead levels are detected in drinking water systems.
Although the bill does not address environmental justice concerns in depth, it would require separate targeted outreach strategies for “vulnerable populations,” defined as “groups within the general population that may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to lead in drinking water.”
The House approved H.R. 4470 by a 416-2 vote on Feb. 10, but the bill's Senate counterpart, S. 2466, is still pending before the Environment and Public Works Committee. Rather than SDWA reporting, debate in the Senate has focused on infrastructure aid for Flint that could be attached to a pending energy bill. Apart from Grijalva's comments, the Feb. 10 hearing generally focused on the public-health implications of the Flint crisis, where advocates and local residents say state and local officials failed to test for lead or install corrosion controls after switching the city's water supply from Detroit's municipal water system to the more corrosive Flint River.
-
Michigan Governor, EPA Chief To Testify On Flint
Feb 12, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Oversight Committee will hear testimony from Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy during an upcoming hearing on the water crisis in Flint, Mich.
The hearing — which has yet to be scheduled — will likely focus on top officials' roles in precipitating and responding to the crisis in Flint, where corroded water pipes have caused increased lead levels in drinking water. Democrats have long hoped to probe Snyder’s role in the incident, with members of the Oversight panel saying he should have been called to testify at a hearing earlier this month. A Snyder appointee made the decision to switch Flint’s drinking water supply as a cost-savings measure, and the state’s overall response to the growing crisis there has been roundly criticized.
The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, has taken fire for knowing about the dangers presented by Flint’s drinking water well before the public did. The agency has said it did as much as it could to respond to the crisis by informing officials about their research, but lawmakers have said the agency should have done more.
Several other key players in the Flint saga — including Susan Hedman, the former regional head of the EPA, and Darnell Earley, Snyder’s former emergency manager for the city — will testify before the Oversight Committee. Snyder and McCarthy will testify on the same panel when the hearing takes place.
"We appreciate Gov. Snyder's willingness to appear before the Committee and look forward to hearing from EPA Administrator McCarthy as well,” Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said.
“Their perspectives on this issue are important as we seek to ensure a crisis of this magnitude never occurs in another American city. The diverse and insightful panel of witnesses assembled will shed light on many of our remaining questions and help us propose reforms to the authorizing committees."
Snyder said on Friday that he requested the chance to testify before Chaffetz’s panel, which held a Flint hearing with lower-level officials in early February. That hearing yielded little new information about the crisis.
“In Michigan we are learning a great deal from this crisis and I am hopeful the federal government also will use this as an opportunity to examine health and safety protections in place, assess infrastructure needs, and avoid this type of crisis in the future,” Snyder said in a statement.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested