Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/7
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Press EPA To Update Exposure Guidelines For Varying Reasons
Apr 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental groups and the chemical industry in recent comments are faulting EPA's draft changes to its 24-year-old human exposure assessment guidelines for failing to bring the document up to date with current and emerging analytical methods, though the stakeholders differ in how they believe the proposal is deficient. -
Playing Fair: The Need for Parity in Challenging EPA’s Decisions on the Safety of Chemicals Under TSCA
Apr 6, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
As Senate and House negotiators are working to reconcile their Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bills, in addition to resolving the higher-profile issues, there is a need to pay attention to the important details. -
US Chemical Reform Threatened by Supreme Court Ruling
Apr 6, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
As Congress works to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that governs US chemicals, more than 30 legal experts and public interest lawyers are warning that a supreme court decision last year could undermine any new law passed. -
EPA Issues Rule To Limit TCE In Consumer Products, Eyes Other Controls
Apr 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is issuing a significant new use rule (SNUR) to limit use of trichloroethylene (TCE) in consumer products after the producer of a spray fixative product switched to a safer alternative, though the agency rebuffed advocates' calls to issue a broader SNUR, saying staff will monitor uses of TCE in consumer products and consider other restrictions in the future. -
EPA Final Rule Restricts Solvent's Use in Consumer Products
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers of arts and crafts supplies among other consumer products will need to give the Environmental Protection Agency a 90-day notice before making those products with trichloroethylene (TCE), under a final rule the agency released April 6. -
Flint, Energy Bill Talks Stall in Senate
Apr 6, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers are expressing frustration as talks over an aid package for Flint, Mich., and a broad energy reform bill stall in the Senate. -
Extenders Deal Appears Close Amid Jockeying Among Renewables, Coal, Biofuels Backers
Apr 6, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Esther Whieldon
Senators are on the brink of a deal to extend several energy tax credits alongside an FAA reauthorization bill, although details remained elusive Wednesday as negotiations threatened to extend into next week. -
Why Some Democrats Sat Out Clean Power Plan Court Fight
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Dozens of Democrats, including 10 senators and 27 House members, did not sign onto an amicus brief supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan in federal appeals court, according to an analysis from Bloomberg BNA. -
Billionaire Investor Joins Republican Clean-Energy Push
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Zachary Mider
Julian Robertson, a top Republican donor and legendary hedge-fund manager, is backing a campaign to push the party's candidates to support clean-energy policies. -
FRA Makes $25m Available for PTC Implementation
Apr 6, 2016 | Railway Technology
The US Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is accepting applications for $25m in competitive grant funding available to railroads, suppliers and state and local governments for the implementation of positive train control (PTC). -
Background Ozone Factors Need Updating, Critics Say
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency needs to do more to quantify the effect that background ozone has on air quality to support implementation of the 2015 national ozone standards of 70 parts per billion, industry groups and state environmental agencies said. -
EPA Weighs Expanding Transparency In CWA Construction General Permit
Apr 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is weighing broad new transparency requirements and more frequent inspections as part of its just-proposed updated Clean Water Act (CWA) general permit for construction activities, which also includes new controls on a closely watched class of toxic building materials and a stringent limit on runoff from building washdown.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Press EPA To Update Exposure Guidelines For Varying Reasons
Apr 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental groups and the chemical industry in recent comments are faulting EPA's draft changes to its 24-year-old human exposure assessment guidelines for failing to bring the document up to date with current and emerging analytical methods, though the stakeholders differ in how they believe the proposal is deficient.
The chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) faults EPA for not including guidance on the latest technologies for assessing exposure, and how to use this information in assessments, while environmental and advocacy groups are pressing EPA to recognize newer research on prenatal exposures, cumulative exposure and exposures to environmental justice communities.
EPA released the draft document, "Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment," last January, indicating that the guidelines will be peer reviewed by a contractor-managed panel of outside experts. The draft is intended to update existing guidelines published in 1992. The document largely compiles existing EPA guidance and policies on performing exposure analyses in risk reviews, while including new elements such as sections on environmental justice and children's health, an agency source said in January.
"ACC believes that the evolution of predictive toxicology around in-vitriol methods is moving so rapidly that the role of exposure must be addressed in this document," the group's March 22 comments state. "We recommend that the final version of the Guidelines include at least a limited discussion of emerging developments in exposure science to give practitioners a sense of what EPA thinks will be important in this field and help build awareness so that practitioners can begin to develop greater expertise in emerging areas of exposure assessment." Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 190186)
Environmental groups call on EPA to advance its scientific methods by incorporating approaches that better characterize risks to vulnerable life stages and cumulative exposures, among other issues. "EPA's risk assessment practices, including exposure assessment, need substantial updates to reflect current science and ensure that EPA fully evaluates, and then addresses, the real-world risks to children and communities," the groups' March 22 comments state.
"EPA's risk assessments have failed to properly address the vulnerability of the developing fetus, infant and child, thus likely contributing to an increasing burden of disease," the comments say, adding that with the proposed revisions, "EPA has the opportunity to correct and strengthen outdated and scientifically unsupported practices that lead to underestimations of risk . . ."
Noting that the draft guidance speaks to several areas of risk assessment practice that have yet to be utilized, the environmentalists press EPA to provide clear guidance and directives to staff to adopt methods to accurately assess aggregate exposures, account for cumulative exposures, include vulnerable populations and life stages in the assessment and use accurate exposure models. Further, the environmentalists comment that the draft does not "adequately address" the science of early life-stage vulnerability or how to systematically collect and review information, both issues that the comments urge EPA to correct.
The environmental groups' concerns are echoed in separate comments from Earth justice, which also urges EPA to modernize its risk assessment procedures in the new guide. "In recent decades, expert state regulators (such as California's Office of Health Hazard Assessment) have surpassed EPA in addressing early life exposure and vulnerability, as well as aggregate and cumulative exposure to multiple chemicals, multiple pathways, and multiple sources," Earth justice writes in March 22 comments.
The guidance should also "acknowledge that many chemicals, from lead to arsenic and many others, do not have a safe level of exposure for carcinogenic, neurological, or other kinds of chronic risk. If EPA's risk assessment guidelines are to have any meaning going forward, they must follow the most current science," Earth justice says.
In contrast, ACC presses EPA to be more specific and scientific in its approach to new material in the draft guide discussing sensitive life stages, vulnerable populations and environmental justice, largely found in the guide's fourth chapter. ACC calls for the upcoming peer review panel, yet to be scheduled, to "examine assumptions and seek to clarify concepts and terms to ensure that Chapter 4 focuses on the actual science and practice of exposure assessment involving life stages, vulnerable groups and populations of concern."
ACC adds that it considers environmental justice "a legitimate concern that can be addressed directly in the exposure assessment as long as data can establish there are in fact greater exposure circumstances for a unique cultural and/or racial group." But the group argues that EPA's approach is too broad and could be "applied inappropriately," particularly by more novice assessors. "EPA equates increased exposure with increased sensitivity under the umbrella of environmental justice, although the two risk assessment parameters cannot be assumed to be causally linked. Increased exposure potential does not necessarily equate to increased susceptibility, a fact that EPA should recognize in the Guidelines."
ACC also urges EPA to strengthen its draft guidance by more fully addressing consumers' concerns about chemical exposures. "A great deal of public discussion today about exposure to chemicals focuses on exposure from chemicals in consumer products as well as from other chemical uses . . . ," the comments state. "Despite this increasing emphasis (both nationally and internationally) on understanding and estimating exposure to chemicals in consumer products, the Guidelines contain only a cursory review of the topic . . . We recommend that EPA consider including greater discussion of consumer exposure topics in the context of both developments in the science of exposure assessment and specific guidance to practitioners."
Other industry groups reiterated the issues ACC cites, while also providing additional concerns of their own. For example, the North American Metals Council (NAMC) outlines another long-standing industry concern with EPA risk analyses: their treatment of background levels of environmentally-occurring contaminants, some of which can also be produced in industrial processes, thereby complicating remediation.
"NAMC requests that the guidelines give additional attention to background chemical concentrations from naturally occurring sources and how those should be addressed in a human exposure assessment. This issue is of particular interest for NAMC because mineral forms of metals are naturally occurring in the environment and as such, all environmental media will have naturally occurring mixtures of metals," the group writes in March 22 comments. "These concepts are listed as key principles in the 2007 EPA Framework for Metals Risk Assessment and should be likewise highlighted in the updated EPA human exposure assessment guidelines."
Comments from the Defense Department address another long-running concern to industry and other regulated entities, regarding EPA's risk modeling practices. DOD presses the agency in its Feb. 16 comments to update the guidance to be consistent with language in EPA's 2005 Cancer Risk Assessment guidelines, which it says "recommends, that if deterministic models are used, that at least 2 estimates, one of the[m] 'high-end' as well as a measure of central estimates of exposures, e.g., the median, also be presented to provide the decision-maker with a quick measure of the range of possible exposures."
http://insideepa.com/inside-epa/stakeholders-press-epa-update-exposure-guidelines-varying-reasons
-
Apr 6, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
As Senate and House negotiators are working to reconcile their Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bills, in addition to resolving the higher-profile issues, there is a need to pay attention to the important details. This post gives one example of an issue that may seem esoteric, but goes to the core of how the new law would actually function and hence needs to be addressed.
Doesn’t it make sense that someone who believes EPA erred in determining that a chemical is safe be able to challenge that decision in a manner that is on par with a challenge of an EPA decision that a chemical is not safe?
Yet this parity is a feature only of the Senate’s TSCA reform legislation, not the House’s. Here’s why:
Under the Senate bill:EPA determinations that a chemical does not meet the safety standard trigger a risk management rule; once issued, that rule and the underlying determination are subject to judicial review under the “substantial evidence” standard of TSCA’s Section 19(c).This is in parity with how EPA determinations that a chemical meets the safety standard are treated: Such determinations must be made by order, and those orders are not only expressly subject to judicial review under TSCA Section 19, but are subject to review under the “substantial evidence” standard of Section 19(c).
In contrast, under the House bill:EPA determinations that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk trigger a risk management rule, which is subject to judicial review under the “substantial evidence” standard of Section 19(c), the same as in the Senate bill.However, EPA determinations that a chemical does not or will not present an unreasonable risk would most likely only be subject to the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of judicial review. That is because:The House bill does not specify how such determinations are to be made and does not require them to be made by rule, and only rules under Section 6 are subject to Section 19.While the House bill specifies that such determinations are final agency actions, this designation would not subject them to judicial review under TSCA Section 19. They could be challenged under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), but that law applies the lower “arbitrary and capricious” standard of judicial review.
Bottom line:Under the House bill, if challenged in court, EPA would have to defend its decision that a chemical is not safe by showing it was based on “substantial evidence.” In contrast, for a decision that a chemical is safe, EPA would only need to show that the decision was not “arbitrary and capricious.”That means industry would have an easier time getting a court to overturn an EPA “not-safe” determination than, say, a health or environmental group would have to get a court to overturn an EPA “safe” determination.Under the Senate bill, both types of determinations would get equal treatment in any court challenges.
I suspect this discrepancy is inadvertent and hence can be readily fixed in reconciling the two bills. But it needs to get fixed.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/04/06/playing-fair-the-need-for-parity-in-challenging-epas-decisions-on-the-safety-of-chemicals-under-tsca/#more-5101
-
US Chemical Reform Threatened by Supreme Court Ruling
Apr 6, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
As Congress works to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that governs US chemicals, more than 30 legal experts and public interest lawyers are warning that a supreme court decision last year could undermine any new law passed. They argue that a 2015 supreme court ruling, which blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of mercury emissions from power plants, could ‘unintentionally reassert’ the agency’s obligation to detail the expenses involved in regulating a chemical.
TSCA reform legislation approved by the House and Senate contain provisions to reduce the EPA’s consideration of compliance costs. The intent of the language in those bills is for the agency to focus only on the risks that a chemical poses to public health and the environment.
In the 2015 supreme court decision the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in February, said it is not appropriate for the EPA to ‘impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits’. He said the EPA ‘must consider cost – including, most importantly, cost of compliance – before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary.’ In their letter, the legal experts argue that such cost consideration requirements would ‘unduly burden’ the EPA, even in the face of credible threats from toxic chemicals.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/04/us-chemical-regulation-reform-supreme-court-ruling
-
EPA Issues Rule To Limit TCE In Consumer Products, Eyes Other Controls
Apr 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is issuing a significant new use rule (SNUR) to limit use of trichloroethylene (TCE) in consumer products after the producer of a spray fixative product switched to a safer alternative, though the agency rebuffed advocates' calls to issue a broader SNUR, saying staff will monitor uses of TCE in consumer products and consider other restrictions in the future.
“EPA believes that any additional use of this chemical substance in consumer products could significantly increase human exposure, and that such exposures should not occur without an opportunity for EPA review and control as appropriate,” the agency says in the SNUR, noting the current action limits new, rather than already-existing uses.
The SNUR announced April 6, in a prepublication Federal Register notice, requires companies to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to manufacturing, importing or processing new uses of TCE to allow the agency to review and possibly restrict the use, according to an agency statement.
The final SNUR, issued under section 5(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), exempts a variety of existing uses of TCE in consumer products, including solvent degreasers, lubricants and pepper sprays, though the agency says it will continue to monitor those uses and could issue future SNURS.
The rule, which takes effect 60 days after publication in the Register, is part of EPA's effort to better assess and regulate existing chemicals -- those that were already on the market when TSCA was enacted in 1976 -- and that face less agency scrutiny than newer chemicals.
EPA is also currently weighing a rare ban, under section 6 of TSCA, of TCE used in some commercial degreasing operations and as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and in certain consumer products. EPA began exploring such a ban in late 2014 and had planned to propose the rule in March, though the agency website says it is now planned for August.
EPA has been taking steps to reduce exposure to TCE after a September 2011 Integrated Risk Information System assessment found the chemical poses a risk of cardiac birth defects. EPA proposed the SNUR in August, noting that in addition to the developmental effect, TCE poses other health risks, including cancer, and liver and kidney toxicity.
The SNUR and other potential TSCA restrictions are based on the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) June 25, 2014, assessment of certain uses of TCE. OPPT identified risks to workers from degreasing in small shops and in dry cleaners, as well as risks to consumers using spray aerosol degreasers and spray fixatives.
EPA proposed the SNUR after the manufacturer PLZ Aeroscience Corporation, of Addison, IL, agreed to remove TCE from its spray fixative product. The SNUR prevents similar new products from entering the market without EPA review.
SNUR Limitations
In an April 6 statement, Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, commends PLZ for voluntarily removing TCE from its arts and crafts spray fixative product. Jones says that with the SNUR, “EPA is putting into place a level playing field to ensure importers and domestic manufacturers do not re-enter the marketplace before EPA has an opportunity to review.”
In comments on the August proposed rule, environmentalists pushed for a broader SNUR while a solvents industry producers and users group reiterated long-standing arguments that EPA risk assessments, such as OPPT's June 2014 review of certain uses of TCE, should not be used in regulation, in part because they rely on a flawed study.
EPA responds to the comments in the prepublication notice. The agency agrees with environmentalist assertions that TCE poses health risks, but declined to broaden the rule because SNURS limit new rather than existing uses.
While the recently-finalized SNUR exempts a variety of current uses in consumer products, the agency says it “will continue to monitor uses of TCE and consider promulgating future SNURs for discontinued or other non-ongoing uses.”
In response to industry arguments that the June 2014 OPPT risk review should not form the basis for regulation, EPA says that TCE is a carcinogen that poses risks of numerous other health effects, and that the agency is not required to prove a substance causes unreasonable risks in order to issue a SNUR.
“EPA is neither required to determine that a particular new use of any chemical substance presents, nor even that it may present, an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,” EPA says. “Rather, EPA issues a SNUR for a particular new use of a substance if it has reason to anticipate that the use would raise significant questions related to potential exposure, so that it should have an opportunity to review the use before such use should occur.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-issues-rule-limit-tce-consumer-products-eyes-other-controls
-
EPA Final Rule Restricts Solvent's Use in Consumer Products
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers of arts and crafts supplies among other consumer products will need to give the Environmental Protection Agency a 90-day notice before making those products with trichloroethylene (TCE), under a final rule the agency released April 6.
The EPA is developing at least one other rule that would restrict or ban additional uses of TCE in products that could pose a health risk to people.
The April 6 final significant new use rule, or SNUR, follows an agreement the EPA reached with PLZ Aerospace Corp., the only U.S. company that had made a trichloroethylene-containing spray fixative for arts and crafts (147 DEN A-4, 7/31/15).
PLZ stopped making that fixative as of Sept. 1, 2015, according to the EPA rule.
Under the final rule, any company that intends to make a TCE-containing consumer product—with some exceptions—is required to give the EPA 90-day notice before making the product. The required notification would allow the EPA to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, restrict it before any exposure would occur.
Manufacture of Some Products May Continue
The final rule exempts the use of TCE in the following consumer products: cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants and pepper spray. The exemption means that this SNUR allows manufacturers of those products to continue to use the solvent without notifying the agency.
The final rule, which the EPA will publish soon in the Federal Register, is issued under the authority granted the agency under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. That section addresses new chemicals and new uses of chemicals.
The rule will be effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, where the agency expects publication by April 11.
The agency is working on another rule that would restrict or ban some uses of TCE, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said March 23 (57 DEN A-2, 3/24/16).
Details on the scope of that rulemaking are not available, but Cleland-Hamnett said the EPA plans to use the authority granted under Section 6 of TSCA.
That rarely used section of the law authorizes the agency to take a wide variety of actions such as requiring labeling or warning instructions, restricting particular uses of a chemical, regulating its disposal and banning it. The EPA has not initiated a Section 6 rulemaking in 24 years, since a court invalidated its 1991 rule banning most uses of asbestos (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 33 ERC 1961 (5th Cir. 1991)).
August Is Target for Section 6 Proposed Rule
The agency anticipates issuing a proposed Section 6 rule by the end of August, according to its Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker.
The April 6 SNUR and anticipated Section 6 rule stem from a risk assessment the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) issued in 2014. TCE is one of about 90 chemicals being assessed by the OPPT under what it calls its “Work Plan Chemicals” program.
The EPA's risk assessment discussed TCE's potential to cause several forms of cancer, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity and other health problems (123 DEN A-4, 6/26/14).
The OPPT concluded the health of consumers using TCE-containing spray aerosol degreasers and spray fixatives could be harmed.
It also concluded workers and bystanders in facilities using TCE for spot-cleaning in dry cleaning facilities and those in small commercial degreasing shops faced potential health concerns.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86474395&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86474395&jd=86474395
-
Flint, Energy Bill Talks Stall in Senate
Apr 6, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers are expressing frustration as talks over an aid package for Flint, Mich., and a broad energy reform bill stall in the Senate.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who is helping to lead the charge on the aid package, said this week that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has so far refused to lift his hold on the measure despite a budget office report showing it would not add to the federal deficit.
Lee’s office said it sent Stabenow a new offer on the deal Monday but wouldn’t give specifics.
“Staff has been talking this afternoon, but there’s no good reason for this,” Stabenow said Tuesday.
“It’s bipartisan, completely paid-for, includes deficit reduction. For me, this is about helping 9,000 children in Flint who have lead poisoning, as well as the entire community, and I don’t understand.”
If Lee lifts his hold on the $250 million package to pay for water infrastructure repairs in Flint and elsewhere, senators will have cleared a major hurdle to resuming consideration of an energy reform bill. Lawmakers pulled the measure from the floor in February after Democrats blocked the legislation, which didn’t address the water crisis in Flint.
But Lee’s hold is not the only one on the package. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) wants to block the bill unless Republicans drop plans to vote on an amendment to expand revenue sharing for offshore oil drilling. Nelson is worried the energy bill would encourage drilling off the coast of Florida.
Asked Wednesday if he still has a hold on the legislation, Nelson smiled and said, “Of course I do."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and lead sponsor of the reform bill, said Wednesday she hopes to resolve the issues soon, before the Senate moves into the 2017 appropriations process.
“There is a schedule that [Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.] would like to keep, and I concur with him,” she said. “But if we’ve got a consent agreement that allows for a very limited time and we can just move right through [the energy bill], then we can cut and paste, if you will. And I’d like to do that.”
Murkowski’s Democratic counterpart, Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), said the bill could be the next one to come to the floor, though she acknowledged that she and others have been saying that for weeks.
“Yeah, I know,” she said. “It’s a shame, there’s so much important energy policy. Hopefully, our colleagues that are holding it up will stop doing that.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/275394-progress-stalls-on-senate-flint-energy-bill-negotiations
-
Extenders Deal Appears Close Amid Jockeying Among Renewables, Coal, Biofuels Backers
Apr 6, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Esther Whieldon
Senators are on the brink of a deal to extend several energy tax credits alongside an FAA reauthorization bill, although details remained elusive Wednesday as negotiations threatened to extend into next week.
Senate leaders appear to have the outlines of an agreement in place, given that no one tried to keep the underlying bill from clearing a key procedural hurdle Wednesday morning. But key questions remain to be answered, including how many energy resources would get the extensions and for how long.
Democrats are demanding an extension of the investment tax credit for energy sources such as biomass and geothermal that were left out of a December deal to extend wind and solar credits and lift the oil export ban. Coal-state lawmakers, with the support of environmentalists and some oil companies, are asking that carbon capture and sequestration credit receive a lifeline as part of the deal. The biofuels industry is pushing for its suite of soon-to-expire incentives to be extended as part of a deal.
FAA reauthorization may be the last piece of tax-related legislation Congress considers this year, and its passage is a priority for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. That gives extenders advocates some leverage to get their priorities into the deal.
McConnell "does not want this gumming up the FAA bill," Renewable Fuels Association General Counsel Ed Hubbard said of the extenders debate. Hubbard's group joined others in the industry this week in requesting an extension of several biofuels credits on schedule to lapse this year.
Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday morning said there had been "very productive discussions" between members of both parties over a tax title to the bill, although he did not elaborate.
Negotiations are ongoing and include Reid and McConnell's offices as well as Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and ranking Democrat Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), although all parties were holding their cards close Wednesday.
With senators expected to head home Thursday, the tax title may not be released until next week rather than being made public before the weekend, opening the door for additional jockeying by interest groups who would like their favorite credits included.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in a letter Wednesday to Wyden and Hatch urged lawmakers to include extensions for commercial geothermal heat pumps. Electric Cooperatives rely on these heat pump tax credits to encourage members to install devices that will reduce their energy consumption, the group said. It asked for an extension of the investment credit for commercially installed geothermal and a separate credit that benefits homeowners who want to use the technology.
Coal state Sens. Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are leading the push to include the carbon capture language, according to a lobbyist tracking the process. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), plus Capito, were among the senators to first urge McConnell to include the carbon capture language in the bill.
Senators are debating whether to stick with language in a bipartisan House bill, H.R. 4622, that would permanently extend the carbon capture language, while the coal industry is pushing to, at a minimum, obtain extensions equivalent to at least 15 years, the industry lobbyist said.
The underlying FAA bill has to pass by mid-July, and any deal worked out in the Senate would have to clear the House, where Republicans hold a larger majority. Several conservative groups this week came out against using the bill as a vehicle for clean energy tax credits.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/04/negotiations-continue-over-energy-tax-extenders-to-faa-bill-coal-state-sens-backing-carbon-capture-language-105764
-
Why Some Democrats Sat Out Clean Power Plan Court Fight
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Dozens of Democrats, including 10 senators and 27 House members, did not sign onto an amicus brief supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan in federal appeals court, according to an analysis from Bloomberg BNA.
Lawmakers gave a number of reasons for not participating. Some said they have a policy of not signing any friend-of-the-court briefs. Others said it was an inadvertent oversight not to join the brief. For some of the Democratic lawmakers, sitting out the court fight is consistent with prior votes opposing the cornerstone of the Obama administration's domestic actions on climate change.
More than 200 current and former lawmakers, predominantly Democrats, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their brief that the EPA was using its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide from existing power plants exactly as Congress had intended (64 DEN A-1, 4/4/16).
Bloomberg BNA asked each lawmaker's office multiple times for comment about why they did not sign the brief, which was filed April 1 (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, amicus briefs filed 4/1/16).
All House Democrats Aware
Each member of the House Democratic caucus received a dear colleagueletter, spearheaded by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), encouraging them to sign the amicus brief.
“Our brief will argue that the Clean Air Act was drafted in broad terms to give EPA substantial authority to determine how best to achieve the statute's objectives and to ensure that EPA can address new air pollution problems as they arise,” the letter states. “The brief will also argue that the Clean Power Plan is consistent with the text, structure, and legislative history of the Clean Air Act.”
Despite this effort, 27 representatives, from districts across the country, did not sign it.
They were Reps. Brad Ashford (Neb.), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Michael Capuano (Mass.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Lacy Clay (Mo.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Gwen Graham (Fla.), Ruben Hinojosa (Texas), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Ron Kind (Wisc.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Rick Larsen (Wash.), Rick Nolan (Minn.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), David Scott (Ga.), Terri Sewell (Ala.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), Bennie Thompson (Miss.), Norma Torres (Calif.), Marc Veasey (Texas), Filemon Vela (Texas), Nydia Velázquez (N.Y.), Peter Visclosky (Ind.) and Timothy Walz (Minn).
Why Some Lawmakers Didn't Sign the Amicus Brief
Office of Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.):“The Congressman had some reservations about the brief and ultimately decided to pass on signing it. That being said, he has been generally supportive of the Administration's Clean Power Plan in the past..”
Office of Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.):“We simply missed the deadline for signing on. The congressman supports the EPA's Clean Power Plan.”
Office of Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.):“Senator Udall has a policy of not signing onto any amicus briefs, so that's why he isn't on this one.”
Some of the defections were expected. Ashford, Bishop, Cuellar, Kirkpatrick, Peterson, Sewell and Sinema supported legislation (H.R. 2042) in 2015 that would allow states to delay compliance efforts until the end of legal challenges and enable governors to opt out of the regulation in certain circumstances. Four of them—Ashford, Bishop, Cuellar and Peterson—then backed a resolution (S.J. Res. 24) to nullify the Clean Power Plan.
‘Simply Missed the Deadline.'
But the offices of other lawmakers sitting out the legal brief said they simply didn't join the brief in time.
“We simply missed the deadline for signing on,” Alison Mills, a spokeswoman for Capuano, told Bloomberg BNA. “The congressman supports the EPA's Clean Power Plan.”
Laura Castillo, a spokeswoman for Hinojosa, said her boss “needed more time to review this given it is further outside the scope of his expertise.” A spokesperson for Clarke said she inadvertently did not sign onto the brief.
Others, including Nolan, took issue with components of the brief despite their overall support for the Obama administration's approach to combatting climate change.
“The congressman had some reservations about the brief and ultimately decided to pass on signing it,” Samantha Bisogno, a spokeswoman for Nolan, said.
Policy Preference for Some
The offices of Larsen and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said the lawmakers had a policy of not signing onto amicus briefs.
Udall was one of a diverse group of Democratic senators not to sign onto the brief backing the EPA. That group included Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.).
Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin previously voted to nullify the Clean Power Plan through use of the Congressional Review Act in November 2015 (222 DEN A-13, 11/18/15).
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) led the process of collecting support for the amicus brief in the chamber, but his office did not respond to requests for comment on whether all members of the Democratic caucus were contacted about signing it.
By comparison, 20 sitting Republican senators and 73 House Republicans did not sign a separate amicus brief urging the federal appeals court to overturn the Clean Power Plan (36 DEN A-1, 2/24/16).
‘No Real Surprises.'
Several environmental advocates told Bloomberg BNA they were not especially surprised by the Democrats not signing onto the amicus brief. David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said there were “no real surprises.”
“I'm not sure if there was time to ask everyone, and as you note, some don't sign such briefs,” Goldston told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Others said the fact any Democrats would not join the effort to uphold the signature part of Obama's climate change efforts was disappointing.
“It's just inexcusable that any Democrats continue to cling to the myth that the coal jobs would just come back if only it weren't for those pesky meddling EPA regulations,” RL Miller, chairman of Climate Hawks Vote super PAC, told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86474404&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86474404&jd=86474404
-
Billionaire Investor Joins Republican Clean-Energy Push
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Zachary Mider
Julian Robertson, a top Republican donor and legendary hedge-fund manager, is backing a campaign to push the party's candidates to support clean-energy policies.
Robertson recently gave $500,000 to a new super-PAC known as ClearPath Action, which advocates for nuclear and hydroelectric power and cleaner coal and natural gas technology.
“The time has come for Republicans to embrace a conservative clean energy platform,” the billionaire investor said in an e-mail to Bloomberg.
ClearPath is the brainchild of Jay Faison, a North Carolina entrepreneur and Republican. In addition to the super-PAC, which plans to support Republicans in congressional races this year, he's also funded a related $165 million nonprofit foundation dedicated to clean energy.
Faison plans to raise about $5 million for the super-PAC this year, and has already put in $1.5 million of his own money. Robertson is the first outside donor to get behind Faison's project publicly.
Supporter of Environmental Causes
Robertson is a major supporter of environmental causes in his own right. He serves on the board of the Environmental Defense Fund, and gave that group $40 million between 2005 and 2009 to advocate for a “cap and trade” policy to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. A cap-and-trade bill was ultimately blocked by Senate Republicans.
In New Zealand, where Robertson spends part of the year and owns several high-end resorts, he gave $5 million for a research institute focused on studying climate change in Antarctica.
Robertson, who like Faison is from North Carolina, was dubbed the “Wizard of Wall Street” for his stock-picking record at New York-based Tiger Management LLC. In 2000, he returned capital to outside investors and shifted focus to providing seed capital to other hedge-fund managers.
A top donor to Mitt Romney in 2012, Robertson put $1.1 million behind Jeb Bush's presidential bid last year. After Bush left the race in February, Robertson sent $500,000 to a group supporting John Kasich.
Support for Pro-Environment Republicans
Although the ClearPath super-PAC hasn't disclosed spending on any races yet, Faison's personal contributions hint at the candidates his group may support. He gave $500,000 last year to a super-PAC supporting Kelly Ayotte, a Republican senator seeking re-election in New Hampshire who's often crossed party lines to support environmental measures.
The mainstream view among climate scientists that human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions are warming the atmosphere is anathema among congressional Republicans. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who's garnered the second-most delegates in the Republican presidential primary, calls it a “pseudoscientific theory” and contends the earth is actually in a cooling phase.
Faison says he's personally concerned about humans' role in global warming, but doesn't make that the focus of his campaign.
“We don't have to agree on climate change,” he said in an interview. “We're in this ditch of whether it is true or not, and therefore we're not doing things that we'd all agree to do anyway.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86474402&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86474402&jd=86474402
-
FRA Makes $25m Available for PTC Implementation
Apr 6, 2016 | Railway Technology
The US Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is accepting applications for $25m in competitive grant funding available to railroads, suppliers and state and local governments for the implementation of positive train control (PTC).
The funding is part of the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act that funds the US Department of Transportation (DOT).
US transportation secretary Anthony Foxx said: "Positive train control is a long overdue technology that prevents accidents and saves lives.
"These funds will help us get closer to implementing PTC, and I encourage applications that can make these limited dollars go as far as possible."
It is reported that applications will be accepted until 19 May and the FRA will give preference to projects that will provide the greatest level of public safety benefits.
Under the fiscal 2017 budget proposal, the FRA requested $1.25bn to assist commuter and short line railroads with implementing PTC.
PTC works by preventing certain train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and trains going to the wrong tracks because a switch was left in the wrong position.
In 2008, the US Congress required the installation of PTC on certain railroad main lines where poisonous-by-inhalation hazardous (PIH) or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous (TIH) materials are transported, or any line where a railroad provides regularly scheduled passenger service.
The original deadline was extended from 31 December 2015 to at least 31 December 2018.
FRA administrator Sarah Feinberg said: "Any congressional funding and investment to make positive train control active on our nation's railroad network is a worthwhile investment.
"But it will take even more significant funding to achieve this important, life-saving goal.
"We look forward to working with Congress to find these resources and encourage railroads to submit strong applications."
http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsfra-25m-available-ptc-implementation-4857848
-
Background Ozone Factors Need Updating, Critics Say
Apr 7, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency needs to do more to quantify the effect that background ozone has on air quality to support implementation of the 2015 national ozone standards of 70 parts per billion, industry groups and state environmental agencies said.
The American Petroleum Institute, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and other groups that submitted comments said the EPA's current estimates on background ozone are incomplete and may not accurately characterize the effect that background ozone may have on the ability of areas to comply with the 70 ppb ozone standards.
The groups filed comments on a December 2015 white paper issued by the agency, which said that man-made emissions are generally the driving force behind modeled exceedances of the ozone standards and that there is no indication that background concentrations will prevent areas from meeting the standards.
Many Western states have raised concerns that background ozone levels, which include naturally occurring ozone and ozone resulting from uncontrollable pollution sources, could make it difficult to attain the 70 ppb ozone standards.
However, EPA officials have maintained that they don't anticipate that background ozone will force areas into nonattainment status, a designation that triggers additional pollution control obligations and more stringent permitting requirements for new and modified industrial facilities (200 DEN A-3, 10/16/15).
‘Challenges' Cited to Modeling Levels
The API, which was one of the most vocal opponents of more stringent ozone standards during the rulemaking process, said in its comments that there are “key uncertainties and significant challenges” to accurately modeling background ozone.
“Background ozone events are more frequent and can be a more significant percentage of ozone design values than the EPA's synthesis of the available data suggests,” the petroleum industry trade group said. “Additional data and analyses are needed to more completely assess the contributions of background ozone [to ozone levels that would trigger a nonattainment designation].”
The issue of background ozone is expected to be a key issue in litigation over the 2015 ozone standards, which the EPA projected to cost as much as $1.4 billion annually.
Industry and state petitioners, including coal giant Murray Energy Corp., said in November court filings that they intend to challenge the ozone standards on the grounds that they aren't attainable, because the standards are set at or below background levels in some parts of the country. Opening briefs in the ozone litigation are due April 22 (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, 3/9/16; 48 DEN A-16, 3/11/16).
Concerns for Western U.S
The API was one of many groups that criticized the EPA's background ozone analysis in comments.
The National Mining Association said in its comments that the trade group has doubts over the “rosy prospects for future attainment” that the EPA has made. The EPA, in supporting documents issued alongside the October 2015 rule that revised the ozone standards (RIN 2060-AP38), projected that only 14 counties outside of California will be in nonattainment with the standards by 2025.
The association said the EPA's conclusions “diminish the significant contribution” of background ozone to air quality monitoring data, especially in the Intermountain West. The agency didn't address available data on specific areas in the Western U.S. that “tend to contradict” the EPA's projection of widespread future attainment, the association said.
Wyoming Raises Concerns About Analysis
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality also raised concerns about the EPA's current analysis of background ozone concentrations in the West. The state DEQ said in its comments that the EPA's current background ozone estimates are incomplete and poorly characterize winter-formed ozone, air quality at high elevations, stratospheric intrusions and climate irregularities such as the La Niñ˜a effect.
The Wyoming DEQ was critical of the EPA's decision to exclude from its analysis data from areas that experienced high winter concentrations of ozone, including six monitors in Wyoming. The scientific understanding of background ozone must encompass the winter months, because the 2015 ozone standards require Wyoming and other states to extend their monitoring programs to include those months, the state DEQ said.
Parks Service Calls for More Research
The National Parks Service also called on the EPA to take steps to address uncertainties in background ozone data.
The primary source of that uncertainty is in quantifying international emissions, the Parks Service said in comments.
“It is still uncertain how much background ozone really contributes to elevated ozone,” the agency said. “EPA and states should apply substantial effort to improving inventories to reduce uncertainty in projected contributions of background ozone.”
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality also filed comments that called on the EPA to place an increased focus on projecting international emissions and evaluate global chemical transport models.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86474406&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86474406&jd=86474406
-
EPA Weighs Expanding Transparency In CWA Construction General Permit
Apr 6, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
EPA is weighing broad new transparency requirements and more frequent inspections as part of its just-proposed updated Clean Water Act (CWA) general permit for construction activities, which also includes new controls on a closely watched class of toxic building materials and a stringent limit on runoff from building washdown.
The agency released its proposed revised construction general permit (CGP) April 6, and is seeking comments on a host of issues including public availability of facilities' compliance plans, frequency of site inspections, deadlines on land stabiliziation and controls for construction dewatering activities.
The proposed permit also includes stricter controls on demolition of buildings made with the toxic chemical polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and a ban on discharging hazardous substances from washing buildings.
EPA's permit proposal includes a suite of “minor revisions” to limits on effluent content in permittees' stormwater discharges to bring permit requirements in line with the 2014 effluent limitation guideline for the sector, but institutes no new requirements in that arena. Instead, the agency is considering new implementation provisions such as procedural requirements, deadline changes and the addition of new PCB controls.
Although the proposed permit includes no draft regulatory language on the subject, EPA notes that it is seeking comment on how to make facilities' stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) for complying with permit limits publicly available early in the application process.
“Enhanced transparency and availability of CGP SWPPP information will provide stakeholders with more timely and complete information about potential sources of water pollution and measures to control discharges for the sites covered under the CGP, and will help EPA to ensure that SWPPPs are meaningfully developed and implemented,” EPA says in a fact sheet on the permit proposal.
EPA's move to expand public review of the stormwater plans mirrors its ongoing effort to revise its general permitfor small municipal separate storm sewer systems to include greater transparency on those facilities' SWPPPs, and a similar measure in the 2015 update to its CWA general permit for industrial stormwater.
In its call for comments, the agency says it could require either a site's entire SWPPP or a relevant portion to be included with its application for coverage under the CGP, which would be posted on EPA's own website after the application is received.
“EPA requests comment on the utility and feasibility of making the initial SWPPP publicly available under the CGP. EPA also requests comment on the specific components of the initial SWPPP that would be of greatest interest or utility to stakeholders, such as maintenance schedules, a description of construction activities, or expected pollutants,” the notice says.
Site Inspections
The proposal also seeks comments on whether to require site inspections at least every seven calendar days during construction, and within 24 hours of any storm with at least 0.25 inches of rainfall. Currently those requirements only apply to sites discharging to “sensitive waters,” which includes impaired waterbodies and those designated as high-priority in a state's CWA antidegradation program.
“EPA requests comment on the appropriate inspection frequency for all sites. . . . Please identify specifically the situations where this frequency would not be reasonable,” the proposal says.
Similarly, the agency is seeking comments on whether to extend to all sites the deadline for finishing site stabilization that now applies only to sites that discharge to sensitive waters. The proposal seeks comment on whether to require all stabilization to finish within seven calendar days of beginning that work, “except for sites in arid, semi-arid, and drought-stricken areas and for permittees affected by circumstances beyond their control.”
On PCBs -- a high-profile contaminant that has been the focus of recent litigation over cleanups -- EPA is proposing to require controls that “minimize the exposure of [PCB]-containing building materials to precipitation and stormwater,” although that mandate only applies to structures “with at least 10,000 square feet of floor space built or renovated before January 1, 1980.” The same provision would also require sites' SWPPPs to include information on demolition locations and the associated pollutants.
Building Washdowns
Finally, the proposed CGP includes a complete bar on discharging hazardous substances in the process of an external building washdown, noting that paint or caulk that contains PCBs are particularly likely to be released in that way.
However, EPA says in the proposal that it expects “that very few sites will be conducting external building washdown activities under the CGP, and that of the few permittees that will conduct these activities, most of the resulting discharges will not contain hazardous substances.”
Still, the agency is seeking comment on how often CGP permittees perform external washdowns and how often they expect discharges from the practice to include hazardous substances.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-weighs-expanding-transparency-cwa-construction-general-permit
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested