Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/20/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sen. Shaheen on Senate Floor
Apr 20, 2016 | TV Eyes
By CSPAN
...Benefits to this energy efficiency. And, again, as Senator Portman has said, these are provisions that have brought together a very diverse group of stakeholders. -
(ACC Mentioned) Carus Announces 15th Annual Summer Science Camp
Apr 20, 2016 | BCR News
If history is any indication, at 8 a.m. on April 27, the phone in Carus Corporation’s community outreach office will be ringing off the hook. April 27 is Summer Science Camp registration day. -
California Adopts Prop 65 Emergency Regulation on BPA
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has finalised its emergency regulation regarding warning for exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages under Proposition 65. -
Calif. Regulators Win Final Approval for BPA Warning Labels
Apr 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Millions of consumers in the nation's most populous state are likely to see new chemical warning labels at checkout stands starting next month. -
Higher Than Expected BPA Levels Found in Pregnant Women
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Techniques commonly used to monitor human prenatal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) may have underestimated levels of the chemical, according to a US study led by Tracey Woodruff of the University of California. -
FDA to Assess Safety of Some Ortho-Phthalates in FCMs
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to review the safety of certain ortho-phthalates used in food contact materials, following a petition from ten NGOs. -
FDA Seeks Input for International Cosmetics Regulation Meeting
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US FDA will convene a public meeting to get input for the upcoming International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR-10). -
Senate Overwhelmingly Backs Reform Bill
Apr 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The Senate easily passed bipartisan energy reform legislation today, setting the stage for conference talks with the House that members hope will result in the first new major energy law in almost a decade. -
EPA, FERC Pursue Rare Joint Enforcement Action Over Utility's Emissions
Apr 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are showing new and novel cooperation in enforcement of air and energy laws, sources say, in a highly unusual case involving emissions monitor tampering and first-time criminal prosecution of Federal Power Act violations at a Massachusetts power plant. -
In Final Push, Challengers Urge Court to Rein in Fracking Rule
Apr 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In yet another round of legal briefs debating the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule, critics told a federal court this week that the regulation is blatantly illegal -- beyond the agency's turf and a violation of administrative law. -
(ACC Mentioned) BNSF Honors 109 Shippers for Excellence in Product Safety
Apr 20, 2016 | Railway Age
By Carolina Worrell
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) on April 19, 2016 honored 109 shippers with the railroad’s 19th Annual Product Stewardship Award for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail during 2015. -
New York Suit, Petition Test EPA 'Aggregation' Of Landfill Gas Emissions
Apr 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Residents in upstate New York are pursuing litigation and a separate petition to EPA that aims to force the agency to object to Clean Air Act permits for two Finger-Lakes area landfills that supply gas for nearby power plants, two disputes that will further test EPA's policy on "aggregation," or combining of emissions from related sources. -
Top Republican Takes Aim at EPA Rules at Budget Hearing
Apr 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) criticized several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules during a Wednesday hearing, indicating lawmakers may consider targeting them in spending bills for the agency this year.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sen. Shaheen on Senate Floor
Apr 20, 2016 | TV Eyes
By CSPAN
...Benefits to this energy efficiency. And, again, as Senator Portman has said, these are provisions that have brought together a very diverse group of stakeholders. Everyone from the American Chemistry Council to the National Wildlife Federation, as Senator Portman said, the NRDC, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is a broad group of trade associations, labor organizations, environmental groups who have come together because energy efficiency is something we can all agree on. And, Madam President, I have, for the record, a number of letters that have been sent by many of these organizations that I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record.
The presiding officer: Is there objection? Without objection.
Mrs. Shaheen: Thank you. Finally, in closing, in a little while this afternoon we will have a series of votes on amendments to the energy policy pho -- modernization act and we'll have a final vote for passage of the bill. I believe and it's certainly my hope that the broad package will pass. I think it's been far too long since congress passed a comprehensive energy bill, and it's time for us to work together to pass this important piece of legislation to improve our nation's energy policies to help grow our economy. I believe there is support in the other chamber, in the House, to take up this energy package, hopefully to pass it this year, because it will improve our economy. It will improve our national security. It will improve our environment. This is legislation that we should all get behind. And again, i want to thank my colleague, Senator Portman, and applaud Senators Cantwell and Murkowski for all of the work they have done to bring this leg to the floor -- to bring this legislation to the floor. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The presiding officer: Who yields time?
A Senator: Madam President?
The presiding officer: The senator from New Mexico.
Mr. Heinrich: Madam President, I rise today to speak about this bipartisan energy package that we're going to be voting on here today. Last year my colleagues and I on the senate energy and natural ...
http://mms.tveyes.com/transcript.asp?StationID=200&DateTime=4/19/2016%203:05:56%20PM&playclip=true
-
(ACC Mentioned) Carus Announces 15th Annual Summer Science Camp
Apr 20, 2016 | BCR News
If history is any indication, at 8 a.m. on April 27, the phone in Carus Corporation’s community outreach office will be ringing off the hook. April 27 is Summer Science Camp registration day.
“It’s always an exciting day here. Parents race to get their children on the list, and it fills up pretty quickly,” said Kegan Pakula, Carus Community Outreach Coordinator. Registration begins at 8 a.m.
Carus’ 15th annual Science Camp will be held July 11-15 this year at Peru Catholic School. The free science camp runs from 9 a.m. to noon each day and is open to all Illinois Valley area students entering sixth grade in the fall. Campers participate in hands-on activities, learning about chemistry, physics, biology, geology, ecology and astronomy.
Dan Fitzpatrick, who heads the chemistry department at St. Bede Academy, will begin as camp director this year. Fitzpatrick’s resume includes more than 10 years teaching science in LaMoille, where he was head of the science department. He is also an experienced science camp instructor, creating and teaching lessons for the University of Illinois Extension’s Natural Resources Educational Consortium, for Northern Illinois University’s Loredo Taft Campus, and for the Sun Foundation, where he is the lead science teacher for their Art and Science in the Woods program.
“In my career, I have been fortunate to meet a great community of people who look to guide our youth to love science, nature and inquiry. This summer camp is going to be an incredible time for the students, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to be the new director,” said Fitzpatrick.
“Dan brings such enthusiasm and knowledge to camp. He knows how to make learning fun and engaging, and that’s what camp is all about,” said Carus CEO Dave Kuzy. “We appreciate this opportunity to work with Dan, with St. Bede and with Peru Catholic.”
Parents interested in registering their children can call Pakula at 815-224-6535 after 8 a.m. Wednesday, April 27. Because registration is first call, first served, parents who attempt to sign up before that date/time will be asked to call back during registration hours.
Carus Corporation is a 100-year-old company founded in LaSalle and headquartered in Peru. Carus produces and supplies specialty chemistries for water treatment, air purification and soil remediation. Carus is a member of the American Chemistry Council and actively participates in the industry’s award-winning Responsible Care® initiative, sharing a common commitment to improve environmental, health, safety, and security performance.
http://www.bcrnews.com/2016/04/18/carus-announces-15th-annual-summer-science-camp/axeqpc7/
-
California Adopts Prop 65 Emergency Regulation on BPA
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has finalised its emergency regulation regarding warning for exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) from canned and bottled foods and beverages under Proposition 65.
The regulation, which takes effect immediately, allows for compliance with BPA warning requirements in these applications through uniform point-of-sale signs.
The measure was approved by the state’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL), following a five-day comment period. Although seven comments were received, and several changes were made to the rule as issued by Oehha on 1 April, the warning sign language was adopted unchanged.
Sam Delson, deputy director for external and legislative affairs at Oehha, told Chemical Watch the agency is “pleased” the emergency regulation was approved as it will “help avoid public confusion that could have resulted from inconsistent warning messages”.
“It will also give companies time to either modify their product labels or reformulate to make their products safer,” he added.
A coalition of seven NGOs, including frequent Prop 65 litigation plaintiffs, the Center for Environmental Health and the Environmental Law Foundation, had urged the OAL to reject the regulation.
“There is no emergency here. Oehha has not justified its failure to act sooner, and the proposed regulation serves no purpose other than to unlawfully shield industry from complying with Proposition 65, and to withhold from California consumers the information to which they are entitled under the law,” it said.
A separate letter, co-signed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Breast Cancer Fund, said warnings should be product-specific – as required by law – and that the regulation could set “a troubling precedent for what counts as a clear and reasonable warning”.
From the manufacturers’ perspective, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (Nampa) said that it “remains fundamentally opposed” to the substance’s listing on Prop 65, arguing that such action is not consistent with risk assessments conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa).
The Can Manufacturers Institute and Nampa, in separate comment letters, urged Oehha to develop a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for oral exposure to BPA, prior to the expiration of the point-of-sale warning regulation.
The agency has said that it is waiting for the completion of federal research that is not set to be completed until 2017 or 2018, prior to developing the oral MADL.
BPA fact sheets
The adopted point-of-sale warning signs include a link to the BPA information page on the recently launched Prop 65 website. This will be the first time that warnings will refer consumers to the site, as theproposal to include the web link as part of a “clear and reasonable” warning remains under development.
Last week, the agency added three fact sheets to the BPA page.
The fact sheet on BPA in canned and bottled foods includes links to several external resources, and advises consumers that exposure to BPA from these applications can be reduced by:
eating more fresh food and less canned food;
choosing foods or drinks in glass containers rather than metal cans;
draining and rinsing canned foods prior to consumption; and
avoiding heating food or drink in its can.
California’s action comes shortly after the release of a widely publicised NGO report that called for manufacturers to eliminate the use of BPA in cans.
Meanwhile, the EU is considering a draft Regulation to reduce the migration limit for BPA in food contact materials. The French REACH competent authority also plans to submit a proposal to Echa to classify BPA as an SVHC.
Warning for exposure to BPA under Prop 65 is not required until 11 May, following its 2015 listing as a reproductive toxicant.
The emergency regulation will expire on 18 October, unless Oehha seeks to re-enact the measure, according to the OAL reference attorney.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46717/california-adopts-prop-65-emergency-regulation-on-bpa
-
Calif. Regulators Win Final Approval for BPA Warning Labels
Apr 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Millions of consumers in the nation's most populous state are likely to see new chemical warning labels at checkout stands starting next month.
Regulatory changes that would require bisphenol A warning labels at checkout lines across California appear likely to take effect May 11 over the opposition of many stakeholders. Companies that are notified they are noncompliant have 24 hours to correct the problem before they could face legal action from the state, local prosecutors or private parties.
The proposal stems from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. In California, the agency administers the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.
California's Office of Administrative Law approved a proposed emergency regulation this week to modify the warning labels. Under state law, emergency regulations must be reviewed by the office to determine whether the action meets state standards for such actions.
Both industry and environmental groups said the use of the emergency regulation pathway was inappropriate. Industry groups also warned the new rules would be unfair, costly and burdensome to businesses.
The emergency regulation was issued last month to avoid the alternative of requiring manufacturers to post the warning on all canned products containing BPA that are sold in California (Greenwire, March 23).
State regulators listed BPA last year as harmful to reproduction, triggering the labeling regulations (Greenwire, May 8, 2015).
Regulators determined the labels should state "Warning" in large letters, followed by the text: "Many cans containing foods and beverages sold here have epoxy linings used to avoid microbial contamination and extend shelf life. Lids on jars and caps on bottles may also have epoxy linings. Some of these linings can leach small amounts of bisphenol A (BPA) into the food or beverage. BPA is a chemical known to the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system. For more information go to: www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/BPA."
In public comments, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Breast Cancer Fund argued the state should proceed with the original plan to require labels on cans. The state could have predicted the implementation challenges associated with the original regulation and conducted an ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking to address the issues, the groups wrote.
"We continue to have concerns about the proposed regulation, particularly its failure to inform consumers about which specific products contain the chemical, and therefore oppose its adoption," the groups wrote.
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance said California should accept the verdict of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that BPA is safe for consumers as currently used. And the California Automatic Vendors Council and the National Automatic Merchandising Association warned that adding labels at hundreds of thousands of vending machines would be "devastating" for small businesses.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/20/stories/1060035955
-
Higher Than Expected BPA Levels Found in Pregnant Women
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Techniques commonly used to monitor human prenatal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) may have underestimated levels of the chemical, according to a US study led by Tracey Woodruff of the University of California.
Many biomonitoring studies have estimated prenatal exposure to total BPA indirectly, using enzymes to cleave glucuronide and sulfate bonds that BPA forms with other substances in the body, before analysing using high performance liquid chromatography. However, this may underestimate exposure levels, suggest the researchers.
They used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to measure levels of unconjugated BPA (uBPA), BPA glucuronide and BPA sulfate directly and simultaneously in urine samples from over 100 low-income pregnant women. They also used a questionnaire to identify possible BPA exposure sources for the women.
The researchers checked that background levels of BPA in their processes and equipment were below detection limits. They found that all participants had uBPA, BPA glucoronide or BPA sulfate in their urine. About 87% of urine samples contained uBPA and the results suggest “substantial variability” in the way that BPA is metabolised in the body. Importantly, the researchers suggest that their results question a common assumption that internal exposure to BPA is limited because of rapid binding to compounds in the body to give biologically inactive conjugated BPA.
The median concentration of total BPA was twice levels reported in pregant women in some other studies. The researchers draw attention to the fact that about half of the women reported touching or holding paper till receipts on the day of urine collection, with one fifth routinely handling receipts during their work.
The high levels of BPA analytes may be a result of the direct analytical method and/or the low income of participants, write Dr Woodruff and her colleagues, in the journal Environmental Health.
In 2014, Canadian researchers also reported finding high levels of free and unconjugated forms of BPA in pregnant women.
In the EU, BPA is set to be classified as a category 1B substance, toxic for reproduction, and the European Commission has sent a draft Regulation to the European Parliament for scrutiny.
In March 2016, the Dutch health ministry backed calls from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) for tighter limits on BPA exposure.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46755/higher-than-expected-bpa-levels-found-in-pregnant-women
-
FDA to Assess Safety of Some Ortho-Phthalates in FCMs
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to review the safety of certain ortho-phthalates used in food contact materials, following a petition from ten NGOs.
The NGOs filed a food additive petition with the FDAon 15 March to revoke regulations that allow the use of 30 ortho-phthalates in food contact materials like paper and plastics. According to FDA regulations, substances found in food contact materials that unintentionally get into food are considered "food additives."
In the petition, they said that evidence of various reproductive, developmental and endocrine health effects warrants further agency safety review of these commonly used substances.
All 30 substances, they said, fall into a chemically related class.
In an 11 April response, the agency agreed to accept the petition for further scientific review of some of those 30 ortho-phthalates.
A deliberate approach
Tom Nelter, chemical policy director at petitioning NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), toldChemical Watch that the NGOs were deliberate in stating in their filing that it was “not a citizen's petition”.
A food additive petition, unlike a citizen's petition, requires the FDA to respond within 180 days, a goal the group wanted to achieve, he said.
In the FDA’s response to the ten petitioners, which also include the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group, the agency said that only certain substances covered by the filing were within scope of a food additive petition. Those that were not within the scope of a food additive petition will not be scientifically reviewed by the agency at this time.
But according to Mr Nelter, the regulatory technicalities in the agency’s decision did not come as a surprise.
“This is new ground/territory, even for the FDA, and care is being taken to work things out carefully so that the matter does not go into limbo”, he said. The NGOs will file a citizen's petition for the substances not covered by the food additive petition, he added.
Rejected from petition
FDA’s regulatory definition for a food additive exempts substances granted approval before September 6, 1958, on the grounds that they are “prior sanctioned”.
The FDA said that it therefore cannot review five ortho-phthalates used "as plasticisers when migrating from food packaging material" – a prior sanctioned use – through a food additive petition.
The agency will, however, review all its other approved uses of the five substances, as part of the food additive petition.
The groups also petitioned for “zero tolerance” – a ban – in food contact uses for eight ortho-phthalates the Consumer Products Safety Commission has proposed to ban from certain children’s toy and products. These include:
diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP);
di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP)nutyl benzyl phthalate (BBP);
dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP);
di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP);
diisooctyl phthalate (DIOP);
di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); and
diisononyl phthalate (DINP)
The FDA said it will not accept that request, because a food additive petition cannot be used to set zero tolerance. FDA regulations require that a petition propose "the issuance of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which such additive may be safely used."
Mr Nelter said that "zero is not a condition that the agency has used because they say they can't set a zero tolerance limit for the use of an additive.”
He thinks, however, that the agency can set zero tolerance - “and that zero may be the only condition under which ortho-phthalates may be safely used.”
The FDA has 180 days from 12 April to make a decision on those substances that qualify under the food additive petition.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46750/fda-to-assess-safety-of-some-ortho-phthalates-in-fcms
-
FDA Seeks Input for International Cosmetics Regulation Meeting
Apr 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US FDA will convene a public meeting to get input for the upcoming International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR-10).
Anyone interested may present proposals for future IRCC agenda items, as well as data or information on issues related to the regulation of cosmetics.
According to a notice in the Federal Register, the FDA “may use this input to help [it] prepare” for the ICCR-10 meeting, being held in Bethesda, Maryland on 12-14 July.
The ICCR is a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities from the US, Japan, EU, Canada and Brazil. It aims to remove regulatory obstacles to international trade, while maintaining global consumer protection.
Topics addressed by the group, since it was established in 2007, include:
product preservation;
alternatives to animal testing;
allergens;
cosmetics safety assessments;
nanotechnology/nanomaterials; and
unwanted trace elements.
Following the most recent ICCR meeting in November 2015, the European Commission requested that its Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) prepare a scientific opinion on safe trace levels for 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic products.
Consensus reports on trace levels of mercury and 1,4-dioxane are undergoing final review, according to an account of outcomes of the November meeting.
The public meeting, to prepare for the ICCR, will be held on 15 June at the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in College Park, Maryland.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46734/fda-seeks-input-for-international-cosmetics-regulation-meeting
-
Senate Overwhelmingly Backs Reform Bill
Apr 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
The Senate easily passed bipartisan energy reform legislation today, setting the stage for conference talks with the House that members hope will result in the first new major energy law in almost a decade.
The Senate passed S. 2012 on a 85-12 vote this morning after senators yesterday voted on a series of amendments set up under an earlier agreement.
Opposing the bill were Republican Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Boozman of Arkansas, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Mike Lee of Utah, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, David Perdue of George and Marco Rubio of Florida.
Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) did not vote. Sanders and Cruz have been campaigning for president.
Speaking to reporters after passage, Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) attributed the strong vote to the process they employed in assembling the bill.
"This is how the Senate is supposed to work," said Murkowski, pointing out that the legislation now includes 64 amendments and contributions from 80 senators.
"The Senate definitely did its job today," said Cantwell, referencing Senate Democrats' mantra in the fight over confirming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
Still, both senators acknowledged the hurdles that lie ahead. "We've got our work cut out for us," Murkowski said.
She reiterated her desire to get quickly moving on conference talks with the House, which passed its own energy bill, H.R. 8, in December (E&E Daily, April 20).
In a statement, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said he was looking forward to going to conference. "With today's milestone, we are one step closer to embracing policies that say yes to energy," he said.
With congressional plans truncated by this year's campaigns and elections, Murkowski said the calendar was one of the biggest hurdles ahead.
"We can work through issues," Murkowski said. "The calendar is a little more challenging. So that's why I want to get on it as quickly as possible."
Among the policy challenges she sees looming, Murkowski noted deep-seated opposition among some House members to land acquisition made through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is permanently reauthorized in the Senate bill.
However, she said the issue was "resolvable."
Murkowski also foresees resistance in the House to reforms in the Senate bill to the Energy Department's loan guarantee program.
"I think you will have some who will say, 'Well you didn't eliminate the loan guarantee program. We wanted you to get rid of it altogether,'" she said.
"Instead what we did was we worked to seriously put some reforms in that. If we can walk people through what we have done, I think some of the issues that are viewed now as obstacles or roadblocks are alleviated."
Murkowski said she has not yet spoken with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about naming Senate conferees but said she envisions a "full and formal conference," noting that Congress hasn't used a formal conference on energy since 2005.
"We've kind of forgotten how to do a conference around here," she said. "I think it's time we get back to that."
Because the House led conference talks in 2005, Murkowski said she would head the conference committee and intends to use the gavel to keep the focus on the issue until a deal is completed.
"You can call meetings," she told Greenwire about the advantages of chairing. "One of the things that Senator Cantwell and I have learned is you've got to keep talking about these issues. Because when you decide we're done talking, or I don't want to schedule this, then nothing happens. Keeping a fire under this is as important as anything, and that's what I can control."
"We've got a lot of educating to do," Murkowski added.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/20/stories/1060035958
-
EPA, FERC Pursue Rare Joint Enforcement Action Over Utility's Emissions
Apr 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are showing new and novel cooperation in enforcement of air and energy laws, sources say, in a highly unusual case involving emissions monitor tampering and first-time criminal prosecution of Federal Power Act violations at a Massachusetts power plant.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) in a recent statement announced the conclusion of a criminal and civil enforcement action against the owners and managers of the Berkshire Power Plant, MA, and also another company providing maintenance at the plant.
The investigation found that Berkshire Power Co. (BPC), the plant owner, and Power Plant Management Services (PPMS), the plant manager, had overseen a deliberate violation of the Clean Air Act by tampering with emissions monitoring equipment to show lower pollution levels than in fact were being emitted. Both entities have agreed to plead guilty to this, DOJ says.
However, PPMS also plead guilty to violating the Federal Power Act by taking the power plant offline when it was being paid to be available under the forward electric capacity market.
PPMS further "made and caused staff at the Plant to make false statements" to the local electric grid operator, known as independent system operator (ISO) New England, according to DOJ. PPMS, along with service provider Ethos Energy, are also being paying a penalty to resolve civil charges.
The companies will pay $8.5 million to resolve the charges against them, both civil and criminal, DOJ says. "The comprehensive resolution, including the first ever criminal charges for false statements to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, demonstrates the seriousness with which we take conduct which undermines environmental compliance and the fair regulation of energy markets," said U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz in the statement.
Industry legal sources say the case is unique and unlikely to herald a major new push in environmental and energy regulatory enforcement. FERC brings frequent civil enforcement actions for violations of its rules, but this is the first criminal prosecution under the Federal Power Act, sources say.
The co-operation between EPA and FERC is new, however. "I don't think that you would have seen this case eight years ago because the two agencies would not have talked to each other," one source says.
Sources note that EPA and FERC have worked much more closely together in recent years than they did historically, because of major EPA rules in the power sector such as the mercury and air toxics standards and the Clean Power Plan that seeks to curb power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. FERC has been called upon to give policy advice on the impact of these rules on electric grid reliability, for example. However, so far this policy co-operation has not extended to enforcement action, sources say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-ferc-pursue-rare-joint-enforcement-action-over-utilitys-emissions
-
In Final Push, Challengers Urge Court to Rein in Fracking Rule
Apr 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In yet another round of legal briefs debating the Bureau of Land Management's hydraulic fracturing rule, critics told a federal court this week that the regulation is blatantly illegal -- beyond the agency's turf and a violation of administrative law.
"The Bureau's departure from its statutory authority in its fracking rule must be reined in by setting aside the hydraulic fracturing rule," challengers told the court Monday night.
If the arguments sound familiar, that's for good reason. The Obama administration has been duking it out with states, industry and the Ute Tribe in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming for more than a year now. And since December, they've waged a similar battle at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trying to reverse the district court's decision to freeze the rule during litigation.
The two courts are considering arguments for both the original challenge and the injunction appeal at essentially the same time -- meaning the opposing sides have been filing briefs in one case or the other nearly nonstop this year. The latest briefs from challengers -- Western states, industry and an American Indian tribe -- are in reply to the Obama administration and environmentalists' recent defense of the fracking rule (EnergyWire, April 5).
In their reply brief, state challengers Wyoming, Colorado and Utah accused the Obama administration of trying to duck the key question of agency authority in the case by claiming jurisdiction over all activities that happen on federal lands. The states say Congress has broad power over public lands, while BLM has only as much power as Congress delegates to it.
"Accordingly, any authority the Executive exercises over federal lands must be pursuant to specific federal legislation," they wrote. "Not only did Congress decline to grant the Bureau authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, but it expressly removed all authority to regulate non-diesel hydraulic fracturing from federal statutory law."
The states are referring to their longtime argument that the Safe Drinking Water Act placed U.S. EPA in charge of underground injection, including fracking, and that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 subsequently exempted most fracking from that realm of oversight. They say the clear language of those laws cannot be outweighed by the general grant of authority over public lands in the Mineral Leasing Act, which does not specifically mention fracking.
"Given that the statutory scheme as a whole does not grant BLM broad environmental policymaking authority -- and given that Congress has since removed the regulation of non-diesel hydraulic fracturing from federal oversight -- the silence in the Mineral Leasing Act cannot be construed as authorization to regulate in this area," they wrote.
North Dakota, which is also challenging the rule, filed its own brief this week, echoing many of the other state and industry arguments that the rule exceeds BLM's authority and adding that the rule will particularly harm North Dakota, which has an abundance of "split estates" where BLM owns oil and gas rights beneath farms.
The Ute Indian Tribe, meanwhile, challenged the rule's application to tribal lands. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, not BLM, is the only agency that can regulate activities on tribal land, the Utes argued in their brief. Plus, they said, BLM did not properly consult with tribes while crafting the rule. Though the agency held several meetings with tribes during the rulemaking process, the tribes say they were given no more voice than any random member of the public. In his injunction order last year, Judge Scott Skavdahl agreed, slamming the agency for failing to make "meaningful" efforts to consult with tribes early in the process.
That alleged failure violates Interior's tribal consultation policy, which favors a collaborative effort on any program that may affect tribes. The agency argued in an earlier brief that the policy is not legally enforceable because it's not a formal rule. But Utes attorney Jeffrey Rasmussen told the district court this week that the policy should be enforced because it is based on statute: the Indian Mineral Development Act.
"As shown in the Administrative Record, the BLM failed to satisfy the Department's minimum requirements for consultation, resulting in a Final Rule that will substantially harm tribal interests if implemented," Rasmussen and other lawyers for the tribe wrote.
Oil and gas industry petitioners zeroed in on the rationale for the regulation, arguing that the fracking rule is based on "public concern" that has not been supported by substantial evidence. The industry groups -- the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance -- also reiterated arguments that the final rule is an illogical outgrowth of draft versions and that many requirements in the rule are simply not feasible.
"Ignoring comprehensive comments in the record detailing the technical and legal problems of earlier proposals, BLM has arbitrarily issued a rule that lacks justification, cannot be administered technically, exceeds the agency's regulatory authority, and violates federal law," the groups told the court this week. "BLM's misunderstanding of numerous technical aspects of oil and gas production, as well as the agency's failure to properly account for the final rule's economic consequences undermines the procedural legitimacy of the rulemaking."
Briefing in the case is now complete. Skavdahl may choose to make a final decision based on the briefs or schedule oral arguments.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/20/stories/1060035908
-
(ACC Mentioned) BNSF Honors 109 Shippers for Excellence in Product Safety
Apr 20, 2016 | Railway Age
By Carolina Worrell
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) on April 19, 2016 honored 109 shippers with the railroad’s 19th Annual Product Stewardship Award for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail during 2015.
“We congratulate so many of our customers for their dedication and shared commitment to the highest safety standards,” said Dave Freeman, Senior Vice President, Transportation. “Safely transporting hazardous materials requires strong partnerships between BNSF and customers and, by continuously working together, we have ensured that rail remains the safest mode of land transportation for the movement of all freight.”
The companies were selected for the award for transporting a minimum of 500 loaded tank cars of hazardous materials during the previous year with zero non-accident releases during the entire transportation cycle and for successfully implementing the ethics of Product Stewardship under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care® initiative.
Many of this year’s honorees are repeat winners, including 21 companies that have won 10 or more years: Agrium U.S. Inc., Akzo Nobel Pulp & Performance Chemicals Inc., Canexus Chemicals Canada LLC, CF Industries Sales LLC, Chemours (formerly DuPont), Chevron Phillips Chemical, Eastman Chemical Co., Elbow River Marketing LP, Huntsman Corp., Husky Energy Inc., Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Keyera Energy Partnership, LyondellBasell Industries, Methanex Methanol Company, Nebraska Energy LLC, Olin Corp., Pembina Resource Services, Reagent Chemical & Research Inc., Solvay Chemicals Inc., Sunoco Partners Marketing and Williams Energy Services, LLC.
The honorees for 2015 are:
BNSF honors 109 shippers for excellence in product safety BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) honored 109 shippers with the railroad’s 19th Annual Product Stewardship Award for the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail during 2015.
“We congratulate so many of our customers for their dedication and shared commitment to the highest safety standards,” said Dave Freeman, Senior Vice President, Transportation. “Safely transporting hazardous materials requires strong partnerships between BNSF and customers and, by continuously working together, we have ensured that rail remains the safest mode of land transportation for the movement of all freight.”
The companies were selected for the award for transporting a minimum of 500 loaded tank cars of hazardous materials during the previous year with zero non-accident releases during the entire transportation cycle and for successfully implementing the ethics of Product Stewardship under the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care® initiative.
Many of this year’s honorees are repeat winners, including 21 companies that have won 10 or more years: Agrium U.S. Inc., Akzo Nobel Pulp & Performance Chemicals Inc., Canexus Chemicals Canada LLC, CF Industries Sales LLC, Chemours (formerly DuPont), Chevron Phillips Chemical, Eastman Chemical Co., Elbow River Marketing LP, Huntsman Corp., Husky Energy Inc., Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Keyera Energy Partnership, LyondellBasell Industries, Methanex Methanol Company, Nebraska Energy LLC, Olin Corp., Pembina Resource Services, Reagent Chemical & Research Inc., Solvay Chemicals Inc., Sunoco Partners Marketing and Williams Energy Services, LLC.
The honorees for 2015 are:
ABE South Dakota LLC
Abengoa Bioenergy
Aberdeen Energy LLC
ADM
Agrium U.S. Inc.
Akzo Nobel Pulp & Performance Chemicals Inc.
Alon USA LP
Amerigas Propane LP
Atlantic Trading & Marketing
Aventine Renewable Energy
Axiall
BASF
Bonanza Bioenergy LLC
Bridgeport Ethanol LLC
Bridger Marketing LLC
Canadian Enterprise Gas Products
Canexus Chemicals Canada LLC
Cenovus Energy Inc.
Centennial Energy LLC
CF Industries Sales LLC
Chemours
Chevron Phillips Chemical
Chevron Products
CHS Inc.
Citgo Petroleum
Connacher Oil & Gas LTD
ConocoPhillips
Crestwood West Coast LLC
Dakota Prairie Refining LLC
Dakota Spirit AG Energy LLC
E Energy Adams LLC
Eastman Chemical Co.
Eco Services Operations LLC
Eighty-Eight Oil LLC
Elbow River Marketing LP
EOG Resources Inc.
ERCO Worldwide
Ergon, Inc.
Flint Hills Resources LP
Gibson Gas Liquids Partnership
Global Companies LLC
Green Plains Logistics LLC
Green Plains Trade Group LLC
Huntsman Corp.
Husky Energy Inc.
Imperial Oil, LTD
International Raw Material
Irving Oil LTD
Jebro Inc.
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.
Keyera Energy Partnership
Kiros Energy Marketing
Koppers Inc.
Lanxess Corp.
LyondellBasell Industries
Marathon Petroleum Co.
Marquis Inc.
Mercuria Energy Trading
Metalurgica Met Mex Penole
Methanex Methanol Company
Mid America Agri Products
Moose Jaw Refinery Partnership
Murex
Murphy Oil USA Inc.
Musket Corporation
Nebraska Corn Processing LLC
Nebraska Energy LLC
NGL Supply Wholesale LLC
NuGen Energy LLC
Olin Corp.
Orica USA Inc.
Owens Corning
PBF Holding Company LLC
PCS Sales USA Inc.
Pembina Resource Services
Petrogas Energy Corp.
Petrolama Energy Canada
Phillips 66
Pioneer Oil LLC
Plains Midstream Canada
Plymouth Energy LLC
Poet Biorefining
Ponderosa Petroleum Co.
PVS Chemicals Inc.
Reagent Chemical & Research Inc.
Redfield Energy LLC
Shell Oil Products U.S.
Shell Trading Canada
Solvay Chemicals Inc.
South Hampton Resources Inc.
Spectra Energy
St. James Rail Terminal LLC
St. Paul Park Refining Co.
Statoil Marketing & Trading
Styrolution
Suncor Energy
Sunoco Partners Marketing
Targa Resources
Tauber Oil Company
Texpar Energy LLC
The Dow Chemical Co.
The International Group Inc.
United Energy Trading LLC
U. S. Oil & Refining Co.
Valero Marketing & Supply
Westlake Chemical Corp.
Williams Energy Services, LLC
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/bnsf-honors-109-shippers-for-excellence-in-product-safety.html
-
New York Suit, Petition Test EPA 'Aggregation' Of Landfill Gas Emissions
Apr 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Residents in upstate New York are pursuing litigation and a separate petition to EPA that aims to force the agency to object to Clean Air Act permits for two Finger-Lakes area landfills that supply gas for nearby power plants, two disputes that will further test EPA's policy on "aggregation," or combining of emissions from related sources.
EPA's approach to aggregation has faced push-back from industry groups and environmentalists in recent years, and it is an important factor in determining whether sources must have strict "major" source air permits or less-stringent permits for "minor" air pollution sources. Aggregating emissions from nearby facilities as one source -- such as landfills serving gas plants -- could potentially push that source over the threshold for a major source for Title V permits or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) or related new source review permits.
In a proposal released last year, EPA sought input on how to aggregate energy sector emissions and floated two options. One option -- which the agency says it prefers -- would determine aggregation based solely on "physical proximity" that would in Clean Air Act permits combine emissions from "adjacent" sources, which are defined in terms of proximity as sources separated by a distance of one quarter mile or less. This approach would likely lead to less aggregation and allow some operations to win less-strict minor permits, observers have said.
The second option would define adjacency of sources for aggregating by assessing either proximity or function, EPA says. "This definition would consider equipment or activities adjacent if they are near each other or if they are related by function -- such as being connected by a pipeline, for example," the agency said.
Environmentalists have offered support for the "functional interrelatedness" test in the agency's proposal, under which emissions would be aggregated if they are separated by a quarter mile or more and if they share exclusive operational dependence.
Permitting Aggregation
The New York residents, through their lawsuit and pending petitions with EPA, are similarly trying to force strict aggregation of the landfill facilities that serve the gas power plant.
In a lawsuit filed March 25 with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Concerned Citizens of Seneca County, Inc. and Dixie Lemmon v. Gina McCarthy, residents near the Seneca Energy II landfill gas-to-energy facility in Seneca Falls, NY, ask the court to force an EPA response to their September 2013 petitionfor the agency to object to the plant's operating permit.
Residents are opposed to the Clean Air Act Title V operating permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), saying it wrongly treats the power plant as separate from a neighboring landfill that supplies gas for the power plant. They argue that this has led to incorrect assumptions about "baseline" emissions levels and may enable the facilities to escape necessary emissions restrictions.
Attorney Douglas Zamelis, representing the residents, told Inside EPA March 31 that, "My clients maintain that the Seneca Meadows dump and the associated gas-to-energy plant are under common control and should be aggregated for Clean Air Act permitting purposes, and should not be segmented and permitted separately."
Under the air law, EPA must respond to petitions for permit objections within 60 days of receiving them, but the agency frequently misses these deadlines. The residents ask the court to compel EPA to respond.
Coalition's Petition
Meanwhile, in a separate Feb. 8 petition with EPA, the Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition (FLZWC) asks the agency to object to the Title V permits of Seneca Energy II's gas-to-energy plant situated on the nearby Ontario County Landfill, and that of the landfill. Both sources are currently permitted as separate major sources.
The residents' concerns over the landfill gas-to-power plant permitting reaches back to at least December 2012, when FLZWC first filed a petition seeking EPA's objection to the Ontario County Landfill and related power plant permits.
The agency in a June 29 order granted that petition on the grounds that NYSDEC failed to aggregate the emissions of the landfill and power plant for permitting purposes. EPA required NYSDEC to more fully explain its decision in treating the landfill and power plant as separate.
The state last year responded by supplementing the permit record. However, FLZWC says that this response is inadequate and that the agency must issue a fresh objection to the permits.
In EPA's response to FLZWC's 2012 petition, the agency details the principles its relies on when determining whether to aggregate landfills and related gas facilities. Central to the determination is the concept of "common control."
In the response, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the agency says "three elements must be met for facilities to constitute a single major source for title V purposes or a single major stationary source for PSD purposes. The facilities must be (1) located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties: (2) belong to a single major industrial grouping; and (3) be under common control of the same person (or persons under common control)."
Of these three elements, only common control is in question in either of the Finger Lakes disputes. EPA's point of departure for determination of common control, the agency says, is the policy articulated in a September 18, 1995, letter from William Spratlin, then-Director of EPA Region 7's air, waste and toxics division, to Peter R. Hamlin, Air Quality Bureau Chief of Iowa's Department of Natural Resources.
Under the Spratlin policy, EPA "presumes that a common control relationship exists when one company locates on another's property. The EPA reasonably presumes that these so-called 'companion' facilities are under common control because companies rarely locate on each other's property in the absence of a common control relationship."
EPA's Response
McCarthy in the June response says, "The EPA's approach to addressing companion facilities is to request information from the facilities themselves that can illuminate their relationship and that may be sufficient to overcome the presumption of common control. If the companion facilities do not provide information that rebuts this presumption, then the EPA treats the facilities as being under common control."
She cites two determinations about landfills and their related gas-burning power plants, where the analysis focused on the exact relationship between the two. This includes consideration of contractual relationships and whether landfill gas from the landfill in question is the exclusive fuel source of the gas plant.
One case EPA refers to involves the Houston County Landfill, GA, energy services company PowerSecure, and Flint Electric Membership Cooperative. In that case, Georgia requested that EPA make a common control determination concerning a landfill gas facility and a "companion" landfill. EPA agreed with the state that because of the exclusive use of gas from the landfill as the fuel source for the power plant, the two were under common control.
In a second example, however, EPA found that in a similar situation in Virginia, there was no common control. That case involved the Maplewood Landfill and a companion facility of Industrial Power Generating Corporation (INGENCO). EPA said "although all of Maplewood's landfill gas was to be purchased by INGENCO, both facilities were able to operate without each other." The energy plant could run on multiple fuels, and could sell on the landfill gas or return it to the landfill for flaring, EPA found. The two facilities were entirely separate financially, EPA concluded.
Plant's Dependence
In the Seneca Meadows landfill case, Concerned Citizens of Seneca County says that the dependence of the energy plant on the landfill means they are clearly under common control, but are not now treated as such. This has resulted in permits that do not consider the true emissions of the facilities, the petitioners claim.
The power plant "relies exclusively on landfill gas from the Seneca Meadows Landfill for its operation. It utilizes no other source of fuel to produce energy. Under these conditions, it does not matter that the two facilities are under separate, independent ownership. The intimate and necessary interdependence of the two facilities means they are under common control," the petitioners claim.
"The issued [Seneca Energy] Title V permit is thus a sham because NYSDEC has failed to calculate the combined potential to emit of all emission sources; the landfill and [gas] plant [when] considered as a single source has in fact been operating at major source levels; and both facilities have, are, or soon will be, seeking to expand capacity, but only [Seneca Energy's] expansion is considered in the Title V permit," they say.
In the Ontario County Landfill petition, FLZWC makes similar claims. The group's president Douglas C. Knipple "requests that the Administrator reopen [Seneca Energy's] Title V permit and direct the [NYSDEC] to recalculate baseline and future emissions for all sources at the site on a per-pollutant basis using a 'worst case scenario' approach to estimating [potential to emit] for the single aggregated source.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-york-suit-petition-test-epa-aggregation-landfill-gas-emissions
-
Top Republican Takes Aim at EPA Rules at Budget Hearing
Apr 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) criticized several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules during a Wednesday hearing, indicating lawmakers may consider targeting them in spending bills for the agency this year.
During a hearing of a Senate subcommittee overseeing EPA funding, panel chairwoman Murkowski took aim the agency’s clean water rule, a proposed methane regulation and a funding request for implementing a climate change rule, all of which are major EPA priorities.
“There is a concern that rather than focusing on its core mission of attending to and cleaning up the environment, the agency is pumping out rule after rule that are based on questionable legal authority,” Murkowski said Wednesday at a hearing with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
The water rule — which provides more federal oversight on small waterways — is a “show-stopper,” Murkowski said, and one that would have a major impact on her water-heavy state.
The rule — currently stayed by a federal court while litigation against it moves forward — remains a major priority for the Obama administration. A senior administration official told The Hill Obama would veto a separate spending bill if the Senate attaches an amendment blocking the water rule, something Republicans may consider bringing up on the floor this week.
“If the final bill that is presented to the president includes problematic ideological provisions that have no place in funding legislation — including any attempt to block our efforts to protect Americans’ health by keeping our streams and wetlands clean — his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill,” the official said.
Republicans have criticized other EPA rulemaking, including a carbon emissions rule for power plants. Obama requested $235 million to work on the Clean Power Plan in his 2017 budget, but Murkowski criticized that request on Wednesday.
She also said the agency shouldn’t move forward with a rule on methane emissions at drilling sites, noting a decline in methane leaks without an existing rule.
The agency is looking to finalize a rule on new drilling sites this year, and is working on regulations for existing sites as well.
“At a time when low oil prices are creating a challenging sit for the industry, I’m concerned that this proposal has the potential to perhaps limit investment, hamper domestic production and perhaps drive up costs for the consumers,” Murkowski said.
Neither the House nor the Senate have released their EPA spending bills. Last year, Republicans in both chambers looked to block agency rules in its spending measures, but agreed not to in a year-end spending deal.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/276997-top-republican-takes-aim-at-epa-rules-at-budget-hearing
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested