Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/19/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) US, Canada April EPS Sales Fall 0.8% Year on Year
May 19, 2016 | ICIS
By David Love
US and Canadian sales of expandable polystyrene (EPS) in April fell by 0.8% year on year, according to data made available on Wednesday by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress is Overhauling an Outdated Law That Affects Nearly Every Product You Own
May 19, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Darryl Fears
Congress has reached agreement on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. chemical safety laws in 40 years, a rare bipartisan accord that has won the backing of both industry officials and some of the Hill’s most liberal lawmakers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Negotiators Announce TSCA Deal
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US Senate and House negotiators have reached abipartisan agreement reconciling the bills passed by each chamber last year to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Deal Today?
May 19, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Congressional negotiators may be ready to announce a deal to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act today, although it is still an open question whether House Democratic leaders will be on board, sources tracking the process tell ME. -
TSCA Reform Supporters Eye Final Bill Fixes To Boost Floor Vote Support
May 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Democratic Senate supporters of a final compromise bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are discussing potential further changes ahead of floor votes on the legislation to win over Democratic lawmakers that currently oppose the measure, including tweaks to provisions on when the bill could preempt states' chemicals programs. -
Senators Say Work is Mostly Done on TSCA Bill
May 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Work is almost complete on an overhaul of the nation's chemical safety laws, with pending issues largely resolved, a group of senators said this morning. -
Lawmakers Near Compromise on Chemical Safety Overhaul
May 19, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House and Senate lawmakers are putting the finishing touches on a compromise chemical safety overhaul bill. -
Is TSCA Rewrite Better Than Current Law?
May 19, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh and Scott Faber
For months we've watched to see if the chemical safety bills moving through Congress would be better than current law. It’s a low bar, because the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, or TSCA, is widely considered the least effective environmental law on the books. -
House to Hold TSCA Vote Tuesday, Senate to Follow Quickly
May 19, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The House plans to vote Tuesday on the bicameral deal updating the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, and Senate action will follow quickly, follow even as negotiations continue to try to bring more House Democrats on board. -
EPA Crafting Additional SNUR To Limit Uses Of Controversial Solvent TCE
May 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is developing another proposed rule to restrict uses of the controversial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), once commonly used but now facing phaseouts and multiple actions after the agency linked it to fetal cardiac birth defects in a 2011 risk assessment, a conclusion strongly contested by various industries. -
New York County Children’s Product Law Enforcement Delayed
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Enforcement of a New York county law, banning the sale of children’s products containing certain substances, has been delayed. -
Echa Substance Inventory to Help Low-Tonnage REACH Registrations
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Manufacturers or importers of phase-in low-tonnage substances can use a new Annex III inventory of substances which are likely to fulfil the criteria to be hazardous, to learn if they can register with a reduced set of information. -
Echa Expert Group Revises Guidance for PBT Assessment
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa will issue for consultation its revised guidance on persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) assessment in June, and hopes to publish the final version before the end of May 2017. -
Echa Round-Up
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has received six testing proposals for four substances. -
Dorsey & Whitney's Rubin Says D.C. Circuit Decision Likely to Affect Substance of Arguments
May 19, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's surprise decision this week to push Clean Power Plan arguments to September before the full court, how are parties involved in the case shifting strategies in light of the broader review? During today's OnPoint, James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, discusses the impact of the court's decision on the power plan's legal timeline and prospects for the case overall. -
Dallas Gets Google Maps View of Its Methane Leaks
May 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Madelyn Beck
Natural gas leaks are usually invisible, but for some select cities, that's no longer the case. -
GOP Seeks to Delay Ozone Standards that Could Slow Energy Development
May 18, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By James Osborne
Republicans are telling the Obama’s administration to slow down on lowering ozone limits. -
Oil Bulls See U.S. Shale Patch Rising Again by 2020
May 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Oil and gas production in the United States could reach a new record volume by 2020, according to a working paper published yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office. -
PMHSA to Release Final Investigative Report Into Plains Oil Spill
May 19, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has completed its investigation into last year's Plains All American Pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara, Calif., and the agency will release its final investigative report later today, a PHMSA official told POLITICO. -
White House Outlines Agenda for Obama's Final Months
May 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The Obama administration's latest compilation of pending regulatory actions shows more than 3,300 of them flowing through the pipeline, including a controversial stream protection rule and action to curb venting and flaring of natural gas from drilling projects on public lands.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US, Canada April EPS Sales Fall 0.8% Year on Year
May 19, 2016 | ICIS
By David Love
US and Canadian sales of expandable polystyrene (EPS) in April fell by 0.8% year on year, according to data made available on Wednesday by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The figure, composed of total sales and captive use, includes exports and all sales within the US and Canada, broken down by block EPS, shape EPS and other EPS.
The decrease was the result of reduced block and shape sales, according to the data. Block EPS fell by 2.4% in April year on year, while shape EPS was down by 17.2% in April year on year.
Year to date, total US and Canada EPS sales and captive use were up by 12.3% in April, the ACC said.
North American EPS producers include Dart Polymers, Flint Hills Resources, Grupo Idesa, Nexkemia Petrochimie, NOVA Chemicals, Plasti-Fab, StyroChem International and Styropek.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/05/18/9999760/us-canada-april-eps-sales-fall-0-8-year-on-year/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress is Overhauling an Outdated Law That Affects Nearly Every Product You Own
May 19, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Darryl Fears
Congress has reached agreement on the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. chemical safety laws in 40 years, a rare bipartisan accord that has won the backing of both industry officials and some of the Hill’s most liberal lawmakers.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, which has not been reauthorized since President Gerald Ford signed it into law in 1976, regulates thousands of chemicals in everyday products including detergents and flame retardants. It has come under sharp criticism as ineffective from all quarters, including environmentalists who back stronger federal oversight and chemical companies that are now subject to a patchwork of more stringent rules in some states.
The compromise — which lawmakers unveiled Thursday morning — will provide the industry with greater certainty while empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain more information about a chemical before sanctioning its use. While some environmental groups have opted to remain neutral or have faulted the final details, the measure has the tacit approval of the Obama administration and the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
It could come up for a vote in both chambers as soon as next week.
The overhaul will have major impact on Americans’ lives because chemicals are so interwoven into their daily experience, from the shampoo they use in the morning to the containers of food they eat at night.
“People believe when they go to the grocery store and go to the hardware store and they get a product, that product’s been tested and that product’s safe,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the key authors, at a Thursday press conference. “Well, that isn’t the case.”
Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who worked on landmark measures revamping the Clean Air Act and Superfund program and helped forge this week’s compromise on chemicals, said “it could be one of the most historic moments in environmental law in our country.” He likened the existing law to “a political Edsel, that’s been sitting in the garage, not working.”
The improbable deal, which both sides have pursued since President Obama first took office, gives the EPA the power to require companies to provide health and safety data for untested chemicals and to prevent substances from reaching the market if they have not been determined to be safe. Under current law, the agency must prove a chemical poses a potential risk before it can demand data or require testing, and these substances can automatically enter the marketplace after 90 days.
In the past four decades, the EPA has required testing for just 200 of thousands of chemicals, and it has issued regulations to control only five of them. More than 8,000 chemicals are produced in the United States at an annual rate of more than 25,000 pounds each, according to the agency.
Under the bill, the agency can order firms to test their new products, rather than go through a lengthy rulemaking process to trigger such testing. The measure also imposes user fees on industry to help ramp up testing of chemicals.
In return, chemical manufacturers will be subject to a single regulatory system, although states will still have the right to seek a federal waiver to impose their rules on a given chemical. Currently, states such as California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have placed their own restrictions on some chemicals in the face of federal inaction.
American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley, whose group represents dozens of chemical companies as well as major U.S. automakers and manufacturers of consumer goods, said his members were willing to disclose more information about their products in exchange for a more uniform standard. The organization has lobbied hard for the bill for at least eight years, at points circulating drafts of legislation to lawmakers.
“Not having one federal regulation guiding products onto the national marketplace is really problematic,” Dooley said in an interview. The bill “does strike what we see as an appropriate balance.”
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who co-wrote the bill with Udall, said conservatives were motivated out of concern for public health and “the need to ensure that Americans remain on the cutting edge of science and innovation. That was threatened.”
Republicans did win some key concessions, including some protections for confidential business information and requirements that EPA base its risk determinations on up-to-date science.
The deal has also won over many trial lawyers, who lobbied Democrats to back it, because it updates the landmark law without depriving them of the right to sue.
Environmentalists, by contrast, remain split. Throughout negotiations, a key question has been whether states can regulate chemicals already undergoing a safety review by the EPA. While the federal government retains that sole power, Boxer and committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) have crafted a compromise to allow state intervention under certain circumstances. It allows states to restrict a chemical’s use if a federal risk review and determination takes more than three-and-a-half years.
“We are very pleased with the package that is emerging here,” said Richard Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund’s lead senior scientist. If the EPA “is dragging its feet, states should be able to make decisions in their own interest.”
But the Maryland Public Interest Research Group contends the bill’s timeframe remains too long and likely will stall efforts by states or green groups efforts to block a chemical they consider unsafe.
“It’s really not a feasible way to protect Marylanders from chemicals while the EPA is assessing them,” said Juliana Bilowich, public health organizer for Maryland PIRG. “Some of these chemicals are acutely unsafe.”
Maryland, for example, helped to lead the way in banning a chemical called Bisphenol A, an endocrine disrupter linked to cancer that has been used to make infant bottles and other plastic products.
“Maryland is just one of many states that has stepped up in the absence of federal protections,” said Bilowich, noting that the state also has restricted heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, as well as toxic flame retardants in baby products.
Denison argues that concerns about states’ rights need to be weighed in light of the fact that current law lets chemicals go to market after three months even without a thorough federal review.
“I’ve been working on this for 15 years,” he said. “It fixes every major problem with the current law.”
The bill’s provisions include prioritizing the review of chemicals stored near drinking water as well as those that are human carcinogens and highly toxic with chronic exposure.
The negotiations have involved high drama at times. The late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) had worked with Inhofe on the issue starting in 2012, and brokered a compromise with Vitter shortly before Lautenberg’s death in 2013. Boxer had rejected that compromise as too weak. Vitter and Udall, who pledged to carry on the effort during a private dinner after Lautenberg’s death, modified the measure significantly to attract broader support.
Boxer, who had criticized the original compromise during a flight with other senators to Lautenberg’s funeral, acknowledged Thursday that she “stopped this bill dead for years.” But she said she had been able to make critical changes in recent weeks. “I didn’t go on this bill. I changed this bill.”
Lautenberg’s widow, Bonnie, has lobbied actively for the bill, which is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. “I’ve just been on their backs, to encourage them to keep working,” she said, noting that she has been making calls this week to some wavering House members.
The Lautenbergs’ involvement, several senators said, was crucial. Inhofe called Bonnie Lautenberg “the most important person in this whole process,” and Udall noted that the late senator, who ushered through a smoking ban on all U.S. commercial flights, used to tell his colleagues he thought updating the chemical law would save more lives.
In recent weeks, White House officials have played a supportive role in the talks, while the EPA has offered technical assistance.
White House spokesman Frank Benenati said in an email that “we are encouraged by the progress that’s being made” on the bill. “We believe the latest draft represents an improvement over current law, and we’re hopeful that House and Senate negotiators continue to work to finalize a strong TSCA bill for the president to sign.”
Still, activists such as Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for governmental affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, said herorganization was still waiting to see what the final negotiations yielded.
“This has been 40 years in the making, and we want to make sure we get it right and have a bill that truly protects public health as much as possible,” Sittenfeld said. “We feel encouraged by many of the changes that have been made over the years, but we still want to see further improvements.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-poised-to-pass-sweeping-reform-of-chemical-law/2016/05/18/0da5cd22-1d30-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Negotiators Announce TSCA Deal
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US Senate and House negotiators have reached abipartisan agreement reconciling the bills passed by each chamber last year to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
News of the agreement was announced in a Senate press conference earlier today, with Senators Barbara Boxer (D–California), Jim Inhofe (R–Oklahoma) and Tom Udall (D–New Mexico) among those addressing the media.
Mr Inhofe said the House may vote on the compromised bill as soon as next Tuesday, with a Senate vote to follow upon a successful passage.
“We’ll have it passed, signed and on the president’s desk” by the end of next week, he said.
Agreement details
The full text of the compromised legislation is yet to be released. But the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee circulated a report detailing what is contained in the “final, comprehensive solution to modernise TSCA”, which it says “will achieve a more predictable and uniform federal regulatory programme”.
According to the EPW document, details of the agreement include:
a risk-based safety standard for all new and existing chemicals, with a “worst-first” approach to substance prioritisation;
expanded EPA authority to require the generation of health and safety data for untested chemicals, while reducing “unnecessary” animal testing;
“aggressive and attainable deadlines”;
a requirement for EPA to make an “affirmative finding” of safety before a new chemical enters the market;
creation of “a more uniform regulatory system to ensure interstate commerce is not unduly burdened, while retaining a significant role for states in ensuring chemical safety;”
increased access to confidential business information (CBI) for states and health professionals; and
funding for EPA to carry out the new law.
Ms Boxer’s prepared remarks addressed the issue of state preemption, which she said had been the source of “deep division” until a “breakthrough” was reached. The agreement that was reached on this, she said, “is respectful of the federal government’s role and the state government’s role.”
As laid out by the EPW, states will be blocked from new restrictions on a chemical undergoing EPA risk evaluation, unless they secure a waiver from this “pause”. And according to Ms Boxer’s statement, states will be able to act on substances if the federal government fails to finalise a regulation on the chemical within three and a half years.
Ms Boxer added that she is hopeful “further improvements” can be made on this, and other areas, “until the last minute”.
EPA backs measure
A spokesperson from the EPA said in a statement earlier this week that a draft of the agreement it had reviewed is “a clear improvement over current law and is largely consistent with the Administration’s principles for TSCA reform”. The agency “stands ready to support the effort to finalise” a reformed TSCA.
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley said that, “as with any compromise, this legislation balances the priorities and interests of multiple stakeholders while producing an agreement that pragmatic industry, environmental, public health and labour groups can ultimately support.”
But Andy Igrejas, director of NGO Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, said the agreement “restrains EPA, and especially state governments, in new and unacceptable ways”.
Said Mr Igrejas, the bill contains “disincentives to test toxic chemicals” and “loopholes for imported products”, among other concerns. The NGO has urged Congress to resume negotiations to improve the agreement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47498/senate-negotiators-announce-tsca-deal
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Deal Today?
May 19, 2016 | Politico Pro - Morning Energy
By Eric Wolff
Congressional negotiators may be ready to announce a deal to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act today, although it is still an open question whether House Democratic leaders will be on board, sources tracking the process tell ME. Negotiations continued late into Wednesday, with one aim to bring onboard House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Reps. Frank Pallone and Paul Tonko, both previously at the center of the discussions, said earlier this week that it would be better to pass nothing than the emerging deal being negotiated among House Republicans and senators from both parties.
But the White House, EPA, Environmental Defense Fund, American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers and even the Toy Industry Association released statements praising a compromise that sharply improves upon a flawed law that all sides said was desperately in need of updating. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe and the two senators that really kick-started the debate this Congress — David Vitter and Tom Udall — have reserved space in the Senate Swamp outside the Capitol for a 10 a.m. press conference in case they have something to announce.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/05/ferc-bars-the-door-is-today-the-day-we-get-a-tsca-deal-epa-rfs-target-not-close-enough-for-biofuel-backers-214382
-
TSCA Reform Supporters Eye Final Bill Fixes To Boost Floor Vote Support
May 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
Democratic Senate supporters of a final compromise bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are discussing potential further changes ahead of floor votes on the legislation to win over Democratic lawmakers that currently oppose the measure, including tweaks to provisions on when the bill could preempt states' chemicals programs.
At a May 19 press conference by the U.S. Capitol, several Democratic and Republican senators touted the rare compromise on TSCA reform and noted it would be one of the most significant environmental laws that Congress could approve in at least two decades. The bill would overhaul the 1976 TSCA by giving EPA new powers to review the safety of existing and new chemicals, and focus reviews on “high priority” substances, among other measures.
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) noted the “diverse” range of lawmakers and groups that are backing the bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Congress and Environmental Defense Fund, as well as EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who has opposed prior TSCA bills.
Inhofe predicted release of the final text of the bill before the end of the week, with a vote in the House possible on May 24 and the bill sent for President Obama's signature before Congress' Memorial Day recess.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), one of the lead co-sponsors of the Senate-approved TSCA reform bill, S. 697, said he expects “some sort of unanimous consent agreement” that would allow for quick floor votes on the bill.
However, Boxer noted that some changes to the agreement could still be made before floor votes in the House or Senate. The senator has previously opposed TSCA reform over concerns that the legislation would preempt states' chemicals programs such as those in her home state of California. She had raised concerns about S. 697's preemption provisions, but recently announced an agreement with Inhofe and others on preemption.
Speaking at the press conference, Boxer said she is backing the bill because it addresses several issues of concern to her that she won through negotiations. “Somebody came up to me and said, 'Oh thank you so much for going on this bill.' I didn't go on this bill, I changed this bill,” she said, explaining she did it with the work of her colleagues.
Among the provisions that she touted are language prioritizing review of “dangerous substances” like asbestos for attention from regulators; making a priority of review of persistent chemicals that accumulate in the body; and prioritizing assessments of toxic chemicals that are stored near drinking water supplies -- the latter provision in response to a toxic spill in West Virginia in 2014 that she said caused “havoc in that state.”
A cancer cluster provision, backed by Boxer and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), was also added to the bill, Boxer said. “We fought -- thank you Sen. Inhofe -- we got that into this bill,” she added.
Preemption Provisions
Boxer also addressed preemption and the final compromise that reconciles the Senate bill's approach with the approach in the House-approved TSCA reform bill, H.R. 2576. “What a battle that was,” she said.
The final bill gives states the power to regulate chemicals until EPA takes a series of steps to regulate the same substances. If federal regulators then fail to complete those steps after three and a half years then states would again be free to act to regulate them. Although Boxer said that she can live with this compromise and that the final TSCA bill is “better than current law,” she said she hopes to further revise the preemption language.
Boxer said she can “live with” the preemption language, but some House members from New Jersey and New York, including including House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), want to see more changes before they will support it.
Boxer said she would continue discussions and suggested lawmakers might be able to soon hold another press conference on further agreement.
“So I do hope we'll have one more presser where we have our House colleagues from New Jersey and New York, because they’re not here, they're not supporting this,” Boxer said.
In a brief interview with Inside EPA after the press conference, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) -- another supporter of the pending deal -- said, “I think that this is a touch and go and literally as of late last night . . . we were going back and forth on this issue. So I don't want to say anything that is going to scuttle the negotiations.”
He added, “The goal is to get them on board, and we're going to work very hard. Things are obviously in the last final short strokes so I’m not going to really make any comments about any senators, congresspeople, House members in particular, but we're working on it live. It's been around the clock.”
Pending Agreement
At the press conference, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) called the broad bipartisan agreement on the tentative TSCA deal a “political Halley's Comet” that would overhaul the last major environmental law from the 1960s and 1970s that has not been amended since that time, though he noted talks continue on potential final changes to the bill.
“We're on the cusp of delivering a major agreement in terms of protecting the health and safety of American families,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), who co-sponsored S. 697 with Vitter.
He noted that a 1991 federal appeals court ruling blocking EPA's attempt to ban asbestos “made this law useless” and that the TSCA overhaul would give the agency new authority to target chemicals of concern. The final TSCA compromise is “putting the top cop back on the job to look at safety and that is the EPA,” he said.
In a May 19 statement, Environmental Defense Fund lead senior scientist Dr. Richard Denison said, “This agreement will be a significant victory for public health. . . . [The bill] fixes the biggest problems with our current law -- by requiring safety reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals before they can be sold, removing the barriers that prevented EPA from banning asbestos and other harmful chemicals, enhancing transparency, and much more. While not perfect, this will be a dramatic improvement over current law.”
Similarly, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Bruce Josten said the current House and Senate deal “goes a long way to providing businesses with much needed clarity and certainty by facilitating a more predictable federal regulatory program. . . . Americans deserve a working regulatory framework that is fair for everyone and takes into account the views of communities and businesses. This TSCA reform bill will get us closer to that goal, while protecting American jobs and promoting growth.”
Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, also issued a statement expressing confidence that the bill “addresses many of our long-standing wildlife and public health concerns, while also setting up transparent and predictable chemical evaluation processes for industry.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/tsca-reform-supporters-eye-final-bill-fixes-boost-floor-vote-support
-
Senators Say Work is Mostly Done on TSCA Bill
May 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Work is almost complete on an overhaul of the nation's chemical safety laws, with pending issues largely resolved, a group of senators said this morning.
Speaking at a press conference outside the Capitol, lawmakers who were once at odds offered praise for the emerging compromise proposal, which they called a clear improvement over the existing Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Negotiators will likely post a final bill within days, said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Inhofe said the House could vote on the plan next week, which the Senate would then approve quickly under a unanimous consent agreement. President Obama would then sign the bill into law before Memorial Day, Inhofe said.
The legislation is a compromise between Republicans and industry groups -- who want a more stable, consistent federal regulatory system -- and Democrats, environmental and public health groups -- who want U.S. EPA to have more authority to address chemicals found to cause harm.
The Senate passed a bill, S. 697, or the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," last year. The House passed a different version, H.R. 2576, or the "TSCA Modernization Act."
"For decades, literally for decades, all stakeholders agreed that this area of federal law had to be updated and reformed," Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said, but could not work out the details.
Several prominent House Democrats, including Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the Environment and Economy Subcommittee ranking member, have called the emerging deal worse than current law (E&E Daily, May 19).
Negotiators today declined to specify Pallone and Tonko's objections with the draft language and demands for the final version. Vitter called that "a House matter."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), for years an opponent of the emerging bipartisan plan, said she was now comfortable supporting the proposal.
She had earlier this month reached an agreement with Inhofe on the issue of how the bill would affect state laws but at the time said she had not agreed on the rest of the legislation (E&E Daily, May 10).
"We are still working to make it better," Boxer said. "But where it is right now, it is in my view better than current law, and I certainly could not say that for a very long time."
Boxer said the legislation would allow for swift action on problem chemicals like asbestos and a class of substances known as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals.
Under the new language, Boxer said, states would have warning from EPA before the agency could begin to take action on a substance, so they could choose to act on their own first.
In addition, Boxer said, if EPA starts a chemical review but fails to finish the process within 3½ years, states would then be free to forge ahead on their own.
Boxer's ultimate goal is tough and swift regulation of chemicals and giving states leeway to crack down if necessary. Republicans are skeptical of giving states too much leeway.
"I wish I had the option to write the bill on my own," Boxer said. "Believe me, it would have been much stronger ... but I know if we want to make progress, we need to reach across the aisle."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/19/stories/1060037561
-
Lawmakers Near Compromise on Chemical Safety Overhaul
May 19, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House and Senate lawmakers are putting the finishing touches on a compromise chemical safety overhaul bill.
Senators from both parties told reporters Thursday that the deal is almost done and will be introduced in the House within days. That would allow Congress to pass it and put it on President Obama’s desk by the end of next week.
If everything goes as planned, it would wrap up years of talks and more than a year and a half of legislative negotiating toward reforming the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has been widely panned as ineffective at protecting the public from harmful chemicals.
“We are on the cusp here of delivering an agreement, which is a major agreement, in terms of protecting the health and safety of American families,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who led talks for Democrats on TSCA reform since Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) died in 2013.
Lautenberg was an advocate for TSCA reform, and the final bill will be named after him.
“I, too, am really excited about this positive accomplishment,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who led the GOP side of the effort.
“For decades, literally for decades, all stakeholders on this issue agreed that this area of federal law had to be updated and reformed. It wasn’t serving its purpose adequately; it wasn’t protecting the public; and it was creating uncertainty, which endangered American companies continuing to lead in innovation that makes all our lives better.”
The bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping new authority and resources through fees to regulate and order testing of thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals. It prioritizes certain kinds of chemicals based on risks.
In return for the Democratic and environmental priorities of getting more chemicals tested, Republicans and the chemical industry got a major victory.
States, which have led in chemical regulation after a 1991 ruling that took much of the power out of the TSCA, would be largely prohibited from enforcing chemical rules under many circumstances.
“Today, we are stepping forward and telling people we are putting a law in place that’s going to protect American families, protect children, with regard to chemicals,” Udall said at the news conference with a number of other senators. "We’re putting the top cop back on the job to look at safety, and that’s the EPA.”
“I’m very excited by what we’re doing for the American people to improve public health and safety and to ensure that our American companies continue to be leaders in science and innovation — things we’re great at in America that improve Americans’ daily lives,” said Vitter.
Dan Schneider, spokesman for House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said that although Upton wasn’t at the Thursday news conference, he’s on board with the current deal.
“Thoughtful and effective legislating takes time, and this week’s progress underscores that hard work does pay off,” he said.
But leading House Democrats are not on board. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.) and Paul Tonko (N.Y.), the top Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee and its environmental subcommittee, pulled their support from the negotiations earlier this week.
“The problem is that the Republicans have made this bill, from what I understand, that the draft that they’re proposing, is weaker than the current law,” Pallone said Wednesday. “So there wouldn’t be any point in having it.”
Pallone’s chief problem was that he thought the pre-emption of state authority went too far.
But Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who had withheld support for the bill up until a few weeks ago for similar reasons, said she’d negotiated acceptable changes and encouraged Pallone and Tonko to back the bill.
“I worked with Democratic members in the House as they attempted to negotiate the pre-emption provisions of this bill. I took that agreement as far as I could take it,” she said. “And we have something we can live with.”
The EPA is also on board. A spokeswoman said earlier this week that the recent drafts fit with the Obama administration’s priorities for reform and would be a major improvement over current law.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280533-lawmakers-near-compromise-on-chemical-safety-overhaul
-
Is TSCA Rewrite Better Than Current Law?
May 19, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh and Scott Faber
For months we've watched to see if the chemical safety bills moving through Congress would be better than current law. It’s a low bar, because the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, or TSCA, is widely considered the least effective environmental law on the books.
The bills that passed the House and Senate last year didn't clear the bar, but we hoped Congressional negotiators would cobble together the good parts of both bills to craft better legislation. The compromise that has now emerged – without the support of key House Democrats – has a few improvements, but still falls short in some key respects.
First, the compromise would continue to tie the hands of the states by suspending state action while the Environmental Protection Agency studies a chemical’s safety—a process that could take three years or longer. The compromise would grandfather existing state laws and allow states to quickly act to regulate a chemical that EPA might deem a “high priority” chemical. But if a state fails to act quickly, state action would be suspended for up to three years while EPA completes its review. States have been the only cops on the chemical safety beat, regulating scores of chemicals and driving marketplace innovation. Any legislation that claims to be better than current law would permit state action until an EPA rule is final.
Second, the compromise doesn’t require adequate funding from the chemical industry. Even the best law will be meaningless if EPA doesn’t have the resources needed to review the hundreds of dangerous chemicals already on the market. To make TSCA better than the status quo, Congress should provide enough funding to review the most dangerous chemicals in a generation – not a century. Here’s what it would take to get the job done. The compromise only provides about half of what’s needed.
Third, the compromise fails to fully eliminate cost from EPA’s consideration of how to regulate a chemical. Both bills purport to end the current requirement to consider the cost of regulation when considering whether to regulate, but each included poison pill provisions that could keep EPA tied in legal knots. Using the same tough safety standard that is already applied to pesticides and food chemicals makes more sense, but negotiators should have at least removed vague requirements that rules be "cost-effective.”
Fourth, the compromise allows EPA to designate some chemicals as “low hazard” when assessing a chemical for safety. Who knows what that means? The compromise fails to define “low hazard” or spell out what industry needs to prove to win this designation. Since the compromise allows the industry to dictate up to half of the chemicals EPA will assess for safety, you can bet a lot of their favorite chemicals will soon be bearing this stamp of approval.
To be fair, the compromise includes some important improvements.
It requires EPA to determine whether a chemical is likely to meet the safety standard (albeit a weak and untested standard) before a new chemical enters the market.
It requires EPA to consider the most vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and children.
It gives the EPA new tools to collect data on chemicals, but it is unclear how this new authority would extend to mixtures.
It requires EPA to quickly review chemicals that build up in our bodies and persist in the environment, and sets deadlines for companies to comply with new EPA rules.
It also limits the ability of companies to keep data secret by requiring confidentiality claims to be regularly substantiated, including old “trade secret” claims.
Will the new safety standard crafted by negotiators give EPA the power to restrict or ban the most dangerous chemicals? We'll see. The failure to include a bulletproof safety standard or sufficient resources, along with the uncertain effects of new restrictions on state action, could ultimately mean that fewer chemicals are regulated by a government authority, not more.
Ultimately, the right question is not whether this rewrite is better than current law. The right question is whether this version meets the expectations of a reasonable consumer.
Most consumers expect that EPA has the power to quickly review the most dangerous chemicals and that the chemicals in their cleaners are at least as safe as chemicals in their food. By that measure, this new version falls short of what consumers rightly expect.
-
House to Hold TSCA Vote Tuesday, Senate to Follow Quickly
May 19, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
The House plans to vote Tuesday on the bicameral deal updating the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, and Senate action will follow quickly, follow even as negotiations continue to try to bring more House Democrats on board.
House Republicans will file a bill today or Friday, take it to the Rules Committee Monday night and vote Tuesday, House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus told reporters.
Sen. David Vitter said there is "absolutely" a commitment by Senate leaders to quickly approve a deal before lawmakers leave for the Memorial Day recess.
Negotiations to get support from House Democratic leaders are continuing. "We're still trying. I mean there's still some minor things being pushed back and forth," Shimkus said.
House Democrats, including Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, made an offer late Wednesday encompassing a handful of items that Shimkus declined to detail.
But a bill is moving ahead regardless. "We do not need them," Shimkus said. "That's why we have a deadline. I mean, we're doing it, it's going to happen."
But talks continue "because they're friends and we've worked a long time," he said. "They get credit for helping us get here. ... If we can, we'd like to have them on board."
There is already some House Democratic support and "we're getting more and more every day," Shimkus said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Crafting Additional SNUR To Limit Uses Of Controversial Solvent TCE
May 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is developing another proposed rule to restrict uses of the controversial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), once commonly used but now facing phaseouts and multiple actions after the agency linked it to fetal cardiac birth defects in a 2011 risk assessment, a conclusion strongly contested by various industries.
In its Action Initiation List (AIL) of rulemaking efforts launched in March -- and posted to the agency's website April 26 -- EPA says it is working on a significant new use rule (SNUR) for TCE uses as a spray degreser in non-aerosol applications, and plans to propose the rule within 12 months or less.
The proposed rulemaking falls under EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act authority in Section 5(a)(2). Such a rule requires companies who intend to manufacture, import, or process chemicals for a use under a SNUR to notify EPA 90 days before doing so for EPA review and approval.
The announcement follows EPA's publication in April of a final SNUR limiting other uses of TCE in consumer products, after the producer of a spray fixative product switched to an alternative chemical. The agency rebuffed advocates' calls to issue a broader SNUR for consumer uses, among them solvent degreasers, lubricants and pepper sprays.
In the April 8 Federal Register notice, EPA explained its limited rule by saying that SNURs address new, not existing uses of chemicals. The notice said that staff would monitor ongoing use of TCE in consumer products and consider other actions in the future.
It is unclear from the AIL if the spray degreasers EPA now plans to SNUR are in consumer products.
EPA is also weighing whether to attempt a rare ban per its rarely-used TSCA Section 6 authority, which the agency last used in its attempt to ban asbestos before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overrode EPA's rule in the 1991 case Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA.
EPA officials indicated in late 2014 that they had begun to explore issuing such a ban and had planned to propose the rule in March, though the agency's website now says that plans to do so in August.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-crafting-additional-snur-limit-uses-controversial-solvent-tce
-
New York County Children’s Product Law Enforcement Delayed
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Enforcement of a New York county law, banning the sale of children’s products containing certain substances, has been delayed.
The Westchester County Children’s Products Safety Act had been scheduled to take effect earlier this month. But according to a press release from the Toy Industry Association (TIA), the County executive’s office has confirmed it will not enforce the law, until ongoing litigation over a similar Albany County measure is settled.
Westchester is one of several counties in New York that has moved to regulate substances of concern in children’s products. Industry advocacy and litigation against the “patchwork” rules has resulted in delayed enforcement or modifications to many of them.
The stalled Westchester law seeks to ban the sale of children’s products containing any of eight substances, including some naturally occurring heavy metals.
According to TIA’s senior vice president of technical affairs, Al Kaufman: “The law seeks to regulate naturally occurring substances present in toys only as unavoidable contaminants at minute levels, and the law’s absolute banning language is scientifically unsupportable.”
He said the group was “pleased” that enforcement of the “flawed law” has been temporarily suspended.
TIA has also met with the Westchester County executive’s office to “discuss potential changes to the law and to possibly make exceptions for trace levels of common, unavoidable chemicals used in toy manufacturing”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47487/new-york-county-childrens-product-law-enforcement-delayed
-
Echa Substance Inventory to Help Low-Tonnage REACH Registrations
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Manufacturers or importers of phase-in low-tonnage substances can use a new Annex III inventory of substances which are likely to fulfil the criteria to be hazardous, to learn if they can register with a reduced set of information.
However, the reduced set can only be used if the Annex III criteria do not apply, Echa says, meaning that:
there is no indication that a substance is likely to have carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction (CMR, category 1A or 1B); persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties; or
there is no indication that a substance with dispersive or diffuse uses would be classified as hazardous for human health and/or as an environmental hazard under the CLP Regulation.
If a substance fulfils any of these criteria, it will need the full set of information including physico-chemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological, the agency says.
For the lowest tonnage levels from 1-10 tonnes per year, the standard information requirements are defined in Annex VII, which includes these on physico-chemical properties needed for all substances, and on toxicological and ecotoxicological properties.
Annex III was introduced in the REACH Regulation to reduce testing on low volume phase-in substances, where there is no predicted risk. As a result, the toxicological and ecotoxicological information is only required in the registration dossier, if it is predicted that a substance is likely to meet the criteria defined in Annex III, Echa says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47493/echa-substance-inventory-to-help-low-tonnage-reach-registrations
-
Echa Expert Group Revises Guidance for PBT Assessment
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa will issue for consultation its revised guidance on persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) assessment in June, and hopes to publish the final version before the end of May 2017.
The agency's PBT expert group compiled the multi-constituent draft guidance, with help from European trade bodies Concawe, Cefic and Ecetoc.
Following a discussion at its previous meeting last November, the expert group looked at a key section of the guidance on assessing substances containing multiple constituents, impurities or additives. Section 4.2.2 details approaches to dealing with substances of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological materials (UVCBs), as well as well-defined substances with multiple constituents.
The first approach covers known constituents in a substance, focusing on certain “worst case” chemicals. This is the preferred option, expert group co-chair Johanna Peltola-Thies told Chemical Watch, "but in some cases this might not be feasible and not easy to implement”.
In general, constituents have been considered relevant for assessment, when their concentrations exceed 0.1% weight-per-weight of a substance. But although testing efforts need to be proportionate, she said, "it should not be the case that substances, where all or many constituents are below 0.1%, escape the obligation to do a PBT assessment.”
One answer is so-called fraction profiling, where constituents with similar PBT properties, such as water solubility, are grouped together for assessment. But in doing so, “classical criteria for read-across need to be fulfilled." The alternative approach, taking each constituent in turn, is “very complex and very expensive”.
The expert group, industry and competent authorities have long used the known constituent and fraction profiling approaches, even though descriptions of the techniques had been lacking in guidance.
Evaluation advice
At its meeting, the group also considered its first case of a substance undergoing evaluation under REACH on the grounds that it is a suspected PBT/vPvB. The case relates to n,n'-bis(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine, which is used as a antidegradant in rubber materials.
The evaluation was conducted by the Belgian authorities, which particularly sought information on the chemical's degradation, based on soil simulation and hydrolysis tests. After the registrants had supplied this, Belgium asked the expert group for its scientific opinion of the data.
However, the group decided that it needs more study details before commenting.
Toxicokinetics data for terrestrial toxicity
The group also discussed a status update on Echa's work to assess the usefulness of mammalian toxicokinetic data in bioaccumulation assessment, for substances that accumulate in terrestrial rather than aquatic species.
The project began with perfluorinated chemicals, comparing mammalian toxicokinetics data with information on known PBT substances. With support from Norway, the list has now been extended to include biocides, pesticides and veterinary medicines.
“We are trying to find, from collective data, some interdependencies in relationships in order to help identify substances more prone to accumulate in terrestrial organisms,” said Ms Peltola-Thies. “This kind of support is urgently needed.”
By the end of this year, the group hopes to have more information to help it judge whether the data can give a “clear outcome”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47481/echa-expert-group-revises-guidance-for-pbt-assessment
-
May 19, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Testing proposals
Echa has received six testing proposals for four substances. These are:
melamine, with vertebrate testing proposed for hazard endpoint of reproductive toxicity (extended one-generation study);
methylene-bis-4,1-(N-phenylene-N'-butylurea), with testing proposed for bioaccumulation aquatic/sediment endpoint;
petroleum diesel/gas oil fraction, co-processed with renewable hydrocarbons of plant or animal origin, with testing proposed for reproductive toxicity (extended one-generation study); and
reaction mass of C18 (unsaturated) fatty acid amides/esters of diethanolamine, C16-18 (even-numbered) fatty amine, with testing proposed for reproductive toxicity (extended one-generation study) and (pre-natal developmental toxicity), and sub-chronic toxicity (90-day): oral.
Deadline for submitting information is 1 July.
Submitted CLH proposals
There are three newly submitted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossiers. France is behind two of them:
2-methoxyethyl acrylate. It it is proposing a future Annex VI entry of: flammable liquid 3, skin corrosion 1C; eye damage 1; skin sensitisation 1; and reprotoxic 1B; and
n-(hydroxymethyl)acrylamide (NMA). It is proposing a future Annex VI entry of: mutagenic 1B; carcinogenic 1B; and STOT RE 1 (peripheral nervous system).
The other dossier is for cobalt metal. The Netherlands is proposing a future Annex VI entry of: skin sensitisation 1; respiratory sensitisation 1; mutagenic 2; carcinogenic 1B (SCL 0.01%); reprotoxic 1B; and aquatic chronic toxicity 4.
Costs and benefits of restrictions study
Echa has published a study which aims to evaluate the costs and benefits of substance restriction under REACH. It summarises information on costs and human health and environmental benefits, provided in the restriction dossiers and opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-economic Analysis (Seac).
The main cost assessed is that of substitution. This involves investment and recurring costs of switching to an alternative substance.
New date for Chesar update release
The agency will release the update of its chemical safety assessment and reporting tool, Chesar, on 21 June. The release was originally scheduled for 29 April.
It is also publishing a minor update of Iuclid 6 at the same time. This will ensure its compatibility with Chesar 3. Only those using the reporting tool need update their Iuclid 6.
IR&CSA Guidance
Echa has updated part E, section E.2 of its Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (IR&CSA). This deals with risk characterisation for physico-chemical properties. The relevant sections have been redrafted to clarify the registrant's legal obligations and give advice on how to fulfil them.
The agency has also removed Appendix E1. This concerned questionnaires for assessing the risks of accident, fire and explosion. This comes after stakeholder feedback indicated that the example was not helpful.
The agency has also sent draft appendices to IR&CSA guidance for PEG consultation. These concern recommendations for nanomaterials for human health endpoints.
Feedback survey on CSR/ES roadmap and Enes
Echa has launched a survey to help it implement the REACH exposure scenario concept. It is aimed at the CSR/ES Roadmap and the Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios (Enes) communities. It is part of an interim evaluation that will help to set priorities and future direction. The survey will close on 8 June. The findings will be published in November.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47479/echa-round-up
-
Dorsey & Whitney's Rubin Says D.C. Circuit Decision Likely to Affect Substance of Arguments
May 19, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's surprise decision this week to push Clean Power Plan arguments to September before the full court, how are parties involved in the case shifting strategies in light of the broader review? During today's OnPoint, James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, discusses the impact of the court's decision on the power plan's legal timeline and prospects for the case overall.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney. Jim previously served for 15 years in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. Jim, it's always nice to have you on the show.
James Rubin: Thank you for having me back.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Jim, this week the D.C. Circuit threw everyone for a loop by pushing Clean Power Plan arguments to September and also before the full court. On the scale of surprising news from the court, where does this lie?
James Rubin: Pretty surprising. I mean, nobody asked for this. It was sua sponte. I don't think anybody expected -- I'm actually surprised that nobody asked for it given the way this case has gone. But I think it probably took everybody by surprise.
Monica Trauzzi: Other than changing everyone's summer vacation schedules, what does the decision mean ultimately for the legal timeline on the Clean Power Plan?
James Rubin: Well, it's interesting. I mean, it probably moves it forward by a couple months, if you assume that someone was going to move for rehearing on ... anyway. I mean, essentially you don't have to do that to get up to the Supreme Court, but the conventional wisdom is whoever lost this case would probably seek a rehearing to the full court and it'd go to the Supreme Court. And that process of asking for rehearing is a several-month process. It's 45 days, maybe if ... involved to seek it. You have to brief the issue, the court has to decide to hear the case by majority, and then hears the case. So we're talking about a number of months. This has been cut now -- moved up because instead of going to a panel decision and then a full-backed decision, you're going right to the full-backed decision. And so I think whatever you say about what happened here, it's likely that it probably moved the case up to the point where it could go to the Supreme Court by several months.
Monica Trauzzi: And why would the court move to make this decision?
James Rubin: Well, I think out of pragmatism. I mean, I hear a lot of folks kind of figuring out what this means with this court, and I could talk to you about that. But more generally I think the court probably figured that it was going to get this case anyway. It was a very important case. You have nearly every state in the union involved in this case. You have a sitting -- the State Department, you know, head of the State Department weighing in in an affidavit. You've got all these former Cabinet officials. You've got Congress people involved. And this is a very important case, and the court probably said, "We're going to have to hear this anyway; we might as well have all these arguments in front of all the judges and give the judges some time to actually cogitate, read the materials." I mean, you can think about all the judges now spending their entire summer vacations reading the thousands and thousands of pages of briefing, but you need time for that, so I think they did that.
And I think they also did it to create as best a record for review as they can. It'll be the full court, minus two judges, nine judges out of 11, many different perspectives. They're giving the Supreme Court the full view. And at the same time it's possible they thought if there -- you know, it's possible that they were considering this eight court -- eight judge issue. If this opinion stays the way it is because the Supreme Court decides to hear it but can't decide, at least you have the most complete case you could have out of the D.C. Circuit.
Monica Trauzzi: And following the decision all sides sort of were declaring that this was a win for them, as is to be expected in this town. Who do you think actually comes out ahead, though, now that this has been expedited?
James Rubin: Maybe the Supreme Court, because as I said before, they'll probably get a better ruling, a more complete ruling. I don't think you can really make a determination of what this means. I mean, obviously the court is saying this case is of -- you know, very important, because it's one of the standards for getting ... review. And because it's rare to do what they've done here, obviously they see it as a very important case. Does that mean that they've prejudged this issue one over the other? I've heard folks arguing that that might mean bad things for EPA. I wouldn't necessarily think that's the best response, first because this case is so hard to predict. How could you predict anything at this point? It's completely unexpected -- everything down the line has been unexpected. But more importantly it's just a procedural order. It's hard enough to read a judge's decisions from an oral argument, but a procedural order via the whole court, especially when no one's really read the briefing, it's hard to really say that anybody's taking this issue down seriously, you know, in a really regimented way. So I don't think you can read much into this.
I've heard it say that, "Well, the EPA said this case is really not a routine case, and therefore this is a cut on them." I don't think that's quite right either. I mean, the EPA thinks this is an important case, too. This is a very important rule for them. What they've argued in their briefs are that it's a standard application of Chevron deference. That doesn't mean that this is not an important matter. They certainly have asked a lot of other parties to get involved in this case to show its importance.
So I don't think, end of the day, granting it goes one way or the other. In terms of the makeup of the court -- I've also heard people going back and forth on this one. The EPA theoretically had a 2-to-1 advantage. I wouldn't necessarily call it an advantage. I would call it not a disadvantage, because the panel that heard the Murray case would've been a disadvantage. They already basically said two of the judges have pined about the problems with the Clean Power Plan. Here EPA had a chance with two judges who were at least democratically appointed, one by Obama. It gave them perception of an advantage, but they'd still have to get both judges to ... one -- two judges to root for them. Now there's five judges they have to get to root -- the majority of nine. Three of them are Obama appointees, five of them are Democrats, but they still have to convince all those five judges to root their side. So it's an advantage maybe, but I think EPA still has to make its case, so.
Monica Trauzzi: Right. And in terms of the arguments that were prepared and are now going to be prepared leading into September, does anything change? I mean, are the lawyers sitting back and thinking, OK, I need to tweak what I was going to say before the panel now that it's before the full panel?
James Rubin: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: Yeah?
James Rubin: Well, first of all because they have all these extra months to sit there and worry about what they're going to say, so I can imagine the lawyers are really happy about having all this time to think, because I'd say it makes more work for them. But yes, I think they now have to move up their thoughts of how to -- I mean, the attorneys do look at the judges they're talking to and they try to figure out how to appeal to the majority of the court. I think they'll be looking at some of the opinions that especially some of the newer judges from the Obama administration have picked and figure out where they've come out and basically figure out how to make the most appealable arguments to a much bigger court. Then again, they probably would've had to do this anyway if the case went ... after a panel decision. So again, it's not a new thing; it's just kind of -- it's sped it up. But I do think now the court has -- the parties have more time to think about this, I can imagine people's summer vacations are going to be a bit curtailed as they figure out how to make use of their time.
Monica Trauzzi: How does this all line up with the presidential elections, and what are the potential political amplifications as we head into the fall, a new president come January, and when the decision might come down from the court?
James Rubin: Well, the one thing that's for sure now is that you're not going to have a decision I think before the election. I mean, it's pretty clear -- they're not hearing the case until September 27th. I think you could've had a panel decision before the election, but even that was pushing it. And then a rehearing after that would've been somewhere in the new year. You might have a decision before the end of the year from the panel -- from the ... panel. That's probably unlikely. You might not even have it until after the inauguration. I think it just pushes things further on, but at the end of the day the administration of -- the next administration is still going to be the party probably making the decisions about litigation beyond the D.C. Circuit. So I don't think it's changed things that much. It's really just moved it to the Supreme Court quicker, which as I said before has implications about whether there's a nine-judge panel or an eight-judge panel on the Supreme Court when this case finally gets there. We don't know if that's going to happen.
Monica Trauzzi: Right. So many moving parts -- so interesting. Thank you for coming on the show.
James Rubin: Thank you very much.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2132/transcript
-
Dallas Gets Google Maps View of Its Methane Leaks
May 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Madelyn Beck
Natural gas leaks are usually invisible, but for some select cities, that's no longer the case.
The Environmental Defense Fund, Google Earth Outreach and University of Colorado researchers added a ninth city to their leak-detection network yesterday, using Google's street-mapping vehicles to detect methane leaks along Dallas' gas distribution lines.
Methane detectors found about one leak every 2 miles in Dallas areas, according to the projectwebsite, which is similar to the group's findings in Syracuse, N.Y. While that leak rate is much worse than Indianapolis' one leak per 20 miles, the group found it was less than in Boston or Staten Island, where it found one leak per mile.
Other cities already mapped include Chicago; Los Angeles; Jacksonville, Fla.; and Burlington, Vt. The group notes that many gas distribution lines are more than 50 years old.
EDF spokesman Jon Coifman said the project's main objective is to map the locations and sizes of "the smaller stuff." Coifman said that's because utilities are generally aware of large, dangerous leaks and spend less time assessing the small ones. He said if utilities have a better read on which small leak is the worst, they can better prevent unwanted emissions.
So far, he said the program hasn't found any dangerous leaks that the utility wasn't already aware of.
"While most of these leaks aren't an immediate safety threat, they are a threat to the environment," EDF's Millie Baird, who directs the fund's Office of the Chief Scientist, said in apromotional video about the project. Baird added that with the public mapping system, people can work on climate change on a local level, and "that will make a difference."
While some utilities were wary of scaring locals with little orange and red leak-highlighting dots mapped on their streets, Coifman said there has been little negative feedback in cities after the mapping process. He added that some utilities have started using the maps to help understand new regulations and overall problems concerning methane emissions.
"This is becoming a bigger and bigger challenge," he said. "Our intent first and foremost is to say to everyone, prioritize this issue."
New Jersey utilities and regulators have already used the system to allocate nearly $1 billion in funds to fix gas lines in the most effective way, Baird said in the program's video.
While the next cities to be mapped have not yet been disclosed, Coifman said many more are in the pipeline. He added that neither Google nor EDF wants to stay in the methane detection business, but both want to continue highlighting methane leak problems in every part of the country, hopefully inspiring more public and utility action.
"I don't think we've quite determined the point where we think we've done all we can do," he said, "but the work is continuing."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/19/stories/1060037505
-
GOP Seeks to Delay Ozone Standards that Could Slow Energy Development
May 18, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By James Osborne
Republicans are telling the Obama’s administration to slow down on lowering ozone limits.
Legislation moving through Congress would force the Environmental Protection Agency to wait until 2025 to designate which parts of the country are in violation of the administration new standard. That designation, which sets in motion tougher air pollution controls that could slow industrial and oil and gas development around the country, is scheduled for late next year.
The House bill, which so far has support from just a handful of Democrats, was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday and is now expected to move to the floor of the Republican-controlled House for a vote.
“This bill is not an attempt to reverse our goal of improving air quality,” Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, the bill’s lead sponsor, said in a hearing Tuesday. “This bill recognizes what we all know. EPA can’t keep pace with deadlines to lower standards while we require them to write the rules for changing standards.”
Ozone standards have traditionally been applied to urban areas like Houston, where the large volume of car emissions have raised ozone levels to the point a visible smog can be observed. But the new standard could expand non-attainment zones into rural areas, including oil and gas fields including Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale, eastern Utah and possibly central Oklahoma.
Already Texas and a coalition of other states are suing the EPA in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to block the new standard.
At a hearing Wednesday, Democrats including Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois argued slowing the new ozone rule would endanger public health and raise health care costs.
“It allows areas with the dirtiest air to slow progress to cleaning up their air,” Pallone said. “It means more air pollution, more air pollution control costs and more litigation.”
The Republican-led House bill would also force the EPA to consider economic factors in its decision making, something Democrats and environmentalists have long fought against.
Senators Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, and Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, introduced a companion bill in the senate last month that is awaiting a vote in the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/05/18/republicans-seek-to-delay-ozone-standards-that-could-slow-energy-development/
-
Oil Bulls See U.S. Shale Patch Rising Again by 2020
May 19, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Oil and gas production in the United States could reach a new record volume by 2020, according to a working paper published yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office.
That projection is based on efficiency gains in the industry and new technology that will allow oil companies to develop new shale oil wells with a lower per-barrel oil price. The active rig count may start to increase again later this year, the CBO paper predicts.
Still, the CBO paper bucks the short-term trend lines laid out by oil market analysts. Production out of the nation's shale fields will drop more sharply than expected in 2016, according to CBO, particularly out of the leading U.S. shale and tight oil plays: the Permian Basin formation and the Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Bakken shales.
"In the base case, production of oil in the four key regions declines by 0.89 million barrels per day between April 2016 (the last data point) and its trough in May 2017," writes Mark Lasky, the author and CBO researcher behind the study.
U.S. crude production fell last year by about 400,000 barrels a day, a consequence of the collapse in oil prices that began in mid-2014. A drop of 900,000 barrels a day by summer 2017 would mean a rapidly accelerating rate of decline. Other experts expect the total daily U.S. oil output to drop by less than 900,000 barrels, as the decline of onshore shale oil output is matched by rising production in the Gulf of Mexico.
Putting to the test a model using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Drilling Productivity Report, Lasky sees a sharp drop in shale oil output through the summer of 2017. After that, he sees a slow, steady rise that by 2020 returns production to its 2015 peak.
Far cry from $100 oil
Even as the rig count rises later this year, U.S. crude production is expected to continue falling, as the decline rates of older wells exceed production from new drilling.
Starting in 2017, analysts say oil producers will put technology and know-how to use and start thriving again in a low-price environment. CBO analysts project rising U.S. production, recouping barrels lost to the price collapse.
By 2020, according to Lasky's analysis, the U.S. oil industry will be back to levels of activity seen before crude prices fell. At the most bearish end of the spectrum, oil prices will still be around $33 a barrel. The bullish scenario has oil trading at $73 a barrel at points over the next five years.
Still, $73 is considerably lower than the $100 per barrel that oil traded at before the price collapsed. The consensus among U.S. oil industry observers is that the industry's plight gets a lot better once per-barrel prices start averaging around $60.
Idle, but ready to pump
Brent crude oil contract prices were nearing $50 per barrel earlier this week on word that the Canadian oil sands region wildfire situation had worsened and on losses to Nigerian oil output.
CBO communications associate Deborah Kilroe clarified that the office's shale oil study is based on past industry behavior. That data would have captured any "re-fracking" activity that occurred in the recent past, whereby a company re-enters a spent oil well to give it another hydraulic fracturing treatment, thereby inducing even more production.
One big unknown is the drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells . Producers drilled these wells while oil prices fell, then never went ahead with production. Returning to those wells could boost oil production relatively inexpensively.
With that, a company could rapidly increase its oil production without contracting a drilling rig, leading to an output uptick while the rig count is unaffected.
About 4,000 oil DUC wells are believed to exist.
Whatever becomes of the DUC wells, Lasky's study suggests the industry can expect to start seeing a light at the end of the tunnel as the "bottom" for the oil industry bust may be achieved this summer.
Nearly five dozen oil and gas companies have declared bankruptcy since oil collapsed. More bankruptcies are expected. But a return to rig contracts and increases to the active rig count will also boost oil producers and service companies, including the companies emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/19/stories/1060037533
-
PMHSA to Release Final Investigative Report Into Plains Oil Spill
May 19, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has completed its investigation into last year's Plains All American Pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara, Calif., and the agency will release its final investigative report later today, a PHMSA official told POLITICO.
The May 2015 pipeline rupture dumped more than 100,000 gallons of oil near a Santa Barbara beach. Plains and one of its employees were indicted by a grand jury over the incident this week.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
White House Outlines Agenda for Obama's Final Months
May 19, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
The Obama administration's latest compilation of pending regulatory actions shows more than 3,300 of them flowing through the pipeline, including a controversial stream protection rule and action to curb venting and flaring of natural gas from drilling projects on public lands.
Federal agencies aim to roll out energy efficiency standards, updates to resource management plans, coal ash rules and further actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Released yesterday, the spring regulatory agenda is the White House's second-to-last biannual roundup before a new president takes over in 2017.
While U.S. EPA has issued many of President Obama's top climate priorities already, the agency has more than 50 rulemakings either planned or underway that would affect the regulation of lead, ozone and other air pollutants apart from greenhouse gases.
On the technology front, the Department of Energy is planning a new rule to "employ innovative technologies" in its loan guarantee program.
The rule, scheduled to be proposed this month and finalized in November, will target "loan guarantees for projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued," the agenda said.
Otherwise, DOE is planning to finalize more than a dozen energy efficiency rules on buildings and appliances this year. That includes several major actions necessary for the administration to reach its target goal of cutting 3 billion tons of CO2 emissions -- a key plank in the president's Climate Action Plan.
According to the agenda, the administration is delaying a major rule on lightbulbs from October to December. The proposal would essentially phase out incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs that can't meet the efficiency standard.
There are some sharp differences between environmentalists and the lighting industry about the requirements (Greenwire, May 17). Congress set a December deadline for a revised lightbulb rule as part of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.
A rule for central air conditioners and heat pumps is also being delayed from May to August. Advocates are watching it closely, in part because of its potential energy savings.
Efficiency advocates and industry leaders reached agreement earlier this year on core elements of a standard. Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said the August timeline "makes sense" since negotiators didn't reach consensus until January. "Seven or eight months to turn that agreement into a rule is about what prior rules have taken," he said.
Meanwhile, a final rule for residential gas furnaces is scheduled for August. It was previously supposed to be out in January, but sharp differences remain between industry and efficiency advocates on a standard.
Major energy bills moving through the House and Senate also address the rule, with the Senate version calling for a final standard to be contingent on a new advisory group convened by the secretary of Energy.
The agenda also set new timelines for other appliances. A battery charger rule, for example, is expected to be finalized in May rather than December.
The timeline for a final determination on whether DOE will write proposed efficiency standards for computers and battery backup systems moved to July. Previously, DOE planned a final decision in December.
EPA's shrinking climate to-do list
EPA's air office is still aiming to complete several rulemakings to limit greenhouse gas emissions. EPA ticked a key item off its to-do list last week with the release of final regulations to limit methane emissions from new oil and gas operations. It also began moving on regulations covering existing sources in the sector.
In July, the agency aims to release another final rule to limit methane emissions, this time from municipal solid waste landfills. In 2014, landfills were the third largest source of methane in the country, EPA said, but the agency has not updated performance standards for landfills in two decades.
EPA is also aiming to release a final finding in July that greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes endanger public health and welfare.
That finding is the first step toward regulating emissions from the aviation sector under the Clean Air Act, but EPA has already stated that it would not issue actual regulations until after President Obama leaves office (Greenwire, May 11).
EPA's final greenhouse gas rule for semi-trucks and large pickup trucks and vans is scheduled for release in August. That rule, which EPA is developing with the Department of Transportation, represents a second phase of greenhouse gas reductions for heavy-duty vehicles.
EPA plans to release a proposed rule, also in August, to set a threshold for greenhouse gases that trigger permitting requirements for emissions sources. The proposal responds to a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that threw out part of EPA's permitting program for heat-trapping gases (Greenwire, March 31).
In October, EPA plans to finalize updates to its greenhouse-gas-reporting program. Proposed changes include a requirement that underground coal mines measure methane emissions more frequently. The coal industry is opposed (Greenwire, April 7). Also in October, EPA plans to finalize a proposal to phase out heat-trapping refrigerants (Greenwire, May 2).
Not included in the spring regulatory agenda: EPA's plans for its Clean Energy Incentive Program and model carbon trading rules, both of which are tied to the Clean Power Plan. EPA did not respond to a question about why those programs were not included, but agency officials have said in recent weeks that they are moving forward on both (ClimateWire, May 6).
EPA has more than 50 rulemakings either planned or underway that would affect regulation of lead, ozone and other air pollutants apart from greenhouse gases.
By this October, for example, the agency is scheduled to wrap up work on proposed revisions to its regional haze regulations geared toward improving visibility in large national parks and wildlife refuges.
EPA unveiled its proposed changes last month (Greenwire, April 26). Following a public hearing this morning at agency headquarters that attracted almost 30 speakers, a second hearing on the draft is set for June 1 in Denver.
In September, EPA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking setting a range of requirements for implementation of its controversial new ambient air quality standard for ozone of 70 parts per billion. Among the areas that will be covered: the timing of state implementation plan submissions and potential revocation of the previous 75 ppb ozone benchmark set in 2008.
Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 4775, a bill that would delay implementation of the new standard by eight years (Greenwire, May 18). The bill's supporters say that states currently face the prospect of having to comply with two standards simultaneously. In the rulemaking planned for September, EPA intends to include "anti-backsliding requirements" if the 2008 standards are revoked.
The agency is also moving ahead with revisions to its "exceptional events" rule, which effectively gives states a pass on air pollution violations deemed outside of their control. EPA officials have touted the rule as one tool for compliance with the new ozone standard. After releasing its proposed changes in November, EPA is scheduled to release the final rule in September.
Around the same time, regulators also plan to put the finishing touches on last year's proposal to leave unchanged the existing air quality standard for lead of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter. That benchmark has been in place since 2008.
Interior
The Bureau of Land Management by November plans to release a final rule to curb the venting and flaring of natural gas from drilling projects on public lands.
The draft rule released in January would require operators to use off-the-shelf technologies to reduce flaring, which happens when operators burn off excess gas, and would seek to eliminate venting, which is the direct release of methane into the atmosphere (Greenwire, Jan. 22).
The rule would also update regulations to give BLM more flexibility to raise the existing 12.5 percent royalty rate for onshore oil and gas production, set in 1920. No royalty hike is currently planned.
BLM as early as this month plans to release a draft rule that would require applications for drilling permits be filed electronically, a move that aims to expedite the review-and-approval process for new and modified wells.
By September, BLM plans to issue a final rule updating how it revises its resource management plans, which could have a major impact on how the agency manages activities like energy development, mining, grazing and recreation.
The draft "Planning 2.0" regulation, released in February, has drawn some concern from Western counties over whether it could reduce their influence over BLM's land-use decisions (E&E Daily, May 9).
BLM's target date for finalizing a rule establishing a competitive bidding process for solar and wind development rights on government lands has slipped from December 2015 to midsummer.
The draft rule issued in September 2014 would also set rental and bonding requirements to ensure a fair rate of return to taxpayers. The draft drew major pushback from solar industry officials.
Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management by year's end plans to finalize updates to its 36-year-old regulations governing air emissions from offshore oil and gas activity. A draft rule released in March sought to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.
BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement by next month plan to release a final rule governing oil and gas exploration in Arctic waters.
The final rule will provide a regulatory road map for future exploration, even as global oil and gas companies have recently pulled out of the U.S. Arctic and the Obama administration has yet to decide whether to offer future lease sales there. The administration pushed back the release from earlier this year.
The Fish and Wildlife Service by summer's end expects to finalize a draft rule to significantly increase oversight of thousands of oil and gas operations in national wildlife refuges.
The draft rule released last December would require companies that want to modify their wells or drill new ones to obtain permits from FWS and set tough new standards for all operations that cover everything from waste management to unused infrastructure.
The draft rule also would require permits for well plugging, access fees for disturbing refuge lands or waters, and flexible bonding standards (Greenwire, Dec. 10, 2015).
The National Park Service is set to release a final rule governing the development of privately owned minerals within its borders by September.
Coal and mining
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement plans to publish its most controversial proposed regulation -- the stream protection rule -- in July, seven years after giving advance notice of rulemaking (Greenwire, May 13).
The agency also plans to release another rule before Obama leaves office. Due out in September, it would alter fees on permitting and enforcement to ensure companies pay for OSMRE's regulatory oversight.
OSMRE is also kicking off a rulemaking process in October to address concerns that coal companies are temporarily idling operations to delay reclamation, a practice environmentalists condemned as "zombie" mining. Under the proposed rule, permittees would have to reapply for a permit if operations ceased for more than 180 days.
OSMRE wants to begin nailing down new standards in March 2017 -- after the president leaves office -- for when coal ash, a residue of burning coal, can be claimed during reclamation to fill in abandoned mines.
The agency has also pushed two controversial regulations beyond the Obama presidency -- a proposed rule to regulate blasting at strip coal mines and an update of mine dam safety rules. Rulemaking won't begin until 2018 at the earliest.
BLM is also waiting until 2017 to take final action on a rule altering coal management rules, including increasing lease modification size, extending mine life spans and clarifying the royalty rate on continuous highwall mining operations.
Another Interior agency, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, has plans to finish several proposed rules before January. In June, ONRR expects to publish a final rule overhauling coal valuation.
EPA plans to publish two rules updating environmental protections at uranium mines this year. The rule due out in August would, if necessary, revise federal standards for radon emissions from operating uranium mill tailings.
Another rule set for release in November will address potential impacts to groundwater from "significant changes" in uranium mining technology, particularly in-situ recovery.
Within the Department of Labor, the Mine Safety and Health Administration is set to notify stakeholders of two proposed rulemakings by year's end.
One proposed rule would update 1985 regulations limiting miner exposure to crystalline silica dust. Overexposure can pose serious, and in some cases fatal, health risks to miners (Greenwire, March 25).
Water
The lead contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., is looming large on the EPA Office of Water's agenda this year. The office is working on two proposed rules that seek to avoid the conditions that led to the crisis.
One proposal would implement the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, which passed as part of a massive water resources package. A proposed rule is scheduled for October of this year, and a final rule is set for 2017.
Another proposal would seek to ban the use of lead pipes, plumbing fixtures, solder and flux as directed under the 2011 Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. The rule would redefine the definition of "lead free" plumbing materials from 8 percent or less lead material to 0.25 percent or less.
The Flint calamity, in which untreated water corroded aging lead service lines and contaminated tap water with the powerful neurotoxin, has placed pressure on EPA to create incentives to fix the nation's aging water infrastructure.
The agency has said it is working on an update to the 25-year-old Lead and Copper Rule, which regulates the management of lead service lines but doesn't require the removal of the pipes. The Lead and Copper Rule changes were not included in the administration's new Unified Agenda.
EPA is also working to determine how it will regulate stormwater runoff from forest roads, following a 2003 federal appeals court ruling directing the agency to address the source of water pollution. Under a settlement last year, the agency had until this month to decide whether forest runoff should be regulated (E&ENews PM, Sept. 16, 2015).
EPA formally exempted logging roads from regulation in 2013, but the question of whether other types of forest roads should be regulated -- including those for mining or oil and gas drilling -- is unresolved.
The agency restated its intention to propose water quality criteria for selenium in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in California to protect birds and aquatic life.
Soils in the Bay Delta region naturally have elevated levels of selenium, but agricultural drainage and other processes can concentrate it.
Oceans
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plans to release rules that address everything from marine mammal harassment to seafood imports.
As soon as June, NOAA could finalize a permit that allows the U.S. Navy to harass marine mammals during its war games in the Gulf of Alaska.
The training exercises are at the center of a debate over whether the live shelling, surface explosions and sonar use hurt fish and marine mammals (Greenwire, June 16, 2015).
NOAA has proposed a five-year permit -- lasting until May 2021 -- that would allow the Navy to harass marine mammals during its exercises, contingent on various requirements to reduce the impacts.
Also on NOAA's agenda for June is a final rule to change its "National Standard" guidelines, which instruct regional fishery councils on how to best follow the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The proposal addresses some of the issues that Republicans have brought on in congressional debates over the act's reauthorization. Conservationists assert that it would weaken "safeguards" that ensure the health of fish stocks (Greenwire, July 30, 2015).
Environmental groups likely will be more pleased with a final rule -- due out in August -- that would ban the importation of fish caught using gear that kills or injures more mammals than allowed under U.S. standards. The rule comes out of a settlement with several groups (Greenwire, Jan. 6, 2015).
NOAA also plans to propose a slew of rules, including ones to expand the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, authorize marine mammal harassment from Gulf of Mexico seismic surveys and designate critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon.
Pipelines
A pipeline safety rule requiring excess flow valves on new or replaced service lines for multifamily homes and businesses is slated to be finalized early next year.
Congress mandated the rule in its 2011 pipeline safety bill to ensure technology that would shut off the flow of gas during a leak to prevent an explosion. According to the Department of Transportation docket, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration plans to finish the rule in January.
Both chambers of Congress are moving forward with a bill to reauthorize PHMSA that would require federal regulators to prioritize the completion of existing mandates.
PHMSA is slated to finish two rules in October.
The first, proposed in the wake of a 2010 crude oil spill near Marshall, Mich., is related to address the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines. The rule would close regulatory gaps and ensure operators are increasing detection and remediation of unsafe conditions.
A second rule would add a specific time frame for telephone or email notifications of accidents and incidents. It would also amend operator qualification requirements, drug and alcohol testing, and standards for in-line inspection.
Chemicals
EPA's long-stalled plan to require public and commercial buildings to follow certain lead abatement regulations that currently only apply to homes is on track to begin next year. EPA said it would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in April 2017
EPA is continuing to seek restrictions on two chemicals under a rarely used provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act. A plan to use Section 6 of the law -- the same used in a failed attempt to ban asbestos in 1991 -- is still ongoing.
EPA planned to unveil a proposed rule by March to restrict trichloroethylene, or TCE; N-Methylpyrrolidone, or NMP; and methylene chloride.
It now says a proposal won't come until September for TCE and October for NMP and a related TCE vapor degreasing notice. The actions were previously scheduled for March, and before that January.
EPA may add new chemicals to a list companies are required to disclose under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. EPA plans to issue a proposed rule by August to consider adding nonylphenol ethoxylates to the Toxic Release Inventory.
The agency continued to delay a timeline to finalize a rule on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. EPA said it now plans to publish the rule in July, a delay from May, and before that from November 2015. EPA sent the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review earlier this year (Greenwire, March 31).
EPA still plans to issue a proposed rule to require companies making nanoscale materials to provide more information to the agency. The target for the final rule remained October, though the agency once planned to issue it by next month.
The agency expects to finalize a proposed rule to modernize its Risk Management Program for industrial facilities by December. It proposed the rule earlier this year (E&ENews PM, March 11).
A plan to finalize a rule to prevent hazardous waste disposal of pharmaceuticals has been pushed back to October. It was previously scheduled for September.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission continues to weigh a proposed rule to ban additional phthalates, plasticizers linked to health problems, in children's products and child care articles.
The agency listed no target date for approving a final rule, which is required under a 2008 law and has faced heavy industry opposition. CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said staff was continuing to prepare a briefing package for commissioners.
The Department of Homeland Security is set to begin an update of its Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program in September, a delay from July.
A pending DHS rule to regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate fertilizer appears to have been removed from the regulatory agenda and abandoned. It previously was listed as "undetermined," with no estimated completion date given.
'Catalogue of regulatory delay'
Clyde Wayne Crews, an advocate with the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, tallies an increase in larger-scale rules under Obama, compared to his Republican predecessor.
The agenda shows federal agencies have completed 36 rules projected to have economic effects of at least $100 million annually, with another 123 actions in the pre-rule, proposed or final stage.
For completed economically significant rules, Crews notes the average for Obama's first seven years was 67, while George W. Bush's average over his eight years was 49.
Crews told Greenwire that Obama has "followed through" on talk of going around Congress with additional "regulatory dark matter" happening off the books in the form of memoranda, guidelines and bulletins.
By contrast, the agenda is more a "catalogue of regulatory delay," to James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform. He said the idea of federal agencies running around lawmakers on Capitol Hill is a "fictional narrative."
When Obama took office in 2009, there was a buildup of rules that didn't get done under the Republican administration. The "inaction of Bush," has come back to reflect poorly on the Obama administration, he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/19/stories/1060037564
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested