Preview Newsletter
ACC AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) How One Senator Can Delay the TSCA Update
May 27, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
So close. And still so far. -
(ACC Mentioned) Athens Engineer Testifies Against proposed House Bill
May 28, 2016 | The Athens Messenger
By Sara Brumfield
Athens City Engineer Andy Stone recently testified before the Ohio House of Representatives against a proposal that some legislators allege would open the state up to more competition when it comes to the type of piping used for public water and sewer lines. -
Vitter Highlights Preemption Provision As Key Tenet Of TSCA Reform Bill
May 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is highlighting language on structuring how and when EPA chemical safety rules would preempt those established by states as a key tenet of the final bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), following years of negotiations on the contentious issue that blocked previous efforts at TSCA reform. -
Rand Paul Derails TSCA Reform in The Senate
May 27, 2016 | Chem.Info
By MEagan Parrish
Just when it looked like TSCA reform was on track to get passed by both chambers of Congress this week, the bill hit a brick wall — named Rand Paul. -
Paul Thwarts GOP Leadership’s Quick-Pitch Passage of New EPA Powers
May 27, 2016 | Breitbart
By Neil W. McCabe
Capitol Hill got a shock from the junior senator from Kentucky and former Republican candidate for president Sen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky. when he slammed the brakes on one of the top legislative priorities of the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund. -
Is Your Couch Killing You?
May 27, 2016 | Willamette Week
By Beth Slovic
In recent weeks, Portlanders have locked their attention on air pollution from Bullseye Glass, but there are other potential health hazards far closer to home than the Southeast Portland factory. -
EPA Study Review May Help Calculate Existing Oil & Gas Air Rule Benefits
May 27, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is poised to this month complete a peer review of how to incorporate a study on monetized benefits of reducing ozone-related mortality due to cutting methane emissions into regulatory analyses, which advocates say might help EPA use data from its draft information request for existing oil and gas operations in order to calculate benefits of a potential methane rule for those sources. -
Federal Study Clears Fracking Off California Coast
May 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Hydraulic fracturing and other techniques for stimulating oil and natural gas wells should cause no significant harm when used in federal waters off the California coast, a federal analysis concluded. -
Environmental Groups Urge Review of Air Enforcement Policy
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General should review an updated agency enforcement policy defining “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act, according to the Environmental Integrity Project and other environmental organizations -
The Clean Water Rule: One Year Later
May 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Gene Karpinski
A year ago today, at a spot overlooking the Anacostia River, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyand Army Corps of Engineers Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy clinked water glasses after finalizing the Clean Water Rule.
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) How One Senator Can Delay the TSCA Update
May 27, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich
So close. And still so far.
Instead of yeas and nays in the much-anticipated May 26 vote on a bill that would that would update the laws governing the manufacture, transportation and regulation of chemicals in the United States, what people heard as they followed efforts to update the Toxic Substances Control Act sounded more like screeching brakes in the U.S. Senate.
More than two years of hard work and careful negotiations was put on hold by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who refused to let the bill be approved under unanimous consent.
It’s a parliamentary procedure used daily in the Senate to move bills along when they are non-controversial or have been otherwise heavily negotiated and tweaked. Under the process, the bill would be deemed passed unless a single senator objected — which Paul did.
“This bill came here on Tuesday. It's 180 pages long. It involves new criminalization, new crimes that will be created at the federal level. It includes preemption of states,” Paul said on the Senate floor Thursday. “And so I think it deserves to be read, to be understood and to be debated, and so I object to just rushing this through and saying ‘Oh, you can't read the bill’.”
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of the primary architects of the bill, criticized Paul for his objection from the floor, saying the bill has been available for any member to review for a week.
“No one objects to all members of the Senate reading the bill. I encourage all members of the senate to read the bill,” Vitter said. “I regret an objection to this very reasonable path forward.”
While Paul’s block doesn’t doom the bill, the Senate now has to wait at least two weeks to consider the bill without his consent, between procedural rules and the chamber’s recess next week for Memorial Day.
Industry was less than thrilled at the most recent pothole in the already bumpy road to chemical regulation reform.
“We are sincerely disappointed that Sen. Paul has decided to stand in the way of efforts to provide greater certainty and clarity to industry while holding EPA to strict accountability and transparency requirements,” said the American Chemistry Council in a statement. “Sen. Paul’s decision to block final passage of legislation to bring chemical regulation into the 21st century is putting the brakes on common sense policy that will have far-reaching benefits for America’s economy and public health. We hope Senator Paul will quickly reconsider his position.”
To be sure, the move is a momentum killer, especially after it appeared to be smooth sailing for the bill after resolving intense and difficult negotiations with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who had serious problems with some sections of the TSCA update.
The final version of the bipartisan bill sailed through the House earlier in the week on a 403-12 roll call vote and was expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama before the Memorial Day break.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160527/BLOG11/160529848/how-one-senator-can-delay-the-tsca-update
-
(ACC Mentioned) Athens Engineer Testifies Against proposed House Bill
May 28, 2016 | The Athens Messenger
By Sara Brumfield
Athens City Engineer Andy Stone recently testified before the Ohio House of Representatives against a proposal that some legislators allege would open the state up to more competition when it comes to the type of piping used for public water and sewer lines. However, the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers says the proposal is just a lobbying effort by the plastics industry.
House Bill 214 would “restrict when a public authority may preference a particular type of piping material for certain public improvements.” It states that a public authority — such as state, county, municipal corporation, or water or sewer district — shall not prefer one type of suitable piping material over another for water, waste water or storm water drainage projects that use state funding.
The language of the bill is brief, vague, and, according to OSPE Legislative Agent Holly Ross, addresses an issue that doesn’t exist. Instead, she said the legislation would create problems for public engineers.
“Public engineers are the ones with the experience, education and code of ethics. We need to continue to trust them,” Ross said.
Stone provided similar testimony to the Ohio House Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“This legislation, as written, is very broad and appears to imply that public entities are biased,” Stone told the committee. “The bill also addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. To protect the public, all public water systems and sanitary sewer systems must be designed by a registered professional engineer and reviewed by the Ohio EPA. This practice has worked well over the years and should remain in place.”
Stone added, “House Bill 214 attempts to take the selection of piping materials away from the most qualified decision maker, the professional engineer.”
According to Stone, the proposed legislation would require public agencies to accept whatever piping material a contractor puts forth in a public bid.
He also pointed out that professional engineers are bound by law and a code of ethics to help communities make the best decision for the public. Stone said just because a material is deemed suitable for a waterline, gas line or sanitary sewer in a laboratory does not necessarily make it suitable for the varying environmental site conditions taken into account by a design professional.
He said the city of Athens generally requires ductile iron pipe for public water mains and PVC pipe for public sanitary sewer mains.
Ross said that the main proponent of the bill is the American Chemistry Council, which lobbies in part for the plastics industry. She said that similar proposals have been introduced in several states, however all were rejected by state legislatures. Ross said she hopes Ohio isn’t the first state in the U.S. to adopt such a law.
“I have nothing against plastic pipe, which is made by the industry that is the proponent of this legislation,” Stone said in his testimony. “In the city of Athens, we use plastic pipe extensively in applications that I — as a registered professional engineer in responsible charge — deem appropriate. But ultimately, House Bill 214 takes decision-making away from professional engineers and local communities and makes a complex, site-specific decision just another paragraph in the statute.”
The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Andy Thomspon, R-Marietta, and co-sponsored by Ron Hood, R-Ashville (who represents Trimble Twp. in Athens County), and Wes Retherford, R-Hamilton.
http://www.athensmessenger.com/news/athens-engineer-testifies-against-proposed-house-bill/article_48525428-9419-548a-adca-b85b33b79ce8.html
-
Vitter Highlights Preemption Provision As Key Tenet Of TSCA Reform Bill
May 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is highlighting language on structuring how and when EPA chemical safety rules would preempt those established by states as a key tenet of the final bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), following years of negotiations on the contentious issue that blocked previous efforts at TSCA reform.
“Obviously one of the big issues is federal preemption,” Vitter said during a May 25 exclusive interview with Inside EPA in response to a question about the major components of the pending final bill.
Vitter said the final language “fundamentally achieves our objective” of giving industry “one federal rulebook moving forward,” instead of a patchwork of state-by-state chemical safety regulations, though he acknowledged there are exceptions in the language to when state rules would be preempted by EPA actions.
“I would highlight that because” the language not only creates a uniform “rulebook” for states, but it also was the end result of negotiations that took place over the past several years, culminating in a compromise crafted by Senate lawmakers who had previously been unable to end a stalemate over preemption.
The consensus language would exempt the 10 initial substances that EPA is required to designate high priority chemicals within the first 180 days of the law taking effect, as well as chemicals that industry submits for assessment, from the preemption “pause” that blocks new states requirements while EPA assesses whether a chemical is safe. The language also provides additional time frames during which states can act to finalize new requirements for that chemical.
House lawmakers on May 24 approved the TSCA bill, H.R. 2576, in a 403-13 vote that sent the measure to the upper chamber. Senators supportive of the bill had hoped to approve it before Congress' Memorial Day recess, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) as of press time had a hold on the bill, saying he needed more time to read it. Paul says he has concerns about the bill's criminal enforcement and state preemption provisions.
In a floor speech May 26, Paul said he is concerned that the bill “takes the power away from the states and creates a new federal regulatory regime” and that he wants ample time to read the bill.
If Paul eventually drops his hold, or if proponents of the legislation can secure 60 votes to overcome Paul's hold, then the bill is expected to clear the Senate and head to President Obama for his signature. The White House in a Statement of Administration Policy this month offered support for the measure.
The legislation would be a significant overhaul of the 1976 TSCA and give EPA major new powers to address both existing and new chemicals of concern, funded largely through industry fees.
'Important' Update
In the interview with Inside EPA, Vitter said that the final TSCA reform bill marks a “really important update” to overhaul the decades-old chemical safety law, which has not been amended since passage in 1976.
He said that the landmark compromise would both fully ensure public health and safety from chemical exposure and ensure that American companies remain competitive in the science and innovation arena.
Preemption was seen as a major hurdle at times during negotiations over TSCA reform, which initially began in 2011 with legislation introduced by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that failed to pick up any Republican sponsors. Lautenberg and Vitter later introduced bipartisan legislation.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) led Democrats on reform efforts after Lautenberg's death and in 2015 Udall and Vitter introduced S. 697, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
In the House, Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) introduced a narrower TSCA reform bill. Preemption was a major sticking point in both chambers, and also in the informal conference talks that ensued after the House and Senate approved their initial bills.
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had blocked the Senate TSCA reform measure for many months last year over concerns that it too broadly preempted state chemical safety laws. However, earlier this month Boxer and EPW Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) announced a compromise on preemption that Boxer said she would support.
Boxer's concerns stemmed from the language that would create a “pause,” that would effectively halt all new state chemical requirements beginning when EPA defines and publishes a scope of the safety assessment and ending when the agency finalizes a safety determination for a chemical under section 6 of TSCA or misses a three-and-a-half year deadline for issuing the determination.
States may not take new actions to restrict chemicals subject to final rules, but existing state requirements are grandfathered in the legislation and therefore not subject to preemption. Moreover, once EPA issues a safety determination finding a chemical does not meet the safety standard, states could again take new actions while the agency is developing its final section 6 regulation.
Consensus Language
The new consensus language would exempt the 10 initial work plan chemicals EPA would be required to assess within 180 days of enactment of the law from the so-called preemption pause.
It would also exempt restrictions for substances which industry is seeking the EPA reviews from the pause, one industry source says, adding that, “The pause has no parallel in federal statutes.”
Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison in a May 23 blog post writes, EPA must provide at least 1 year between when it identifies a chemical for prioritization and when the scope of the associated risk evaluation is published, which provides a window during which states could still act to restrict that chemical, before the pause begins. Additionally, states may seek waivers from preemption.
In the House, Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), one of nine Democrats who voted against the bill along with three Republicans, writes in a May 24 statement that preemption remains his biggest concern.
“The inclusion of 'regulatory pause,' which prevents states from acting for three and a-half years while EPA is reviewing a chemical, is a misguided and unprecedented policy that we should not encourage in a chemical reform overhaul. The lack of balance between new federal authorities and restrictions on states’ ability to further regulate is a core flaw in reform that cannot be ignored. I do not believe the modest improvements this legislation makes to the federal program are sufficient to warrant these restrictions,” Tonko said.
A second industry source and former state regulator says that the preemption discussion had never been of concern to them, saying it seemed “theoretical, as opposed to a real world problem,” given the breadth of chemicals in the marketplace that EPA must now begin assessing.
“Now, it seems like it kind of flips back and forth like a procedural volleyball,” that source adds, noting that states could consider coordinating their response to the legislation by each agreeing to target certain chemicals and develop regulations that other states could then adopt as a model in the time frame for which new restrictions are not preempted.
A third industry source, who is also a former EPA official, says that the preemption pause drew a lot of attention, but that it was “carefully negotiated and came out at a place where both sides felt comfortable.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/vitter-highlights-preemption-provision-key-tenet-tsca-reform-bill
-
Rand Paul Derails TSCA Reform in The Senate
May 27, 2016 | Chem.Info
By MEagan Parrish
Just when it looked like TSCA reform was on track to get passed by both chambers of Congress this week, the bill hit a brick wall — named Rand Paul.
On Thursday, Sen. Paul (R-Ky.) obstructed a fast-track consideration of the sweeping new regulation, called Frank. R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act, saying he wants more time to read the 180-page-long bill.
Earlier this week, the reform bill — which is a compromised bill of House and Senate proposals — easily passed in the House. Lawmakers were optimistic it would then sail through the Senate and land on President Obama’s desk by Memorial Day.
The bill has widespread support from Republicans and Democrats, as well as chemical industry stakeholders and several environmental groups who have applauded new laws that will require the EPA to test more chemicals for safety and discourage animal testing.
But despite the momentum and support, Sen. Paul said he wants more time to consider two major aspects of the bill. The first involves new limits on how much states can regulate chemicals. States would not be allowed to pass regulations that are more stringent than federal rules, or impose regulations on chemicals under review by the EPA.
Sen. Paul also took issue with provisions involving new criminal penalties. While the current rules set by TSCA include criminal penalties for violating the act, the new chemical bill would up the ante to higher fines and imprisonment for knowingly putting another individual in danger of death or injury. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, these stronger rules will make chemical laws consistent with other environmental regulations such as the Clean Air Act.
Both of these provisions were in the Senate version of chemical reform that passed months ago.
Several key supporters of the bill were publically frustrated at Sen. Paul’s sudden derailment of the bill, saying he’s had plenty of time to review the regulations.
The next opportunity the Senate will have to vote on the bill will be in June after the Memorial Day recess.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/05/rand-paul-derails-tsca-reform-senate
-
Paul Thwarts GOP Leadership’s Quick-Pitch Passage of New EPA Powers
May 27, 2016 | Breitbart
By Neil W. McCabe
Capitol Hill got a shock from the junior senator from Kentucky and former Republican candidate for president Sen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky. when he slammed the brakes on one of the top legislative priorities of the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund.“Every day in my office, business comes into my office, and what do they say? ‘We’re regulated to death! We’re sick and tired of regulators from the executive branch that are out of control,’” said Sen. Rand Paul (R.-Ky.), who took to the Senate floor May 27 to object to the quick consideration of S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
“What does this bill do? It takes power away from the states and creates a new federal regulatory regime,” he said.
The liberty conservative’s maneuver was much simpler than his nearly 14-hour filibuster that delayed the confirmation of CIA Director John Brennan three years ago. This time, the senator simply refused to join “unanimous consent,” or U.C. It is how the GOP Senate leadership conducts the vast majority of Senate business—without debate and without a recorded vote.
Paul, an eye surgeon, who still treats patients, said his other objection to the bill was that he had not read its 180-pages that were given to him less than two days before.
“I told people, everybody involved with this, I just want to read the bill,” he said. “It deserves to be read, to be understood. I object to just rushing this through and saying: ‘No, you can’t read the bill.’”
In the House, the Republican leadership smoothed the path for the bill, which passed the lower chamber 403 to 12. After the vote, the Environmental Defense Fund specifically thanked two allies of Speaker Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.): Rep. Fred Upton (R.-Mich.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R.-Ill.), who are members of Ryan’s House Republican Steering Committee.
“Today’s broad, bipartisan vote shows meaningful progress is still possible in Washington,” said Elizabeth Thompson, EDF’s chief Capitol Hill lobbyist. “Solutions to big problems are not easy — they require collaboration, putting aside differences and working hard to find the common ground. The result of that hard work is going to be a major advance for public health.”
The bill was a complete overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act that was written with heavy input from unions and the chemical industry, in addition to the environmental lobby.
Big chemical companies fought for provisions that preempt state laws. As seen in lobbying efforts by other industries, the big chemical companies prefer to deal with a single regulator in Washington, rather than the horse blanket of states. The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act wipes out more than 150 laws in 35 states that regulate chemical safety and gives the new regulatory regime approval authority over the 2,000-odd new chemicals introduced into commerce annually.
The bill also virtually outlaws all animal testing, reduces process participation by businesses regulated, and creates new enforcement powers for the EPA—and agency thatonce surrounded and overwhelmed Gibson Guitar facilities with black-clad officers in full battle-rattle.
Speaking about the bill and his institution, Paul said: “We should think through how we do things around here.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/27/paul-breaks-gop-leaderships/
-
May 27, 2016 | Willamette Week
By Beth Slovic
In recent weeks, Portlanders have locked their attention on air pollution from Bullseye Glass, but there are other potential health hazards far closer to home than the Southeast Portland factory. In fact, they're probably inside your home.
Last year, I participated in an experiment convened by U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to test Oregonians' exposure to potentially hazardous synthetic chemicals in household products such as clothes and couches.
I then wrote about that experiment, and the wristband I wore that detected the presence of a host of synthetic chemicals in my surroundings, for WW.
Quick summary: There's a lot of unpronounceable stuff with shorthand names like PBDE 154 floating in the dust in my home—and yours as well, probably—and we know just enough about them to make you want to live permanently outdoors (if only your yard weren't covered in lead dust from the home demolition next door).
Next week, the U.S. Senate is poised to vote on a bill that was the underlying reason for the experiment—a 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 that was supposed to give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency powers to regulate and ban harmful substances. A 1991 Circuit Court ruling effectively undid the legislation by blocking the EPA's proposed asbestos ban on the grounds the agency hadn't appropriately balanced the benefit of banning the substance with the cost of getting rid of it.
Fast forward to this week when the new bill—H.R. 2576, or the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—passed the U.S. House 403-12, moving it to the Senate. On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) put a hold on the legislation, saying he needed more time to consider the bill, although the Senate approved a previous version of it in 2015. If approved, the bill would allow the EPA to regulate existing synthetic chemicals—and study new ones before they hit the market. The bill would assess a fee on industry to pay for the additional testing.
Just in time for this flutter of activity, the Environmental Defense Fund, working with Merkley to organize the wristband experiment, released new results this week in the analysis of the synthetic chemicals detected by my bracelet last year.
Those results showed the presence of additional flame retardants (probably in my home, and perhaps in my pre-Facebook-era couch) that were voluntarily phased out of the marketplace in the mid-2000s, although the federal government considers PBDEs "not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity due to the lack of human and animal cancer studies."
These kinds of flame retardants aren't bound into the foam in people's old couches. It's mixed in. So every time you flop down on your couch, you may be sending out dust clouds of toxic chemicals, especially if there's a tear in the cushion covers (as there is in mine at home). When that dust gets on your hands and you eat dinner without washing them, you may be eating PBDEs along with your MSG.
Getting rid of the PBDEs isn't as simple as chucking your couch. "You can't trace them to one use," says Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund. "There are so many different applications. They've been poured into just about everything that has foam."
(However, if you want to test your cushions at home, there's a free study run by Duke University that accepts samples from U.S. residents.)
Also in my home (or elsewhere in my daily life) was a flame retardant called TPP—a component of Firemaster 550 that was the subject of a Chicago Tribune investigation in 2012 that showed "exposing rats to high doses of Firemaster 550 can lower birth weight, alterfemale genitalia and cause skeletal malformations such as fused ribs and vertebrae."
Furniture makers such as the one with giant blue and yellow signs and warmed-over meatballs have taken note of consumers' concern. Many places now sell couches that indicate they contain no added chemical flame retardants.
Based on his Senate floor testimony, it seems Rand Paul has plans this Memorial Day weekend to read the bill's 180 pages.
I'll see you in the furniture aisle.
http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/05/28/is-your-couch-killing-you/
-
EPA Study Review May Help Calculate Existing Oil & Gas Air Rule Benefits
May 27, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is poised to this month complete a peer review of how to incorporate a study on monetized benefits of reducing ozone-related mortality due to cutting methane emissions into regulatory analyses, which advocates say might help EPA use data from its draft information request for existing oil and gas operations in order to calculate benefits of a potential methane rule for those sources.
The agency's Office of Air & Radiation plans to complete by May 31 its review of an analysis of how to include findings from a study known as Sarofim, et al. 2015 on "Valuing the Ozone-Related Health Benefits of Methane Emission Controls," into regulatory impact analyses (RIA), according to its website. The review will "determine applicability of analysis methodology to regulatory impact assessments."
The Sarofim, et al. 2015 study is cited in EPA's final May 12 RIA underpinning its new source performance standards(NSPS) that set first-time limits to reduce the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) methane from new and modified sources in the oil and gas sector. The agency issued the NSPS alongside a draft information collection request (ICR) seeking data on methane from existing sources that might inform a similar rule.
The Sarofim study presents a range of estimates of the monetized ozone-related mortality benefits of reducing methane emissions, which EPA took comment on in its draft RIA for the NSPS proposal but ultimately did not include in the final RIA for the rule.
EPA's new analysis will examine how to better incorporate those findings into RIAs. "For example, under their base case assumptions using a 3% discount rate, Sarofim, et al. find global ozone-related mortality benefits of methane emissions reductions to be $790 per tonne of methane in 2020, with 10.6%, or $80, of this amount resulting from mortality reductions in the United States," the RIA says.
EPA took comment in the earlier draft version of the RIE on whether the study should be used for the final benefits calculation of the NSPS. In the final RIA, the agency says that some stakeholders objected to the inclusion of the mortality benefits from the Sarofim study. Those stakeholders had argued that methane is not a volatile organic compound (VOC), an ozone precursor that leads to formation of the criteria pollutant.
But another commenter noted that there is a connection between methane and higher ozone levels, resulting in human mortality -- and therefore an ability to weigh benefits of methane cuts on ozone reductions.
Still, EPA noted concerns about using the Sarofim method broadly. "While the EPA does consider the methane impacts on ozone to be important, there remain unresolved questions regarding several methodological choices involved in applying the Sarofim et al. (2015) approach in the context of an EPA benefits analysis, and therefore the EPA is not including a quantitative analysis of this effect in this rule at this time," EPA says in the RIA.
Existing Sources
Depending on whatever EPA's imminent peer review concludes on the Sarofim approach, one environmentalist says that EPA could use it to help calculate benefits for an eventual rule to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and gas sites, which the agency is planning to consider after collecting data under its draft ICR. EPA could potentially us the Sarofim method to use data from the ICR in drafting the RIA for an existing source rule, the source says.
"These are pretty low cost rules in general -- all well below these [Sarofim, et al 2015] estimates," the source says. "Having said that, it's really important to do the accounting right so we can see how beneficial the rules are."
The source says they hope to see EPA begin regularly building the ozone mortality effects information into its RIAs, adding that while the agency recognizes that ozone is linked to mortality and methane emissions are linked to an increase in overall ozone, "putting a monetary value on that is something that requires a lot of effort."
EPA's use of the social cost of methane metric in calculating the costs and benefits of it NSPS marked one of earliest uses of the values to quantify direct climate benefits of a regulation limiting methane, resulting in a cost-benefit calculation that accounts for nearly all of the rules' monetized benefits.
The metric, which EPA has also used to estimate the benefits of rules limiting methane releases from landfills and heavy-duty trucks that are fueled by natural gas, shows greater benefits than the administration's social cost of carbon, because methane is a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide.
But the oil and gas industry widely criticized the metric, saying the values were based a single 2014 study whose estimates are significantly greater than estimates in other published analyses, have not been subject to proper level of peer review and improperly reflect global benefits as opposed to domestic.
An industry source says they suspect the study may have been initiated before the agency decided on a pathway to regulate methane directly, given that its 2012 NSPs for the oil and gas sector touted methane reductions as a co-benefit of targeting VOCs, but avoided setting direct standards for methane.
"Since natural gas wells tend to have low VOC emissions, the cost effectiveness the regulations would drop appreciable if they were solely based on VOC," that source says, saying that methane "was never considered to be an ozone-forming hydrocarbon for the first 30 years of the Clean Air Act's implementation," but that studies over the past decade have suggested that methane was a low-level contributor to ozone formation over a long time frame.
"I suspect this study many have been initiated to build up that argument before EPA chose to move to a direct methane regulation strategy," the source says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-study-review-may-help-calculate-existing-oil-gas-air-rule-benefits
-
Federal Study Clears Fracking Off California Coast
May 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Hydraulic fracturing and other techniques for stimulating oil and natural gas wells should cause no significant harm when used in federal waters off the California coast, a federal analysis concluded.
“The comprehensive analysis shows that these practices, conducted according to permit requirements, have minimal impact,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, in a statement accompanying release of the finding of no significant impactand its accompanying environmental assessment May 27.
Pending completion of the assessment, Interior had been withholding approvals of applications for permits to drill and applications involving fracking and acidizing on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.
The assessment was done by Hopper's agency and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Environmental Defense Center, an activist group worried not only about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, but the stimulation technique called acidizing (20 DEN A-13, 2/1/16).
Fracking involves pumping water, sand and chemicals down a well to create fractures for the flow of oil or gas in a geologic formation. Acidizing involves pumping a hydrochloric acid solution down a well to clean the well bore or to create, expand or clear flow channels for oil or gas in a formation. Acidizing can, for example, dissolve sediments clogging flow channels.
Agencies Note Scope of Review
There have been 24 well stimulation treatments—21 involving hydraulic fracturing—on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore California between 1982 and 2014, the agencies said. The treatments were conducted from four offshore platforms.
The region includes 43 federal lease areas with 22 producing platforms that could employ well stimulation techniques. The programmatic environmental assessment included evaluations of potential water quality impacts from discharges of produced water, and the potential for associated impacts to fish and wildlife based on the possibility of up to five applications a year to use well stimulation techniques.
Taking into account the low expected concentrations of well stimulation chemicals and the protective nature of the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit, the assessment affirmed that wastewater discharges from proposed well stimulation activities will not have a significant impact, the Interior agencies said.
Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, issued a statement saying the assessment “reaffirms what our industry already knows: there are no significant environmental impacts from offshore fracking. Unlike the hyperbole released by many of the extreme environmental groups, the EA's findings are backed by ground-truthed science.”
The Environmental Defense Center announced its disappointment May 27.
“Fracking and acidizing present new and unstudied risks to the environment,” such as impacts on marine life from dumping of toxic fluids into the ocean, said Maggie Hall, a staff attorney with the group.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90517372&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90517372&jd=90517372
-
Environmental Groups Urge Review of Air Enforcement Policy
May 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General should review an updated agency enforcement policy defining “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act, according to the Environmental Integrity Project and other environmental organizations. The organizations, in a May 25 letter, asked for a formal review of an August 2014 policy revision that said violations have to persist for at least seven days to be considered a high priority event for enforcement action. The Office of Inspector General should assess why EPA enforcement officials decided to assign a low priority to events that release large amounts of dangerous air pollutants in a shorter time frame and whether the decision to exclude those emissions events from the definition of high priority violations complies with the EPA's environmental justice criteria. The Environmental Integrity Project in October 2015 asked Cynthia Giles, EPA's assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, to reconsider the policy (194 DEN A-6, 10/7/15) . Other organizations that signed onto the letter include the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and Air Alliance Houston.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90517367&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90517367&jd=90517367
-
The Clean Water Rule: One Year Later
May 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Gene Karpinski
A year ago today, at a spot overlooking the Anacostia River, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyand Army Corps of Engineers Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy clinked water glasses after finalizing the Clean Water Rule. It was certainly a moment to celebrate, as this rule fixed confusion that left more than half our nation’s streams and 20 million acres of wetlands vulnerable to pollution. Because of the rule, these important streams and wetlands were now better protected, thus safeguarding the waterways that feed into and filter the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans.
The Clean Water Rule was years in the making. During the process, the EPA and Army Corps held more than 400 stakeholder meetings and collected over 1 million public comments—sportsmen, small businesses, environmentalists, farmers and ranchers, public health groups, religious organizations, and state and local elected officials all weighed in with their thoughts and concerns. This well-vetted process resulted in a scientifically sound rule that would protect the sources of our drinking water from pollution. Furthermore, the rule is extremely popular—a League of Conservation Voters (LCV) poll found that 80 percent of Americans supported the rule.
Unfortunately, after getting this much-needed and long-awaited clarity, challenges to the rule were filed in several courts, and the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has halted nationwide implementation of the Clean Water Rule while the courts decide if the EPA and Army Corps have followed the directions laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, for the time being, the small waterways that filter into our drinking water sources remain vulnerable to pollution.
In the meantime, water has made headlines. Across the country, we are painfully aware of the water crisis in Flint, Mich. that left 8,000 of the city’s children with lead poisoning.
This tragedy originated in the city’s water source: the Flint River. After 40 years of sourcing water from Lake Huron, a state-appointed emergency manager authorized switching Flint’s water source to the Flint River, a river suffering a legacy of pollution. This switch meant Flint’s water now needed additional treatments to fight higher levels of pollution in the river water, and tragically, the decision was made not to use these controls and the polluted water then corroded the city’s lead pipes. Between antiquated lead infrastructure, polluted source water, and gross incompetence, the people of Flint are suffering from an environmental disaster that could have been prevented.
Drinking water hardship is not unique to Flint. Across the United States, half a million childrenare dealing with unsafe lead exposure, and analysis of EPA data reveals that nearly 20 percentof our water systems have failed lead tests over the last four years. When President Obama visited Flint in May he told our country, “It’s not too much for all Americans to expect that their water will be safe.” He couldn’t be more right.
We need a robust strategy for safe drinking water, one that ensures our water sources are clean and our water delivery systems are dependable. The Clean Water Rule helps remedy the source portion of this dilemma: it is an indispensable tool for keeping our water clean before it enters our pipes.
In fact, in Maryland, the Clean Water Rule would protect the drinking water sources of 2 in every 3 residents. And the benefits extend beyond drinking water—by restoring protections to 2,210 miles of Maryland streams and thousands of acres of wetlands, Marylanders will enjoy enhanced flood protection, recharged groundwater supplies, and enhanced wildlife habitat, which supports the state’s outdoor recreation, especially hunting and fishing.
But with the Clean Water Rule stayed in the courts and attacked over and over again in Congress, our wetlands and streams remain susceptible to pollution. On the anniversary of this critical rule, we should be clinking glasses to a year of better protected drinking water. Instead, we are left idling, watching a nation cope with unsafe drinking water, while we await access to one of our most crucial clean water tools.
To fight our country’s water crisis, we need to go to the source—that is what the Clean Water Rule does.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281481-the-clean-water-rule-one-year-later
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested