Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/3/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report Reveals that New Technologies are Boosting Mixed Waste Recycling and Commodities Recovery
Jun 3, 2016 | Waste 360
A recent report conducted by the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division shows that new technologies used in MRFS are helping to increase diversion from landfills and offering some relief to the commodities markets. -
(ACC Mentioned) Talkin' Trash: Quotes from ACC, Impact Bioenergy, Progressive Waste, and More
Jun 3, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Kristin Musulin
In case you missed it: Thoughtful, newsworthy comments from industry professionals, consumers, and legislators. -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘LaPolitics’: Open House Seats Get Attention; Former Vitter Staffer Opens Baton Rouge Consulting Firm
Jun 3, 2016 | Business Report
By Jeremy Alford
As the House and Senate inch toward the end their legislative year, there’s one new lawmaker still feeling his way around and two seats that will soon be vacant. -
Federal Government, Not States, Should Regulate Chemicals
Jun 1, 2016 | Economics 21
By Preston Cooper
Writers at E21 have generally been critical of regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)... However, in the case of the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) currently moving through Congress, new powers granted to EPA are warranted. -
What’s New About the Revised TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 3, 2016 | National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Ryan J. Carra, Timothy M. Serie, and Sarah A. Kettenmann
After years of effort, comprehensive legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed the House of Representatives on May 24, 2016. -
DuPont, Chemours to Benefit from New Legislation
Jun 3, 2016 | Delaware Online
By Jeff Mordock
DuPont Co. and The Chemours Co. are expected to benefit from proposed federal legislation that would increase government oversight of the chemical industry. -
Chemicals Must Take 'Centre Stage' in Circular Economy Discussions
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
It is time chemicals took centre stage in discussions on the development of a circular economy, according to Joanna Drake, deputy director general of the European Commission's environment directorate. -
Microplastics Harm Marine Life -- Study
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
For the first time, scientists have found concrete evidence that the tiny bits of plastic polluting the world's oceans have a devastating physiological and behavior effect on exposed fish. -
Clock Starts For Suits Over EPA Oil & Gas Air Rules
Jun 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to publish in the June 3 Federal Register its suite of final emissions rules for the oil and gas sector that includes first-time methane limits on new oil and gas drilling; an “aggregation” air permit rule; and a rule for permitting oil and gas on federal land, triggering a 60-day clock for groups to file legal challenges to the rules. -
California Floats Oil & Gas Methane Rule That Could Serve As EPA Model
Jun 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California regulators have issued for public comment their final proposed rule to reduce methane emissions from new and existing oil and gas facilities and operations, a rule that goes beyond similar measures in other states and may also serve as a model for EPA as it collects data to determine whether to develop a regulation targeting existing sources. -
Texas to Vote on Challenging Federal Methane Rules
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Texas oil and gas regulators may join the legal fight against federal methane-reduction rules for the oil industry. -
Emails Reveal EPA Disappointment After Supreme Court Decision
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
"There is no sugar-coating it." That was the initial reaction Feb. 9 of Avi Garbow, U.S. EPA general counsel, to the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Obama administration's signature climate rule, sent in an email to staffers hours after the stay was announced. -
Emails Show a Bloodied but Unbowed EPA After Rule Freeze
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
Six minutes past midnight on Feb. 10 -- five hours after the Supreme Court stayed President Obama's signature climate change rule -- a U.S. EPA assistant administrator expressed shock in an email to her colleagues in the Office of Air and Radiation. -
Ariz. is Already on Track to Meet EPA Goals, Models Show
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Arizona may be able to meet U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan standards solely with existing plans to retire coal plants and shift to cleaner sources of energy, according to two models reviewed by state officials in recent meetings. -
Where People are Drawing the (Pipe)line for Oil and Gas
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Fossil fuel projects nationwide are falling through or facing major delays as new regulations, grass-roots opposition and low energy prices drag down progress. -
FERC Approval Clears Path for Midsize Project With Big Backers
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Oil and gas infrastructure giant Kinder Morgan has received federal approval to liquefy natural gas for export at an existing plant near Savannah, Ga., setting the project up for a swift construction start. -
The Magic of the EPA's Benefit/Cost Analysis
Jun 3, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Benjamin Zycher
Benefit/cost analysis: It sounds so scientific, so rational, so impartial. So sound as a tool with which to resolve conflicting assertions about the wisdom of regulatory proposals. So divorced from partisanship or ideological influence. -
States Working With EPA To Improve Input On Air Policy Advisory Panels
Jun 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), representing regulators from 18 states, has agreed with EPA staff to try to find ways to increase state regulators' understanding of major scientific committees that advise the agency on air policy and to bolster opportunities for states' input, according to an AAPCA source.
Industry and Association News
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
-
Jun 3, 2016 | Waste 360
A recent report conducted by the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division shows that new technologies used in MRFS are helping to increase diversion from landfills and offering some relief to the commodities markets.
The report also reveals that some MRFs have been converted to MWPFs, allowing additional solid waste materials to be diverted from the landfill through recovery, WTE processes or the process of transforming waste into feedstock for solid engineered fuels.
Environmental Leader has more details from the report:The main technologies used in modern recycling plants, also known as materials recovery facilities (MRFs), are being successfully integrated into new mixed waste processing facilities (MWPFs). As such, they are increasing diversion from landfills and maximizing recovery of marketable materials, according to a report released by the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division.
While both types of facilities divert materials from landfills by increasing the recovery of marketable commodities, MRFs require recyclable materials to be removed from the waste before being processed, usually through curbside collection programs.
MWPFs, on the other hand, extract recyclables directly from municipal solid waste. This can increase recycling rates, according to some in the industry.http://waste360.com/need-know/report-reveals-new-technologies-are-boosting-mixed-waste-recycling-and-commodities-recover
-
(ACC Mentioned) Talkin' Trash: Quotes from ACC, Impact Bioenergy, Progressive Waste, and More
Jun 3, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Kristin Musulin
In case you missed it: Thoughtful, newsworthy comments from industry professionals, consumers, and legislators.
"I don't think you can hide under the mantle of over-regulation of business when you have both the mob interests and environmental harm being done."
— New Jersey Sen. Ray Lesniak to NJ.com regarding a proposed bill to increase background checks for solid waste employees like recyclers, consultants, and brokers. The bill is being pushed after an investigation revealed local "dirt brokers" forged paperwork to illegally dump debris and soil across the state.
"It's glaringly staring at you ... You can't miss it in the trees, you can't miss it in the garbage cans, and if you drop it on the floor, you see it all over Chinatown. That is littering."
— Wellington Chen, executive director of the Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corporation in New York, to NBC News regarding plastic bags. NBC took a look at how an upcoming 5-cent fee on plastic bags will affect residents and businesses in the city, specifically in Chinatown.
"Recycling is a critical part of how we make the most of the earth's limited resources ... But when it comes to meeting the diverse needs of our communities, there’s no 'one size fits all.'"
— Craig Cookson, American Chemistry Council (ACC) senior director of recycling and energy recovery, to Recycling Today on mixed waste processing technologies. ACC put out a report showing how mixed waste processing facilities have room to grow in economic performance.
"With proven management and a talented team of employees, I am confident that New Waste Connections is well positioned for continued growth and success."
— James Forese, non-executive chairman of the Progressive Waste Board of Directors, on the company's completed merge with Waste Connections US, Inc. New Waste Connections is now the third-largest waste service provider in North America.
"We were bringing individuals into the equation where an individual could make a difference and we thought crowdfunding is an interesting way to do that."
— Impact Bioenergy president Jan Allen to Biomass Energy on the company's plan to deploy a community-supported biocycling initiative to collect food waste and cut truck emissions. The campaign raised over $36,000 with over 300 backers last fall.
"I’ve just been so frustrated. I’ve been doing this five years and I haven’t drawn a paycheck yet."
— ReFoamIt LLC owner David Sherman to Plastics News on his polystyrene foam recycling company going out of business. Sherman's company had been affected by low commodity prices for some time, but a recent building issue was the final straw for the business.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/talkin-trash-quotes-from-acc-impact-bioenergy-progressive-waste-and-mo/420245/
-
Jun 3, 2016 | Business Report
By Jeremy Alford
As the House and Senate inch toward the end their legislative year, there’s one new lawmaker still feeling his way around and two seats that will soon be vacant.
Rep. Edmond Jordan, D-Brusly, who represents portions of East Baton Rouge Parish, was officially sworn into office last week and is now taking votes on behalf of his constituents. Jordan, who is replacing the late Rep. Ronnie Edwards, has not yet been notified of his committee assignments, but he has joined the Capital Region Legislative Caucus, the Democratic Caucus and the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus.
Elsewhere there are now at least three potential candidates either looking at or being encouraged to run in the soon-to-be-open House District 85, which is being vacated by Rep. Bryan Adams, R-Gretna. Thrown into the mix so far are two attorneys—Jefferson Parish School Board Member Mark Morgan, a Republican, and Gretna City Councilman Joe Marino, who is said to have district-level support ready to go. There’s also Stephen Leonard, a Republican real estate agent who lost to Adams in a previous House race.
In the neighboring House District 80 in Jefferson Parish, where Rep. Joe Lopinto, R-Metairie, is stepping down, University of New Orleans professor Polly Thomas has been seen working the Capitol in recent weeks.
No other names have surfaced. It may have helped that Thomas dropped out of a legislative race last fall to endorse her opponent, Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie. In a brief interview, Appel said he has already endorsed Thomas for the House District 80 seat.
—Kyle Ruckert, former chief of staff and campaign manager for U.S. Sen. David Vitter, has set up shop in Baton Rouge. He has launched BOLD Strategies for his political consulting and lobbying work. Ruckert is currently working on campaign efforts for Congressman Garret Graves and an organization that is advocating for the policies being pushed by Attorney General Jeff Landry. His client list also includes Morris & Dickson, the American Chemistry Council, Gulf Coast Bank and a new coalition of Louisiana road contractors. In addition to working the State Capitol, Ruckert says he’ll still keep one foot in D.C. to lobby for clients there.
They said it: “I’m a recovering politician. I’ve got the shakes right now.” —Former Speaker Hunt Downer, addressing the House this week.
https://www.businessreport.com/article/lapolitics-open-house-seats-get-attention-former-vitter-staffer-opens-baton-rouge-consulting-firm
-
Federal Government, Not States, Should Regulate Chemicals
Jun 1, 2016 | Economics 21
By Preston Cooper
Writers at E21 have generally been critical of regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I argued that the Clean Power Plan, an EPA scheme to reduce carbon emissions, placed unjustifiably disparate burdens on different states. Senior Fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth showed that the EPA used dubious methodology, including double- and triple-counting of benefits, in its cost-benefit analysis of the emissions regulations. However, in the case of the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) currently moving through Congress, new powers granted to EPA are warranted.
The bill, passed by the House and awaiting final approval from the Senate, is sponsored by Illinois Congressman John Shimkus, a Republican. It authorizes the EPA to conduct testing of toxic chemicals used in common household products and determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. If this determination is made, or if the EPA decides there is insufficient information to render a determination, the agency is authorized to regulate or prohibit manufacture of the chemical.
These are sweeping new powers, and advocates of limited government intervention are right to be skeptical of them. However, since the EPA is currently not authorized to regulate these chemicals, individual states have taken the lead. Since 2003, states have passed a grand total of 167 statutes regulating toxic chemicals, according to Safer States, an advocacy group. Over a hundred more bills pertaining to chemical regulation are currently working their way through state legislatures. California alone has 23 recent laws on the books pertaining to chemical regulation, with six more in the pipeline. And this does not even take into account the countless regulations issued by state agencies under the laws.
Number of Laws Regulating Toxic Chemicals by State, 2003-Present
[map]
Darker colors represent more laws. States in white have passed no recent chemical laws.
This creates an inconsistent patchwork of regulations that manufacturers must deal with individually. It is far easier for businesses to deal with a single regulation from the EPA than with up to 50 different regulations from the states. Under the TSCA reform bill, states cannot prohibit or restrict a chemical that the EPA has determined to be safe (with exceptions for grandfathered regulations).
While it does mean an expansion of federal power, the bill will reduce the cost, time, and uncertainty associated with bringing a chemical to market by largely superseding state requirements. This will lower costs for consumers and enable faster development of new wares. A company that can sell in every state, rather than just a handful, will be more inclined to invest in innovative products.
Currently, some states can shape the product market in others. When only a handful of states ban a product, such as dishwashing detergents containing phosphates, manufacturers just may take it off the market entirely.
The bill might appear to be a defeat for federalism. But the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, and with good reason: so the United States can function as a single market rather than fifty. Congress absolutely has the power to fix the fragmented, state-driven regulatory regime for chemicals currently in place.
One area of potential improvement is a course of action for when the EPA is unable to determine whether a particular chemical poses an unreasonable risk. In these cases, the EPA must issue a regulation that could prohibit manufacture of the chemical if it will be produced in “substantial quantities” or if it poses a risk to a “susceptible subpopulation.”
However, what exactly these terms mean is left to the EPA’s discretion, meaning the agency will have wide latitude to ban harmless chemicals on the basis of unsubstantiated risks. This is the “precautionary principle” of regulation, or the idea that new innovations are guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around. This not only inhibits innovation; it might actually harm public safety if newer, safer chemicals that might replace older, less safe ones in the market are held up during the approval process. Congress should consider amending the bill to more clearly delineate the EPA’s powers in such ambiguous cases.
Despite the bill’s flaws, it is certainly preferable to the patchwork system the country practices now. However, Congress and the public must remain vigilant to ensure the EPA does not overstep the bounds of its new authority. As the burden of federal regulations continues to grow, adding trillions in economic costs, the danger of too much regulation must be considered in concert with the danger of too little.
Preston Cooper is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning Ebrief.
http://economics21.org/html/federal-government-not-states-should-regulate-chemicals-1847.html
-
What’s New About the Revised TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 3, 2016 | National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Ryan J. Carra, Timothy M. Serie, and Sarah A. Kettenmann
After years of effort, comprehensive legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed the House of Representatives on May 24, 2016. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is expected to pass the Senate the week of June 6. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation shortly thereafter. At that point, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will begin its implementation of the new TSCA.
This alert first highlights key ways in which passage of TSCA amendments will impact industry. Next, it outlines the key changes that the legislation will make to TSCA. It then identifies those provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate in December 2015 that are retained in the bill as passed by the House on May 24 (thus expected to remain in the final Senate-passed version) and those provisions that are changed. Finally, it considers what is likely to happen in the early days of implementation of the new TSCA.
Note: Section references in this alert refer to TSCA as it will be amended by the legislation.
How Passage of TSCA Reform Legislation Will Affect Industry
Alone among major environmental statutes, TSCA had not been significantly amended since its enactment in October 1976, almost 40 years ago – until now. During much of that time, EPA has regarded TSCA’s principal control provision, section 6, as unworkable. As a result, EPA has not proposed any rulemaking under section 6 in 25 years, ever since a court invalidated the EPA ban on asbestos in 1991. Other aspects of TSCA have also shown their limitations.
Once enacted, this legislation will amend section 6 to make it much easier for EPA to evaluate and, if appropriate, regulate chemicals. The bill contains provisions mandating that EPA identify substances that are high priorities for risk evaluations; evaluate the health and environmental risks of those substances; decide, without regard to cost or other non-risk factors, whether a high-priority substance presents an unreasonable risk; and regulate those substances found to present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use. All of these steps are subject to tight time deadlines. EPA must meet some quotas in the first five years. This means that industry can expect EPA to review more chemicals, to review them more systematically and thoroughly, and to regulate those chemicals that it finds to be in need of regulation.
This in turn will mean that industry stakeholders will need to be prepared to engage with EPA early, well before EPA proposes a rule to restrict a chemical. The following critical points in the march toward restriction provide for an opportunity to influence EPA’s decisions about a chemical being considered for restriction:
Before EPA designates a chemical as high-priority, stakeholders may submit relevant information (section 6(b)(1)(C)(i)).
Once EPA has proposed to designate a chemical as high-priority, stakeholders may submit requested information (section 6(b)(1)(C)(ii)).
A manufacturer of a chemical may request that EPA designate that chemical as high-priority (section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii), subject to a fee (section 6(b)(4)(E)(ii)).
Stakeholders may comment on a draft risk evaluation (section 6(b)(4)(H)).
Stakeholders may comment on a proposed risk management rule (section 6(c)(1(A)).
Industry can also expect to be impacted by:
Testing obligations imposed by unilateral EPA orders (section 4(a)(1), (2)).
Possibly increased scrutiny of premanufacture notices (PMNs) now that EPA must make an affirmative finding for each PMN chemical (section 5(a)(3)).
The need by manufacturers to report as active substances chemicals that they have manufactured in the last 10 years (and the opportunity of processors to report as active substances for the chemicals they have processed in the last 10 years) (section 8(b)(4)(A)(i)).
The need to notify EPA and substantiate confidentiality claims for substances on the confidential Inventory (section 8(b)(4)(B)).
Increased substantiation requirements for, and EPA scrutiny of, confidentiality claims (section 14(c)).
The payment of fees for submitting test information under section 4 or for manufacturing or processing a chemical that is being evaluated under section 6 (section 26(b)(1)).
Likely increases in the current $2,500 ceiling on fees for PMNs and significant new use notices (section 26(b)(1)).
The preemption provision is the product of extensive and prolonged negotiation. It is not the broad preemption for which some in industry had hoped. For example, all state restrictions in effect on or before April 22, 2016 are exempt from preemption based on EPA actions under the amended TSCA, and Proposition 65 is also exempt even into the future. Other exemptions from preemption also apply, including for most state green chemistry laws. Even when preemption would apply, states can apply for a waiver. However, the preemption section does contain two remarkable provisions. One is the “high-priority pause,” i.e., limited preemption of new state restrictions while EPA considers whether it should regulate a high-priority substance. The other is that once EPA decides that a chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, both existing and future state restrictions for that chemical (within the scope of EPA’s review) are also preempted (subject to some exclusions), even though EPA’s decision means that it will not promulgate any new federal restrictions for the chemical. Both provisions are unique among federal regulatory statutes.
Among the changes to TSCA that the bill will make are the following:
Testing – EPA has been hamstrung by the need to use notice-and-comment rulemaking to impose testing requirements in most cases. Rulemaking typically takes 3 years or longer. The bill gives EPA the authority to bypass rulemaking altogether and instead issue orders requiring manufacturers and processors to conduct testing.
New chemicals – For the first time, EPA will have to make public determinations on whether or not PMN chemicals are likely to present an unreasonable risk.
Prioritization – EPA has suffered from shifting priorities over its history, leaving work on some chemicals unfinished. EPA will now have to set priorities publicly, then follow through to evaluate their risk and, if appropriate, regulate them, all on a challenging timetable for completing the process.
Systematic evaluation – EPA will have to evaluate the risks of high-priority substances systematically, without regard to cost or other non-risk considerations, and reach decisions about whether or not those risks need to be addressed through regulation.
Risk management – Ever since the 1991 court decision invalidating the EPA ban on asbestos, EPA has regarded the principal risk management provision of TSCA, section 6, as an insurmountable obstacle to regulating chemicals. The legislation deletes the “least burdensome requirements” language and other provisions that the court found EPA failed to satisfy with its asbestos ban, and it drives EPA to evaluate appropriate considerations.
Inventory reset – The TSCA Inventory contains more than 84,000 chemicals, but only a fraction of them are in commerce today. The Inventory reset provision will identify the chemicals that are now or were recently in commerce so that EPA can focus its attention on these “active” chemicals.
Confidential business information – EPA has struggled to provide the public with some information about chemicals due to longstanding confidentiality claims that may no longer be necessary. The legislation sets a 10-year lifespan for new confidentiality claims unless renewed and substantiated. It directs EPA to scrutinize confidentiality claims, including those for active substances whose chemical identities are on the confidential Inventory.
Preemption – As EPA now acquires the tools it has lacked to evaluate and regulate chemicals, the relationship of federal and state restrictions of chemicals is in need of change. The legislation gives the regulated community limited protection from new state restrictions while EPA is actively evaluating whether to regulate a chemical itself, and it sets a limited bar on state restrictions when EPA has determined that restrictions are not necessary.
Fees – The revised legislation funds up to 25% of the cost of administering its principal provisions with fees to be paid by affected manufacturers and processors.
Use of science – The legislation directs EPA to make decisions under sections 4, 5, and 6 based on the weight of the scientific evidence, and to ensure that its decisions are consistent with the best available science.
What is Retained from the Bill Passed by the Senate in December 2015
As passed in June 2015, the House bill ran 46 pages, whereas the Senate bill as passed in December 2015 ran 211 pages. The version passed on May 24 runs 177 pages. Most of the Senate provisions were adopted in the version passed by the House on May 24. For example, the House-passed version from June 2015 would not have amended section 5 or included a prioritization provision, both of which appeared in the Senate-passed version from December 2015 and appear in the version passed by the House on May 24.
The bill as passed by the House on May 24 retains (with editorial changes) many of the provisions of the bill passed by the Senate in December 2015, including the following, among others:
Section 3 – Definitions – The Senate-passed definitions for “conditions of use” and “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation” are retained.
Section 4(a)(2) – Testing – EPA is authorized to require testing based on a need to address issues under sections 5 or 6, using either a rule, order, or testing consent agreement.
Section 4(a)(4) – Tiered testing – EPA must use a tiered testing approach unless it can justify more advanced testing without first conducting screening-level tests.
Section 5(a)(3) – New chemicals and significant new use rules (SNURs) – EPA must reach a decision about whether or not a PMN chemical or significant new use meets the TSCA standards for regulating these chemicals and uses.
Section 5(a)(5) – SNURs for articles – EPA may apply SNURs to articles only to the extent necessary to protect against risks from exposure to the SNUR chemical from articles.
Section 6(a) – Least burdensome requirements – Current TSCA’s requirement that EPA use “the least burdensome requirements” in regulating unreasonable risks has been deleted.
Section 6(b)(1) – Prioritization – EPA must identify chemicals that are a high priority for a risk review and those that are a low priority, and have a process for doing so.
Section 6(b)(3) – Risk evaluations – EPA must conduct risk evaluations (called safety assessments and safety determinations in the December 2015 Senate version) for high-priority substances, subject to some limitations. Risk determinations are to be made without consideration of cost or other non-risk factors.
Section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii) – Manufacturer recommendations – EPA must conduct risk evaluations for chemicals nominated by manufacturers.
Section 6(b)(4)(D) – Scope of risk evaluation – EPA must publish the scope of a risk evaluation (called a safety assessment in the December 2015 Senate version) for a high-priority substance within 6 months after initiation of the risk evaluation.
Section 6(c) – Risk management rules – EPA must adopt risk management rules within 2 years (subject to a limited extension) following a risk evaluation that finds that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk (the Senate version has “does not meet the safety standard”).
Section 6(c)(2)(E) – Articles – EPA may apply risk management rules to chemicals in articles only to the extent necessary to protect against risks from exposure to the chemicals from the articles.
Section 8(a)(3)(C) – Small businesses – EPA must reconsider its standard for what constitutes a small business within 6 months after enactment.
Section 8(b)(3) – Nomenclature – EPA must retain the use of Class 2 nomenclature and must acknowledge in appropriate instances that a single chemical may appear under different CAS numbers and names on the TSCA Inventory.
Section 8(b)(4) – Inventory reset – EPA must compile lists of active substances and of inactive substances based on information provided by manufacturers and processors. EPA must require notification and substantiation of confidentiality claims for active substances on the confidential Inventory.
Section 14 – Confidential information – The extensive Senate provision on confidential information is retained.
Section 18 – Preemption – Most of the Senate provision on preemption is retained, with some changes discussed below.
Section 18(a)(1)(B) – Chemicals not found to present an unreasonable risk – Upon finding that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, existing and new state restrictions for that chemical falling within the scope of the risk evaluation are preempted.
Section 18(b) – “High-priority pause” – After EPA announces the scope of a risk evaluation for a chemical, states may not enact new restrictions for that chemical that fall within that scope until the risk evaluation is completed or three years pass from the start of the risk evaluation.
Section 18(d)-(f) – Exceptions to preemption – Preemption does not apply to a state restriction that implements a reporting or monitoring requirement; relates to air, water, or waste except to the extent that it impacts the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of a chemical; is identical to a TSCA restriction; was adopted before a recent date (changed to April 22, 2016); or that is Proposition 65. States may apply for a waiver of preemption (some conditions for a waiver have been modified).
Section 26(b) – Fees – Manufacturers and processors must pay fees for specified activities. Some of the details have been modified; see below.
What is Changed from the Bill as Passed by the Senate in December 2015
Among the changes to the December Senate version are the following:
Section 3 – Definitions – The version passed by the House on May 24 does not refer to a safety standard. Instead, as with the June 2015 House bill, it refers to unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use. There is a new definition of “guidance.”
Section 4 – Testing – The December 2015 Senate bill would have deleted current section 4(a), which requires EPA to find that a chemical “may pose an unreasonable risk” before requiring testing. The version passed by the House on May 24 retains section 4(a), with changes, but also adopts the Senate’s version authorizing testing for limited purposes solely on a showing of need.
Section 5 – New chemicals and SNURs – The December 2015 Senate bill would have required EPA to decide whether, after review of a premanufacture notice (PMN) for a new chemical or a significant new use notice (SNUN), that the chemical or new use was likely to meet the safety standard or not likely to meet the safety standard. The version passed by the House on May 24 requires EPA to find that a PMN chemical or SNUN chemical “presents an unreasonable risk,” “may present an unreasonable risk,” or “is not likely to present an unreasonable risk.” The Senate-passed language relating to notices of commencement for PMN chemicals has been deleted. There is a new provision requiring EPA to consider adoption of a SNUR for any PMN chemical which “presents” or “may present” an unreasonable risk.
Section 6(a) – “Presents” an unreasonable risk –Current TSCA’s phrase “presents or will present” an unreasonable risk has been changed to refer only to whether a chemical “presents” an unreasonable risk.
Section 6(b)(1) – High-priority and low-priority substances – In the version passed by the House on May 24, EPA must designate as a high-priority substance a chemical that EPA determines, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, “may present an unreasonable risk.” It must designate as a low-priority substance a chemical that EPA determines, without consideration of those factors, does not meet the “may present” standard. The December 2015 Senate version had other criteria that would have avoided any kind of “unreasonable risk” finding.
Section 6(b)(2)(A) – Initial prioritizations – Under the version passed by the House on May 24, within the first 180 days after enactment, EPA must designate as high priority 10 chemicals drawn from the 2014 updated list of TSCA Work Plan chemicals. The Senate-passed version would only have required 5 of the 10 to be the TSCA Work Plan chemicals and had no deadline.
Section 6(b)(2)(B) – Quotas for prioritization – The period for EPA to designate 20 high-priority substances and 20 low-priority substances has been increased from three to three and a half years. At that point, at least 50% must be TSCA Work Plan chemicals (not present in the Senate version).
Section 6(b)(2)(D) – Preferences for prioritization – With the version passed by the House on May 24, EPA is to give preference to TSCA Work Plan chemicals with a Persistence and Bioaccumulation score of 3 and to those that are human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity. (See Attachment 1 for the list of these chemicals.)
Section 6(b)(4)(A) – “Risk evaluation” – The Senate terms “safety assessment” and “safety determination” have been replaced by the June 2015 House bill’s term “risk evaluation.”
Section 6(b)(4)(C)(ii) – Requests for high-priority chemicals – EPA is only required to consider requests for designation of high-priority chemicals received from manufacturers. The Senate version would also have required EPA to consider requests received from processors.
Section 6(b)(4)(D) – Scope of risk evaluations – For the first 10 TSCA Work Plan chemicals designated as high-priority and for high-priority substances nominated by manufacturers, EPA must publish the scope of the risk evaluation not less than 3 months after designating them as high-priority. For other chemicals designated as high-priority, it must publish the scope of the risk evaluation no less than 12 months after designation. These provisions were not in the Senate version.
Section 6(b)(4)(E)(i) – Percentage of requested high-priority chemicals – Between 25% and 50% of the risk evaluations must be for chemicals that manufacturers have requested to be high-priority substances. The Senate-passed bill set a 30% ceiling on requested high-priority substances.
Section 6(b)(4)(E)(iv) – No “high-priority pause” for manufacturer-requested chemicals – Chemicals for which EPA conducts a risk evaluation because a manufacturer requested that it do so are not subject to the section 18(b) “high-priority pause.”
Section 6(c)(1) – Timing for risk management rules – EPA must publish a proposed rule within 1 year of finding that a high-priority substance presents an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use. The two-year deadline for promulgating a final rule may be extended up to 2 years, except for TSCA Work Plan chemicals or chemicals that score high for persistence or bioaccumulation and either high or moderate for the other; final rules for these chemicals must be completed within 2 years of publishing the risk evaluation finding an unreasonable risk.
Section 6(c)(2)(A)-(C) – Statement of effects for risk management rules – EPA must publish with a final rule a statement that addresses, among other things, the effects of the chemical; its benefits; the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, including the costs and benefits of at least one alternative to the rule considered by EPA; and the cost-effectiveness of the rule and of at least one alternative considered by EPA. EPA is to factor those considerations into its decision on selecting among risk management provisions. The Senate version had no counterpart to these provisions, which are adapted from those appearing the in the June 2015 House-passed bill.
Section 6(c)(2)(D) – Replacement parts – The risk management rule must exempt replacement parts for complex durable goods and complex consumer goods that are designed prior to the date of publication of the final rule, unless EPA finds that replacement parts contribute significantly to the risk. The Senate version differed in some respects.
Section 6(h) – Expedited action for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs) – Within 3 years after enactment, EPA must propose risk management rules for TSCA Work Plan chemicals that score high for persistence or bioaccumulation and high or moderate for the other. In doing so for such a chemical, it must conduct an exposure and use assessment, but need not conduct a risk evaluation. The final rule must be published within 18 months after publishing the proposal. In selecting restrictions, EPA is to reduce exposure to the extent practicable. Excluded from this provision are metals and metal compounds; chemicals for which EPA has completed a TSCA Work Plan problem formulation; chemicals for which EPA has initiated a review under section 5; and chemicals for which EPA has entered into a testing consent agreement under section 4. The 9 chemicals we have identified as likely to be subject to this provision appear in Attachment 2.
Section 8(a)(5) – Chemical Data Reporting – EPA is required to apply section 8(a) reporting rules, including the Chemical Data Reporting rule (CDR), “to those persons likely to have information relevant to the effective implementation of this title.” This may suggest that EPA must apply the CDR to processors, but the language is less clear than the December 2015 Senate language which directed EPA to adopt “rules applicable to processors.”
Section 8(a)(6) – Inorganic byproducts – Within 3 years, EPA must publish a proposed negotiated rule for reporting related to inorganic byproducts that are recycled, reused, or reprocessed. This provision also relates to the CDR; it had no counterpart in the Senate version.
Section 8(b)(3) – Nomenclature – Some changes were made to the Senate counterpart, including provisions related to statutory mixtures. Now the language requires EPA “to treat the individual members of the categories of chemical substances identified by the Administrator as statutory mixtures” as being listed on the Inventory.
Section 8(b)(10) – Mercury – EPA is to publish an inventory of elemental mercury and mercury compounds supply, use, and trade in the U.S. every 3 years. There was no Senate counterpart.
Section 12(c) – Mercury exports – The current ban on exporting elemental mercury will be expanded to include listed mercury compounds by 2020. Other provisions relating to storage and disposal of mercury and mercury compounds are also added. There was no Senate counterpart.
Section 18 – Preemption – The “grandfather” date for state laws and administrative actions that are exempted from preemption has been changed from August 31, 2015 to April 22, 2016 (Earth Day). The scope of preemption has been expanded slightly to include not only statutes and administrative actions, but also state criminal penalties. In the May 20 version of the House bill, the “high-priority pause,” section 18(b), would not have applied to the first 10 TSCA Work Plan chemicals designated as high priorities, but the language making this change was deleted on May 23, before passage by the House. The “high-priority pause” does not apply to high-priority chemicals that were nominated by a manufacturer unless the chemicals are listed under the TSCA Work Plan.
Section 26(b) – Fees – Fees will be assessed on manufacturers and processors who are subject to a testing requirement under section 4; who submit notices under section 5; or that manufacture or process a chemical that is the subject of a risk evaluation under section 6. The fee is to defray up to 25% of the cost of administering sections 4, 5, and 6 and of handling confidential business information (CBI) and requests for access to CBI under section 14, subject to a ceiling of $25 million.
Section 26(h)-(j) – Scientific standards, weight of scientific evidence, and availability of information – The final language adopts the provisions on these matters that appeared in the June 2015 version as passed by the House, rather than the provisions that appeared in the version passed by the Senate. Section 26 requires EPA to use the best available science, consider the weight of the evidence, and make the Agency’s scientific information available to the public.
Section 27 – Sustainable Chemistry Initiative – A Senate provision establishing a sustainable initiative does not appear in the bill as passed by the House.
What Happens Next
Once passed by the Senate and signed by President Obama, EPA must immediately begin implementing the amended TSCA. Within 180 days of enactment, EPA must:
Ensure that risk evaluations are being conducted on 10 TSCA Work Plan chemicals (section 6(b)(2)(A)).
Report to Congress regarding its capacity to carry out risk evaluations (section 26(m)) .
Establish a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (section 26(o)).
Within one year after enactment, EPA must:
Establish a risk-based screening process and criteria for designating chemical substances as high- or low-priority substances for risk evaluations (section 6(b)(1)(A)).
Establish the process by which EPA will conduct risk evaluations (section 6(b)(4)(B)).
Develop guidance to help manufacturers conduct and submit draft risk evaluations for EPA’s consideration (section 26(l)(5)).
Promulgate an Inventory reset rule requiring manufacturers and processors to submit information regarding active and inactive chemical substances (section 8(b)(4)).
Key policy decisions and the fundamental framework for the TSCA program will be worked out in a flurry of rulemakings in the first few years of implementation. Stakeholders should, therefore, be prepared to engage with EPA and participate in the regulatory process as soon as the legislation is signed into law.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-s-new-about-revised-tsca-toxic-substances-control-act
-
DuPont, Chemours to Benefit from New Legislation
Jun 3, 2016 | Delaware Online
By Jeff Mordock
DuPont Co. and The Chemours Co. are expected to benefit from proposed federal legislation that would increase government oversight of the chemical industry.
Both companies, which employ several thousand in Delaware, lobbied for the measure, which would give the Environment Protection Agency more regulatory control of chemicals used in consumer products, such as paint stripper or spot cleaner.
"It is going to help them and that is going to be good for their presence here and the state economy," said Jim Butkiewicz, chairman of the University of Delaware's Economics Department.
The proposed legislation is the first reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, since it was created in 1976.
Last month, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the bill, which received bipartisan support. A vote in the U.S. Senate is expected later this month before the proposal can be signed into law by President Barack Obama. The White House released a statement indicating its support the measure after it passed the House.
The proposed overhaul will eliminate a requirement forcing the EPA to prove a chemical is toxic before demanding more testing.
It also reduces a lot of the red tape that has hampered previous EPA regulatory reviews. For example, the EPA will now be able to shift its focus on chemicals already in the marketplace in order to better protect consumers and improve its collection of data from chemical manufacturers. Safety reviews will become purely science-based by phasing out a rule that included regulatory costs as part of the EPA's scrutiny.
Also, a new chemical must be declared safe before it enters the marketplace. Under current law, a chemical can enter the marketplace unless the EPA claims it is unsafe within 90 days.
"This bill allows the development of a federal chemical safety program that will ensure public confidence through system, prioritized and scientific assessment of existing chemicals, while maintaining an approach for new chemicals, protecting confidential business information, providing proportional risk-based oversight and continuing to foster innovation," said Krysta Harden, DuPont's vice president of public policy.
Chemical manufacturers are expected to benefit because the bill will create a consistent set of rules to follow. Currently, companies in the industry have to pay attention to state rules that vary by location. This has created confusion and impacted chemical companies' bottom line. In some cases products have been pulled from the shelves or faced a ban based on activist claims instead of EPA conclusion.
"Companies can now say they are meeting all the regulatory requirements so there is no reason for anyone to be upset," Butkiewicz said. "They can tell protesters to take it to the regulatory agency because we are following their rules."
Harden said DuPont 'has long supported" TSCA reform. She said the current proposal will protect public health and the environment without stifling industry growth.
"This compromise legislation accomplishes both of those goals," Harden said.
Robert Dekker, a Chemours spokesman, affirmed the company's support for the legislation in an email. The company spun off from DuPont last year.
"Chemours has been and remains publicly supportive of pending legislation intend to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act," he said.
The proposed legislation will also benefit larger companies such as DuPont and Chemours because they are in a better position to handle the increased cost of regulation, said Butkiewicz. He compared the bill to regulations adopted by the banking industry after the 2008 financial crisis, which have sent compliance costs soaring. In fact, two years ago JP Morgan announced that additional compliance would cost the bank more than $4 billion.
"Regulation is costly," Butkiewicz said. "You have to fill out fill out forms, monitor rules and hire more people. This might limit competition."
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/06/02/dupont-chemours-benefit-new-legislation/85304764/
-
Chemicals Must Take 'Centre Stage' in Circular Economy Discussions
Jun 2, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
It is time chemicals took centre stage in discussions on the development of a circular economy, according to Joanna Drake, deputy director general of the European Commission's environment directorate.
Speaking on the final day of last week's Helsinki Chemicals Forum, Ms Drake said circular economy discussions must focus on secondary raw materials, not just primary products.
But this, she said, would require improvements in tracking the presence of hazardous substances in the recycling stream. Something that is proving a "challenge".
Last year, the European Commission said its circular economy action plan included measures to "overcome unnecessary barriers" presented by hazardous chemicals, without compromising health and environmental protection.
According to Ms Drake, one of the Commission's actions is to prepare a strategic approach to chemicals. This will decide the "right course of action to facilitate traceability and the risk management of chemicals in the recycling process."
In a keynote speech, that followed Ms Drake's, Echa’s executive director Geert Dancet agreed that chemicals of concern must not create a barrier to achieving a circular economy.
He said a "fundamental review" of REACH Article 33 should be carried out under the European Commission's circular economy work. This is the legal requirement for companies to provide consumers with information on substances in articles.
In a statement to Chemical Watch, Mr Dancet said that by companies systemically reporting any significant volumes of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in specific articles or parts of articles, Echa would, for instance, be able to communicate this information to recyclers.
"Recyclers could then eliminate these chemicals from the recycled materials or eventually not recycle articles containing SVHCs," he added.
This would "boost the drive towards a non-toxic environment".Legislative challenges
More broadly, Ms Drake discussed how the circular economy presents legislative issues on chemicals of concern: "How do we remove these from the circle? Under REACH we are aiming to phase out hazardous substances as much as possible. But these substances may continue to appear in the recycling stream via the many products that were produced before REACH took effect."
She also raised concerns over imported articles: "REACH enables us to phase out substances of concern, but it does not apply equally to imported articles, as EU produced articles." But this, she said, is being addressed through further and improved implementation of REACH.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47833/chemicals-must-take-centre-stage-in-circular-economy-discussions
-
Microplastics Harm Marine Life -- Study
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
For the first time, scientists have found concrete evidence that the tiny bits of plastic polluting the world's oceans have a devastating physiological and behavior effect on exposed fish.
Researchers found that European perch larvae with exposure to microplastic particles had a harder time fertilizing eggs. The exposure also stunted growth, slowed activity levels and made it easier for predators to attack them.
"For me, the key finding and biggest surprise in this study was the fact that larvae preferentially ate microplastic particles and literally stuffed themselves with the microbeads," ignoring their natural food source of zooplankton, said marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt of Uppsala University in Sweden.
Increasingly, scientists and lawmakers are concerned about the effect plastic can have on marine ecosystems (E&E Daily, May 18).
"If microplastics are indeed affecting organisms both chemically and physically, then this really calls for a ban on microplastic beads in body-care products and cosmetics around the world," Lönnstedt said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/03/stories/1060038257
-
Clock Starts For Suits Over EPA Oil & Gas Air Rules
Jun 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to publish in the June 3 Federal Register its suite of final emissions rules for the oil and gas sector that includes first-time methane limits on new oil and gas drilling; an “aggregation” air permit rule; and a rule for permitting oil and gas on federal land, triggering a 60-day clock for groups to file legal challenges to the rules.
In addition, the agency also intends to publish in the same Register its proposed information collection request (ICR) seeking data on emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from existing oil and gas operations. Such data is expected to inform a potential future rulemaking to impose methane limits on existing facilities, something that EPA opted against pursuing in the suite of recent rules.
Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act says that agency air rules can be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for 60 days following their publication in the Register.
Among the suite of oil and gas rules that the agency will publish June 3 is EPA's final rule updating its new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector to impose first-time limits on methane from future oil and gas operations. EPA in the rule rejected long-running efforts by environmentalists to expand the universe of new and modified oil and gas sources that will be regulated, complicating advocates' efforts to have the agency regulate the source categories if it eventually issues parallel rules for existing facilities.
EPA will also publish and take comment on for 60 days its draft ICR outlining a planned multi-stage process for obtaining information from the oil and gas industry about methane emissions from existing sources, a measure that could determine whether and how the next administration will regulate the sources. As the ICR is only in draft form, it cannot be subject to legal challenge until the agency finalizes it.
However, EPA's critics could file suit over the agency's final federal implementation plan to implement Clean Air Act “minor” new source review permitting for oil and gas production on tribal lands. The regulation, to be published in the June 3 Register, aims to streamline the sector's pre-construction permitting process. But advocates say the rule eases administrative burdens rather than limiting emissions.
The agency will also publish its final rule on when to combine, or aggregate, air permits for oil and gas sector sources. The final rule narrows the scope of the aggregation policy in response to industry criticisms on the proposed rule and what the agency says is a declining need for such permits under the related NSPS. But EPA in the rule is offering states a legal basis to use a stricter aggregation test if they wish.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
California Floats Oil & Gas Methane Rule That Could Serve As EPA Model
Jun 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry
California regulators have issued for public comment their final proposed rule to reduce methane emissions from new and existing oil and gas facilities and operations, a rule that goes beyond similar measures in other states and may also serve as a model for EPA as it collects data to determine whether to develop a regulation targeting existing sources.
“EPA will look at state regulations -- including California’s -- as it develops rules for existing sources,” an agency spokeswoman says.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) May 31 released its final proposed regulation that seeks to reduce fugitive and vented emissions from new and existing crude oil and gas facilities at both onshore and offshore operations.
After a 45-day public comment period, the board will consider the measure at its July 21 meeting, where it may direct staff to make additional revisions.
To officially finalize the rule, CARB must also respond to comments on an environmental assessment accompanying the regulation and adopt that document at a separate board meeting, which is expected in September.
Specifically, the regulation will implement new or more stringent requirements on a host of sources, including separator and tank systems; flash analysis testing; vapor collection systems and vapor control devices; circulation tanks for well stimulation treatments; reciprocating compressors; centrifugal compressors; pneumatic devices and pumps; liquids unloading of gas wells; leak detection and repair (LDAR); and natural gas storage facilities.
California's proposed rules are considered groundbreaking and a potential model for the rest of the country in part because they cover a broader universe of sources and facilities than similar regulations adopted in recent years by Colorado, Wyoming and Pennsylvania, one environmentalist says.
For example, for the LDAR requirements, the CARB rule is broader in scope than those in the three other states because it applies to a greater number of facilities -- new and existing facilities and facilities that are in the production segment, processing segment and also transmission segment, which includes compressor stations, according to an environmentalist.
In addition, the CARB rule has a monitoring requirement for underground natural gas storage facilities, which is not addressed in the other states' rules, the environmentalist adds.
But given California's extensive oil and gas production operations and infrastructure, the rule could also have significant local impacts, helping the state achieve a large portion of its strategy to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
For example, the rule is expected to reduce GHG emissions by about 1.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) per year based on a 20-year horizon global warming potential (GWP).
The cost per ton of CO2e reduction is estimated to be about $17 without considering savings and $15 after savings, based on a 20-year GWP, according to the proposal.
CARB staff estimates that the proposed regulation will cost about $22 million dollars per year including enhanced natural gas storage monitoring.
'Serious Loophole'
Environmentalists are generally praising CARB's proposed regulation as landmark, though they are disappointed with several elements and changes from a previous draft.
“If finalized, it will give California one of the most comprehensive methane standards in the world, encompassing both new and existing facilities both on land and offshore,” the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) says in a May 31 press release.
But EDF adds that CARB's proposal creates a “serious loophole,” known as a “step-down” provision, which would allow operators to shift to less rigorous monitoring requirements if they fail to find leaks over a specified number of inspections. “This would create a powerful, perverse incentive to avoid finding and reporting leaks, and a baked-in reason to avoid fixing them quickly,” the release says.
“This rule is a major accomplishment in reducing the serious health and climate risks associated with methane, but it doesn’t go far enough,” says Tim O’Connor, a senior EDF attorney. “The step-down provision would actually give oil and gas companies strong motivation not to find or report their leaks. That’s a huge step backward.”
EDF explains that while the new regulation will require quarterly leak detection and repair, the step-down provision allows operators to meet only “loose annual inspection requirements” after a year of compliance. “Research has shown that leaks from equipment malfunctions and poor maintenance lead to significant emissions that are not reflected in emission inventories,” EDF says.
“To fix the leaks, you have to find them,” O'Connor adds. “California’s aging oil and gas infrastructure increases the likelihood of dangerous leaks happening anywhere at any time, which is why frequent inspections are so important. While this is a strong rule, it needs to have permanent mandatory quarterly inspections to protect the state’s people and the environment.”
An environmentalist also notes that CARB staff is seeking to delay LDAR compliance requirements by one year from an earlier draft of the rule, from Jan. 1, 2017, to Jan. 1, 2018. This change is “not good,” the source says.
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) earlier this year strongly urged CARB to push back the proposed 2017 compliance dates, charging they would be impossible to meet in part because local air districts that will be responsible for enforcing the regulation would not have time to adopt their own procedures to implement the regulation's requirements.
California industry representatives did not immediately return requests for comment on the final CARB proposal.
Model For EPA
Despite the proposed implementation delay, the final CARB regulation may still serve as a model for EPA to consider as it weighs developing its own regulation targeting methane emissions from existing oil and gas facilities.
EPA recently issued a draft information collection request (ICR), subsequently published in the June 3 Federal Register, that provides a detailed indication of its planned multi-stage process for obtaining information from the oil and gas industry about emissions of methane from existing sources, a measure that will determine whether and how the next administration will regulate the sources.
The agency spokeswoman says the information collected from the ICR will build on what states and other federal agencies have learned through their own rules, programs and experiences. “As EPA begins developing rules for existing source, the agency will examine state regulations to learn how states have addressed existing sources, and look for opportunities to align federal and state rules where possible,” she says.
In addition, she adds, EPA will also soon issue a voluntary Request for Information that will ask industry, states, nongovernmental organizations and others to “provide information on innovative strategies to accurately and cost-effectively locate, measure and mitigate methane emissions.”
While CARB's rule, if finalized, may serve as a potential model for EPA, there are some significant differences in what the agencies may regulate. For example, CARB's rule addresses both onshore and offshore facilities, while EPA only has Clean Air Act authority to regulate onshore operations.
In addition, CARB's rule leaves it up to local air districts to address flaring while EPA may regulate the practice.
The environmentalist also notes there are differences between California's rule and those developed by other states. For example, Pennsylvania's quarterly LDAR requirements only apply to compressor stations for gathering and boosting segments and not at well sites, while CARB's rule requiring quarterly inspections would apply to both areas.
Similarly, Colorado's rule features a tiered LDAR program where some facilities are subject to more frequent monthly inspections, which goes beyond CARB's rule, but there are also some facilities that are only subject to one-time or annual instrument-based inspections, the source says.
In general, the scope of the CARB rules applies to a greater number and different types of facilities than what are covered in the Colorado rule, the source says.
In addition, CARB's rule is stronger than the other states' regulations because it includes intermittent vent pneumatic controllers in the LDAR provisions, whereas these types of controllers are not regulated at all in either the Colorado or Pennsylvania rules, and are not included in LDAR provisions in Wyoming.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/california-floats-oil-gas-methane-rule-could-serve-epa-model
-
Texas to Vote on Challenging Federal Methane Rules
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Texas oil and gas regulators may join the legal fight against federal methane-reduction rules for the oil industry.
The Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees energy production, is scheduled to vote Tuesday on challenging the federal plan. Two of the three commissioners said through representatives that they're in favor of suing the government.
"At a high level the proposed final rules go even further than the draft rules did in encompassing oil and gas activity," Jared Craighead, a spokesman for Commissioner Ryan Sitton (R), said in an email.
If they decide to move forward, the commissioners would ask Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) to file a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and it's also a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. It can leak from oil and gas wells and also from pipelines, storage tanks and other oil field equipment.
The U.S. EPA rules, finalized May 12, would require operators to check for and repair leaks at gas wells and some oil wells. It also would require companies to phase in the use of "green completions" -- a technique that captures methane and other emissions when a newly finished well is cleaned out and connected to a pipeline.
The rules would apply only to newly drilled or installed equipment, but EPA also is gathering information to see whether it should extend the rules to cover the hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas wells around the country (ClimateWire, May 13).
The final version of the rules is expected to be published in the Federal Register as soon as today, and that could open the door to court challenges from states and industry groups.
The Railroad Commission historically has pushed back against federal oil and gas regulations. Craighead said the commissioners have specific complaints about the methane regulations, too, such as the requirement that older wells comply with the rules if they are recompleted.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/03/stories/1060038228
-
Emails Reveal EPA Disappointment After Supreme Court Decision
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
"There is no sugar-coating it."
That was the initial reaction Feb. 9 of Avi Garbow, U.S. EPA general counsel, to the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Obama administration's signature climate rule, sent in an email to staffers hours after the stay was announced.
Garbow called the Supreme Court's decision "difficult news" but went on to encourage EPA staffers, saying, "I just want you all to know how proud I am" of their work on the Clean Power Plan.
In a later email, acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe called the stay "obviously very disappointing."
Emails sent between top EPA officials after the Supreme Court's surprise decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, obtained by E&E through a Freedom of Information Act request, show widespread disappointment throughout the agency but also a determination to continue the agency's work on climate change.
"It is not a decision on the merits, however, and we remain as sure as we were yesterday of the sound legal basis for the rule and that the Clean Power Plan is an important, if lawful program under the Clean Air Act to address the serious threat of climate change," McCabe wrote in an email to staffers dated Feb. 10
In her first public appearance after the stay at a meeting of state regulators in Washington, D.C., EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said she was "disappointed" in the stay but confident the rule will ultimately survive the court system (E&ENews PM, Feb. 11).
"One decision to stay doesn't mean that the CPP isn't alive and isn't going to survive," McCarthy said Feb. 11.
In the following months, McCarthy reiterated her confidence in the rule's legality and even dismissed the significance of the stay at one point, saying "we didn't lose anything yet" in response to a question suggesting EPA had lost a preliminary court battle over the Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, April 21).
The Clean Power Plan is considered the linchpin of the Obama administration's effort to address climate change on both domestic and international fronts.
EPA's regulation, rolled out in August 2015, would slash carbon emissions from U.S. power plants 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The electricity sector is the No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
But soon after its release, the Clean Power Plan was challenged by 27 states and over 100 other opponents, including industries, utilities and labor groups.
Both supporters and opponents of the Clean Power Plan were caught off guard by the Supreme Court's Feb. 9 decision to stay the rule.
While it's widely expected the rule's legality will be decided by the Supreme Court, the stay was considered unprecedented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined a request to stay the rule in January, and the challengers' subsequent stay request to the Supreme Court was considered a long shot.
The one-page decision provided no clues as to why the court decided to stay the rule.
Nevertheless, the stay has had a widespread chilling effect on the massive planning effort that was taking place across the United States in preparation for the climate rule.
EPA announced that a September deadline for states to submit initial implementation plans no longer applies. Many states have halted the technical planning work, and a number of governors and legislatures have prohibited environment agencies from expending resources on the rule unless the stay is lifted.
However, about 20 states -- many of which are supporting EPA in court -- continue to strategize ways to make the power-sector emissions cuts required by the Clean Power Plan. Many utilities also have indicated they will continue planning for increased carbon constraints.
The Supreme Court is not expected to hear the case until late 2017 or early 2018.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060038247
-
Emails Show a Bloodied but Unbowed EPA After Rule Freeze
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Elizabeth Harball
Six minutes past midnight on Feb. 10 -- five hours after the Supreme Court stayed President Obama's signature climate change rule -- a U.S. EPA assistant administrator expressed shock in an email to her colleagues in the Office of Air and Radiation.
"Can't believe this," Lori Stewart wrote to acting air chief Janet McCabe and Joe Goffman, the air office's associate assistant administrator and senior counsel.
Emails between top EPA officials after the high court's surprise decision to stay the Clean Power Plan, obtained by E&E through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal both disappointment and a dogged determination to move forward on the rule after the Supreme Court's unprecedented decision to stay the regulation.
In the days after the stay was announced, the rule's supporters sent emails of encouragement to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and other agency officials.
"Thinking of you today -- hang in there," Cheryl LaFleur, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told McCarthy on Feb. 10.
"Very thoughtful statement -- thank you!" McCarthy replied.
Wrote Heather Zichal, former deputy assistant to Obama for energy and climate change, in a Feb. 11 email to McCabe: "I know it's been a rough week. Just wanted you to know that I'm thinking about you."
EPA officials and their supporters cheered the news that a number of states would continue working on the Clean Power Plan despite the stay.
Zichal ended her email to McCabe on an up note: "We went to bed on Tuesday knowing about the stay and concerned that we'd lose people on implementing CPP -- and we went to bed Wednesday knowing that we are in exactly the same place we were before the ruling."
McCabe's reply: "That is EXACTLY right!" She added, "We're making gallons of lemonade."
Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmell wrote in a Feb. 12 email to McCabe: "I imagine that you must feel shell shocked right now. I know I do. I wanted you to know that we will do everything we can to keep progress moving while the litigation is pending, and to influence the outcome of the ruling on the merits."
McCabe told him, "Keeping the momentum -- of which there is a lot -- moving is critical, and a lot of entities, including states and utilities, are speaking up to say so," and she thanked Kimmell for his efforts.
Staff circulated news and press releases about states that would continue or halt planning for the rule.
"Very cool," an EPA official whose name was redacted wrote Feb. 10 in response to a press release from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) announcing his state would continue working on the rule.
In a Feb. 11 email, McCabe wrote "Think how remarkable it is to have even three states (VA, CO and now PA) voluntarily say they are going to move forward on a federally required program that is stayed -- really, I'm not sure that's ever happened before."
In a Feb. 15 email, Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin wrote that he heard from Maryland officials that their state would also keep up work on the rule.
A Delaware official, Philip Cherry, also wrote to EPA after the stay was issued saying the state intended to continue working on a play to comply with the rule. "We wanted to be sure EPA knew of our intentions, and our support for the CPP overall," he wrote.
The stay stirred questions outside of Washington, too. Groups representing state regulators quizzed EPA leaders about the stay's impact. Some of the questions were obvious. Would the agency extend its deadline for initial state responses beyond September 2016? Others had deeper implications. Could the stay disrupt the goals of the international climate agreement signed in Paris last December?
McCabe wrote that "these questions are pretty much what we expected" in an email to staff before a conference call with state groups Feb. 16.
Christopher Grundler, director of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), in a Feb. 12 email said it was "way cool" that McCarthy received a standing ovation for her speech in her first public appearance after the stay was announced, noting in the subject line it "has lifted me out of my post SCOTUS funk."
"I'm sure she'll say something at the all hands meeting next week too," McCabe said in reply. "So all depressed OTAQ employees should attend."
Scalia's death
In the days after the stay, EPA communications staffers prepared talking points for McCarthy and other high-ranking officials.
William Niebling, a senior adviser for congressional affairs, said "I know it's not a fun topic" and asked whether press advisers were prepping McCarthy for a congressional hearing.
"Given that she'll get the question anywhere she goes, do we need to do something different to prep her for House Ag? Or are you talking her through it anyway?" Niebling asked in a late-night email on the day of the stay.
Director of Public Affairs Liz Purchia on Feb. 11 shared editorials from The New York Timesand The Washington Post with McCarthy, McCabe and Goffman.
"NYT calls into question the court's political nature. WaPo calls on congress to do something on climate," she said.
As news broke of the Feb. 13 death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- a critical vote in the 5-4 decision to stay the Clean Power Plan -- top EPA officials sent around emails alerting each other of the news.
"Justice scalia died" was the subject line of an email sent by EPA's top enforcement official, Cynthia Giles, to McCarthy and McCabe.
Wrote Goffman to McCabe: "May his soul find peace."
Many of the emails received by E&E were redacted for being "deliberative" or protected by attorney-client privilege. For example, EPA did not release emails where staff were preparing answers for reporters about what states should do following the stay and whether a September deadline for initial plans would apply.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/03/stories/1060038280
-
Ariz. is Already on Track to Meet EPA Goals, Models Show
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
Arizona may be able to meet U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan standards solely with existing plans to retire coal plants and shift to cleaner sources of energy, according to two models reviewed by state officials in recent meetings.
The state -- which has been one of the loudest critics of EPA's rule and is suing the agency -- could comply with a required rate of emissions without making changes, according to a reportfrom Pace Global that was commissioned by power companies.
Or Arizona could cap the total tons of carbon dioxide emitted by the power sector and still meet EPA's goals, according toresearch by the Energy Policy Innovation Council at Arizona State University. It conducted the analysis using a tool developed by Synapse Energy Economics.
The costs to power companies and consumers could differ widely, according to rough estimates from ASU. Some utilities were already planning things that will help them meet EPA's standards, while others aren't as well-positioned based on current business plans. In a carbon trading system, some utilities could benefit financially by selling carbon credits to less prepared competitors.
"What we're finding is that different utilities are in different positions depending on what they've done to date," said ASU analyst Edward Burgess. "Some may in fact be able to provide a benefit to their customers if they've retired some of their old coal fleet and invested in renewables."
In other words, "there are going to be winner and loser utilities based on their resource mix," said Amanda Ormond, a representative of Advanced Energy Economy who attends technical work group meetings on the rule organized by the state's Department of Environmental Quality.
For example, between 2022 and 2024, average residential power bills could go up $2.03 per month or down $2.25 per month, depending on the utility, according to ASU's figures.
Burgess cautioned that the numbers are "very hypothetical and preliminary." They also don't delve into how generators might trade carbon credits with power companies in other states. ASU is working with Northern Arizona University on a more sophisticated economic model based on power dispatch, Burgess said.
Ormond said although the numbers aren't firm, they show Arizona is "going to have a pretty easy time meeting the Clean Power Plan."
The study findings are surprising because Arizona claimed it would be impossible to meet the goals outlined in EPA's draft rule, which would have been harder to achieve.
"There's a really big difference between the rhetoric of how difficult the Clean Power Plan's going to be to meet versus the technical discussions," Ormond said.
Diverging studies
The Pace study found that a rate-based standard might be easier for the state. Ormond thinks utilities would prefer to meet an average rate of emissions because it would allow for load growth.
ASU researchers, however, believe the state could comply with an average rate of emissions or a cap on carbon. In a trading system with generators from other states, Arizona could benefit from an excess of credits or allowances, ASU determined. Power companies could sell those to other utilities that are having a harder time cutting their emissions.
The results of the two studies likely differ because of contrasting inputs. The Pace analysis assumes most new power in Arizona will come from natural gas, explained Steve Burr, Arizona DEQ's principal environmental scientist. On the other hand, ASU assumed a larger portion of new electricity would come from renewable power, based on calculations that wind and solar will be less expensive than natural gas. Pace also assumed fewer energy efficiency gains than ASU.
Ann Livingston, a state and local program manager with the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, said her group is concerned Pace's inputs are inaccurate. Pace assumed energy efficiency improvements of less than 1 percent per year, but Livingston said several major utilities in the state are planning for 1.5 percent per year -- which is what ASU assumed. Livingston said even that estimate may be conservative.
One big question that remains is whether two large coal plants in the Navajo Nation will be subject to a federal implementation plan from EPA.
The Navajo Nation argues it ceded the right to regulate the plants in past agreements with utilities. The plants are already facing unit closures that could bring them in line with emissions standards, however, so EPA may be considering excluding them from regulation, Burr said. Many Arizona utilities are partial owners of the plants and will be impacted by EPA's decision.
Since the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan, Arizona's DEQ has slowed planning. Public meetings will occur every quarter, rather than every month. A closed technical work group will meet every six weeks to two months.
DEQ's next public meeting is June 14.
Timothy Franquist, who recently became DEQ's air quality division director after Eric Massey stepped down for a job at the Arizona Public Service Co., said political leaders and lawmakers in the state have been candid about the uncertainty of the stay.
"We don't want to overextend resources and find that the program goes away," Franquist said of the Clean Power Plan. "At the same time ... we don't want to fall so far behind that we have to play a lot of catch-up should the stay be lifted."
Click here to read more about Arizona and the Clean Power Plan.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/03/stories/1060038243
-
Where People are Drawing the (Pipe)line for Oil and Gas
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Fossil fuel projects nationwide are falling through or facing major delays as new regulations, grass-roots opposition and low energy prices drag down progress.
U.S. projects worth about $33 billion have been either shelved by developers or rejected by regulators since 2012, while many more major projects are stuck.
In the Northwest, five out of six proposed coal export terminals have been killed, largely because area residents didn't want to contribute to climate change and tribal nations said their fishing and land rights were being taken away.
On the East Coast, natural gas pipelines are trying to get a glut from shale fields to cities that have little direct access to energy resources and face higher energy costs. Organizations from New England to the Carolinas have rallied to stall or stop progress, which worked at least in New York. Regulators there refused a water quality permit for the proposed Constitution pipeline, which would move gas from Pennsylvania to New York.
Williams Cos. Inc., Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. and their partners behind Constitution are fighting the permit rejection in court, still hoping it goes through in two years.
Residents aren't the lines' only problem, as low fuel prices have forced companies to slash budgets and major projects alike. Some Eastern projects simply couldn't find a utility to sign onto their line, as utilities opt to increase their renewable resources.
Crude oil pipeline mileage did increase 27 percent from 2009 to 2014, but much of that infrastructure was in the oil fields, not funneling the product to cities.
Natural gas lines, though, lost 2 percent of mileage, or 6,640 miles, from 2009 to 2015. Many pipeline owners had to retrofit or increase line compression to fit the added need and glut of gas needed in the market.
These stoppages and delays reflect a changing attitude toward the fuels and are firing up discussion over whether high-paying jobs and cheap energy are worth a neighborhood pipeline and emissions-causing energy.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/03/stories/1060038222
-
FERC Approval Clears Path for Midsize Project With Big Backers
Jun 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Oil and gas infrastructure giant Kinder Morgan has received federal approval to liquefy natural gas for export at an existing plant near Savannah, Ga., setting the project up for a swift construction start.
The Elba Liquefaction Project is a plan by Kinder Morgan to add LNG production and export capacity at its Elba Island import terminal.
The company proposes a novel approach that includes installing a movable, modular liquefaction technology owned by Royal Dutch Shell PLC that the companies say will be faster and more flexible to deploy than traditional, customized equipment. The project also requires pipeline upgrades on the Elba Express pipeline and expansion of the Southern Natural Gas pipeline system.
On Wednesday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the terminal and pipeline work, based in part on an environmental assessment issued in February that concluded the export upgrade "would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
Kinder Morgan proposes to deploy 10 modular liquefaction units, for a total of about 2.5 million metric tons per year of LNG production, at a cost of about $2 billion. In the oversized world of LNG exports, those figures represent a midsize project, where large plants like Sabine Pass LNG, under development by Cheniere Energy Inc., could export close to 10 times that amount of LNG.
In 2013, Kinder Morgan and a U.S. subsidiary of Shell announced that Shell was purchasing a 49 percent stake in the Elba Island project, along with responsibility for marketing all the production (EnergyWire, Jan. 29, 2013).
But in July of last year, Kinder Morgan announced it was buying back Shell's stake in the project. Shell retained its 20-year contract for the facility's full output.
Richard Wheatley, a spokesman for Kinder Morgan, yesterday said that the company had passed a final investment decision milestone on the project some time ago. The project received approval from the Department of Energy in 2012 for the export of LNG to countries with free-trade agreements with the United States.
An application to export to non-free-trade partners remains pending with DOE, but Wheatley said the project can proceed without that authorization. LNG markets in most of Central and South America, along with certain countries in other regions, fall under free-trade provisions.
Before construction can start, FERC must verify that a series of conditions imposed on the project have been met. Wheatley said that from there, it would be about 60 days to groundbreaking. Kinder Morgan anticipates having the first liquefaction unit up and running by the summer of 2018, with all 10 units online by the end of that year.
Worldwide, natural gas markets have been in the doldrums for more than a year as the oil price slide has dragged down prices for LNG.
Many analysts predict that markets could be oversupplied through the early 2020s, making it difficult for projects to lock up the long-term contracts that typically underpin project financing.
In recent months, several high-profile market assessments have put forward differing views of how many U.S. LNG export terminals will ultimately be built. An analysis presented in late May by consultancy Nexant Inc. predicted that no new U.S. export terminals beyond the five currently under construction will be built before 2030.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/03/stories/1060038240
-
The Magic of the EPA's Benefit/Cost Analysis
Jun 3, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Benjamin Zycher
Benefit/cost analysis: It sounds so scientific, so rational, so impartial. So sound as a tool with which to resolve conflicting assertions about the wisdom of regulatory proposals. So divorced from partisanship or ideological influence.
Oh, please. Democracy is the art of wealthredistribution, the bureaucracy is an interest group and benefit/cost analyses can be shaped to support virtually any outcome preferred politically. Consider, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efficiency rule for medium and heavy trucks, part of the administration's climate action plan; the benefit/cost "analysis" used to justify it is hugely revealing. The EPA has published estimates of the effects of the rule, as follows:
The results of the analysis, summarized in Table VII-37, demonstrate that relative to the reference case, by 2100 ... global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm.
The EPA then states that "the projected reductions in atmospheric CO2, global mean temperature, sea level rise, and ocean pH are meaningful in the context of this action." And so we arrive at the benefit/cost conclusion, given in all seriousness:
[We] estimate that the proposed standards would result in net economic benefits exceeding $100 billion, making this a highly beneficial rule.
Can anyone believe that a temperature effect by 2100 measured in ten-thousandths of a degree, or sea-level effects measured in thousandths of a centimeter, could yield over $100 billion in net economic benefits? How is that possible?
Welcome to the fascinating world of EPA benefit/cost analysis. Before this truck rule and the other components of the Obama climate policy were promulgated, the administration conducted an "analysis" of the "social cost of carbon" (SCC), in order to generate an estimate of the marginal externality cost of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The problems with that analysis are legion, but the central ones are the use of global (rather than national) benefits to drive the benefit/cost comparison; the failure to apply a 7 percent discount rate to the streams of benefits and costs, despite clear direction from the Office of Management and Budget; and — most important — the use of ozone and particulate reductions as "co-benefits" of climate policies. The administration's estimate is about $36 per ton in 2015 ($31 per ton in 2010).
And that is how a regulation yielding future changes in temperatures and sea levels approaching zero can be claimed to yield net benefits "exceeding $100 billion, making this a highly beneficial rule." In the EPA's benefit/cost framework, the actual effects of the policies literally are irrelevant; just compute the assumed reduction in GHG emissions, multiply by $36, and voila!
Should you respond that any journey begins with a tiny step, consider the following. The Obama climate policy calls for a 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels in U.S. GHG emissions by 2020. If we apply the EPA's own climate model, that would reduce temperatures by the year 2100 by fifteen one-thousandths of a degree. In addition, the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change calls for an additional 10 percent reduction by the U.S. by 2025. (The Chinese commitment — it's unenforceable — is for a "peak" in their emissions by 2030. Total emissions at that peak and the emissions path after the peak are not addressed.) The additional 10 percent U.S. reduction yields another one one-hundredth of a degree. The standard deviation of the temperature record is about 0.1 degrees, so that these effects would be too small even to be measured, let alone to affect sea levels and cyclones and all the rest.
If we add an additional 20 percent emissions cut by China by 2030, that adds 0.2 degrees; and another 0.2 degrees if we assume a 30 percent emissions cut by the rest of the industrialized world, by 2030. If we assume also a 20 percent reduction by the less-developed world by 2030, temperatures would be reduced by another one-tenth of a degree.
The grand total: a bit more than 0.5 degrees.
And these model predictions use underlying parameters highly favorable to the policies under examination; that is, assumptions that increase the predicted effects of the policies. The most important is a "climate sensitivity" (the temperature effect in 2100 of a doubling of GHG concentrations) assumption of 4.5 degrees, a number 50 percent greater than the median reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its latest assessment report. And even the latter is about 40 percent higher than the median of the estimates published in the recent peer-reviewed literature.
For obvious reasons, these trivial temperature benefits of "climate" policies have not been publicized extensively. It is the delegation of legislative powers to the regulatory agencies that has allowed such game-playing in pursuit of an ideological agenda. The only means with which to restore political accountability to the regulatory process is a requirement that all regulations be approved by Congress.
Zycher is the John G. Searle scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/282079-the-magic-of-benefit-cost-analysis-at-the-epa
-
States Working With EPA To Improve Input On Air Policy Advisory Panels
Jun 3, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), representing regulators from 18 states, has agreed with EPA staff to try to find ways to increase state regulators' understanding of major scientific committees that advise the agency on air policy and to bolster opportunities for states' input, according to an AAPCA source.
An AAPCA source tells Inside EPA that the group is seeking to improve its members' knowledge of both CASAC and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), a broader body advising EPA on scientific issues, and perhaps provide greater opportunity for states to make their views known on clean air questions. It follows concerns raised by GOP lawmakers and some states about alleged bias toward the agency on the advisory panels.
“We are looking forward to collaborating with the SAB staff” on this effort, the source says, adding that AAPCA is organizing webinars and other ways to better inform its member states about the panels. AAPCA's members include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The AAPCA source tells Inside EPA that the group is also seeking to diversify CASAC's membership to include more state representatives -- and to encourage nominees from Midwestern or Southern states.
“We are intending to argue that experts nominated from our state agencies represent the high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise necessary to provide advice to the [EPA] Administrator on scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and the NAAQS,” according to the source. Regulators from three AAPCA member states have been nominated to a CASAC panel that advises EPA on its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program..
“Furthermore, we believe that these experts possess key on-the-ground Clean Air Act experience that would benefit CASAC and satisfy EPA's interest in geographic, educational, and professional diversity,” the source says.
AAPCA and Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) separately unsuccessfully asked EPA to extend the deadline for nominations to CASAC beyond May 6.
The requests followed longstanding complaints from EPA's GOP and industry critics that the nominations process is obscure and that certain advisory panels, including CASAC, are biased toward agency views.
Among nominees for the full CASAC coming from AAPCA member states are Michael Honeycutt, director of toxicology with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), a frequent critic of EPA's ozone science who was nominated by TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw; Jim Boylan, program manager at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Air Protection Branch; and Craig Butler, director of Ohio EPA.
The EPA SAB Staff Office in response to a request for comment said, “We can confirm that the nomination period has not been extended. The SAB Staff Office has offered to meet with [AAPCA] to discuss ways to enhance outreach to state organizations for future nomination periods. The SAB Staff Office is always interested in meeting with stakeholders to listen to concerns, share information on the Federal Advisory Committee process and to focus on specific issues (e.g., increasing participation of state and local scientists in advisory committees and panels).”
AAPCA Survey
Although AAPCA does not take formal advocacy positions on policy issues, a researcher working for the group recently presented results of a national survey that found some state regulators are unhappy with CASAC's membership. According to the survey results, some states say that the committee is under-representing states, bolstering accusations that the committee disproportionately favors coastal states over more conservative Midwestern and Southern states.
AAPCA research fellow Cassandra Yannelli at an April 28 meeting of the group in Columbia, SC, presented the survey results of a survey that said states feel underrepresented on the CASAC historically, despite a Clean Air Act requirement that the committee include at least one state representative. Her survey formed part of a broader research effort that reached similar conclusions, the AAPCA source says.
From 2009 to the present, the chartered CASAC has contained only one representative of a state air regulatory organization, George Allen of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a regional regulators' body, Yannelli found. Allen has also been the only state representative on the influential CASAC ozone panel, she found.
CASAC forms panels larger than its seven-member federally-chartered group to formulate policy advice on how EPA should set NAAQS for the six “criteria” pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter.
Under the air law, EPA must review NAAQS every five years, and CASAC must offer advice on the agency's science underpinning decisions on the health protectiveness and environmental benefits of NAAQS.
Yannelli found in her presentation that 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed that CASAC is “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions performed by the advisory committee,” and that 65 percent found the committee and its sub-panels to be unbalanced in their geographic representation.
Regulator's Push-Back
However, one East Coast air regulator is pushing back on the survey findings, saying they are limited in scope and also flawed. The regulator tells Inside EPA that Yannelli's findings are not necessarily indicative of state regulators' attitudes, noting that the survey sample size was small -- a fact Yannelli conceded in her presentation.
For some questions, only 15 respondents answered the questions. The East Coast regulator says that the survey is therefore a thin premise to claim broad consensus among many states about CASAC's alleged bias. “The apparent indication [is] that facts don't really matter and a little data will do,” the source says.
In response to a request for comment, the AAPCA source says in an email to Inside EPA, “Criticism may be coming from those who did not hear the accompanying presentation, which focused on survey results but also discussed broader research on the history of CASAC’s makeup.
“The presentation, including the slides, noted the small sample size along with other relevant limitations. It also outlined that 20 state air agency respondents from a number of EPA regions -- who have responsibility for air quality in an area that includes approximately 40 percent of the U.S. population -- provided feedback.”
The source also acknowledges a technical error, subsequently corrected, which misreported the response to one survey question.“The presentation clearly noted that 70 percent of respondents answered affirmatively to the question 'Is the CASAC process for nominating and recommending expert candidates transparent and clearly understood?' It appears that the accompanying arrow from the PowerPoint slide was skewed when it was converted to a PDF -- [our] Website reflects the update. . . [T]he survey results were provided to participants and posted on AAPCA’s website for context.”
Yannelli was not immediately available for comment.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-working-epa-improve-input-air-policy-advisory-panels
Industry and Association News
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