Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/9
-
(ACC Mentioned) Acenture and ACC Release Workforce Turnover Survey
Jun 8, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
According to a new survey by Accenture and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) North American chemical companies face workforce turnover issues, which if not resolved, could mean more unplanned operations disruptions, more hiring and training costs and more efforts to maintain safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Safety Rules Pass Congress. What’s Next for Manufacturers?
Jun 9, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
The US Senate late Tuesday night approved a measure to update the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Faces Uncertain Funding Future
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to celebrate passage of the bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's chemical law, but questions loom over funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's new obligations under the statute, lawmakers and legal experts told Bloomberg BNA June 8. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Feels 'Pure Elation' on TSCA as Advocates Hunker Down
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
A heavily negotiated and long-awaited chemicals safety bill is headed to the White House where President Obama is ready to sign it into law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Passes Chemical Safety Reform Legislation
Jun 8, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The United States Senate passed legislation to reform a 40-year-old chemical safety on Tuesday, drawing praise from a number of industry organizations before the measure goes before President Barack Obama to be signed into law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Styrofoam Industry Makes Its Pitch
Jun 9, 2016 | The Daily Mail
By Katie Kocijanski
The Greene County Legislature has continued discussions on a new local law regulating the use of Stryofoam materials at local food establishments. -
Why Passage of Toxic Chemical Reform Is a Really Big Deal
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Richard Denison
First, the obvious: It's the first major environmental legislation to be enacted in more than 20 years. -
Rep. Shimkus Touts TSCA Reform's Regulatory Certainty As Major Victory
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is touting regulatory certainty for chemical manufacturers and other proponents of chemical safety reform as a major win in the final legislation to overhaul the decades old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which the Senate approved June 7 and sent to President Obama for his expected signature. -
Sen. Udall Says EPA's Funding Adequate To Start Implementing TSCA Reform
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) -- a key figure in crafting the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill and also a top Democrat on the Senate appropriations panel -- says EPA's existing funding is adequate for the agency to start implementing the TSCA overhaul, and that EPA is unlikely to get a budget boost because of the bill. -
A Big Victory for Lab Rats: Congress Moves to Limit Chemical Testing on Animals
Jun 8, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Karin Brulliard
The Senate’s approval Tuesday of a far-reaching bill to overhaul government regulation of toxic chemicals was hailed by environmental and public health experts as a key move toward protecting Americans, as well as their land and water, from harmful substances. -
Inhofe Confident Trump Would Implement New Chemical Safety Law
Jun 8, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
Sen. Jim Inhofe hasn’t spoken to Donald Trump or his campaign about the sweeping new chemical safety law that is about to go into effect, but he is confident the presumptive Republican nominee would fully implement the law if elected, despite Trump’s pledges to dramatically pare back the EPA. -
Like Opera with TSCA-Nini
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
The Senate swept aside any remaining procedural hurdles Tuesday night and passed a major revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act, sending one of the biggest environmental bills in years to President Barack Obama for his signature. -
Lawmakers Celebrate Passage of Chemical Safety Reform Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday to celebrate the Senate passing a major chemical safety overhaul and sending it to President Obama’s des -
Winners and Losers in TSCA Reform Battle
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Josh Kurtz
The Toxic Substances Control Act became law in 1976, and it feels as if members of Congress have been trying to reform it ever since. -
EPA Announces Public Science Meeting on ETBE
Jun 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The EPA has announced an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) public science meeting on 7 September to discuss the draft assessment for ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). -
U.S., Canada Designate Great Lakes Chemicals Of Concern
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
The United States and Canada have targeted eight chemicals of concern for the Great Lakes as part of a binational agreement to improve the water quality in the shared lakes and protect human health by reducing anthropogenic releases of the chemicals. -
Are Antibacterial Building Materials Making You Unhealthy?
Jun 9, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Molly Miller
As green design turns its eye to health, architects are looking not only at chemical properties in materials but also at the microbes around us to promote environmental health and sustainability and human health. -
Clarity Needed for Exemptions to DecaBDE Restriction
Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Some EU member states have asked for the exemptions for recycled materials and spare parts to be more clearly defined in a draft Regulation which proposes to restrict the brominated flame retardant, decaBDE. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell's Pennsylvania Ethane Cracker Decision Seen as Historic For Appalachian NatGas Market
Jun 8, 2016 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Jamison Cocklin
Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's decision to build a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania marks the first time in more than 20 years that such a facility has been built in the United States outside of the Gulf Coast. -
'Big Four' to Huddle on Conference Impasse
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Key House and Senate lawmakers are planning to meet next week to discuss how an energy conference committee would operate, as Democrats in the upper chamber continue to express doubts about the prospects of reconciling competing bills. -
House GOP Will Limit Amendments to Spending Bills
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Citing the surprise defeat of the energy and water spending bill, House Republican leaders are cracking down on poison pill amendments in a bid to get the fiscal 2017 appropriations process back on track. -
Resolutions Opposing Carbon Taxes Near House Votes
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House is expected to vote as soon as June 9 on non-binding resolutions stating that a carbon tax is “not in the best interest” of the U.S. and opposing a proposed fee on each barrel of oil produced. -
Supporters Laud 'Momentum' for Carbon Tax Despite House Vote
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
The fact that the House is taking up a resolution opposing a carbon tax shows that the idea of putting a price on the greenhouse gas is gaining traction, some supporters of the policy argued yesterday. -
Low Clean Power Plan Costs Seen During Litigation
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency's currently stayed Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) will have “near-zero” costs until 2025 due to prevailing market, technological and policy trends, according to a new analysis from Resources for the Future. -
Unlikely Casualty in California's Renewable Energy Boom: Natural Gas
Jun 9, 2016 | Reuters
By Nichola Groom
In February of 2001, then California Governor Gray Davis stood at the site of Calpine Corp's new Sutter natural gas power plant and unveiled his plan to fast-track construction of similar stations to add 20,000 megawatts of modern, efficient generation to the state in three years. -
Colorado Has 40 Times More Natural Gas Than Previously Estimated
Jun 8, 2016 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
Western Colorado has 40 times more natural gas than previously thought, potentially making it the second-largest formation in the country, the U.S. Geological Survey said Wednesday. -
Panel Passes Plan to Revamp Infrastructure Protection
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
The House Homeland Security Committee yesterday approved a measure to restructure the U.S. agency responsible for guarding critical infrastructure from cyber and physical threats. -
House Passes Pipeline Safety Bill, Sending It to Senate
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would receive authority to issue emergency orders in the event of a spill or other accident under a five-year reauthorization bill passed by the House June 8. -
Safety Bill Sails Through House But Faces Senate Critic
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Pipeline safety legislation that sailed through the lower chamber last night now faces stiff opposition from a top Senate Democrat who's calling the bill a giveaway to the oil industry. -
House Unanimously Passes Pipeline Safety Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House on Wednesday passed a bill to reauthorize the federal pipeline safety oversight board. -
Oil Train Rules Move to White House Review
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Regulators are one step closer to adopting new standards for oil trains that Congress mandated last year. -
Eight-Year Ozone Delay Passed by House
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Implementation of the 2015 ozone standards would be delayed by eight years under legislation passed June 8 by the House. -
House Passes Ozone Bill After Contentious Debate
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The House approved legislation yesterday to push back full implementation of U.S. EPA's new ground-level ozone standard by eight years and make the first consequential changes to the Clean Air Act in more than a quarter-century. -
Overnight Energy: House Votes to Delay Obama Ozone Rule
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
The House on Wednesday voted to delay new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules governing surface-level ozone standards, or smog. -
White House Threatens Veto Of Ozone NAAQS Delay Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
The White House is threatening to veto legislation the House approved June 8 that would delay implementation of EPA's stricter 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and would also extend the review cycle for all future NAAQS from the existing five-year Clean Air Act timeline to a 10-year review cycle. -
Senators Seek Environmental Amendments To Defense Authorization Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan & Stuart Parker
Senators from both sides of the aisle are seeking to attach environmental amendments to the pending fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill -- including a measure that significantly impedes implementation of EPA’s 2015 tighter air standard for ozone -- despite President Obama's threat to veto the bill due to broad objections over national security and foreign policy measures. -
States to Ask EPA for Ozone Standards Assistance
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A coalition of 12 states and the District of Columbia plan to ask the Environmental Protection Agency for more help in meeting federal standards on ground-level ozone. -
EPA to Remove Affirmative Defense Permitting Language
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency would remove language from the permitting program for industrial facilities that allows them to claim an affirmative defense from civil penalties due to violations of emissions standards caused by “emergencies” as part of a proposed rule released June 8. -
California’s Cap-and-Trade Law Is a Success
Jun 8, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
The purpose of California’s cap-and-trade program is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions (“California’s Cap-and-Trade Bubble,” Review & Outlook, May 31)
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Acenture and ACC Release Workforce Turnover Survey
Jun 8, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
According to a new survey by Accenture and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) North American chemical companies face workforce turnover issues, which if not resolved, could mean more unplanned operations disruptions, more hiring and training costs and more efforts to maintain safety. The survey was released at the Council's annual business meeting.
Chemical companies face a shortage of experienced workers and must replace a substantial number of retiring baby boomers in the coming years. More than 20% of the chemicals workforce is approaching retirement in the next three to five years, said 40% of respondents.
If the aging workforce issue is not resolved in the next three to five years, 86% said the chemical industry's profitability will suffer significantly. This includes 49% of chemical companies that agree and 37% that strongly agree with this point of view at a time when industry expansion is expected to continue in North America.
Furthermore, only approximately one quarter of North American chemicals companies retained 90% or more of their millennial employees hired in the past three years. Most saw a 30 – 50% attrition rate among millennials. This compares with a recent Accenture Strategy study showing that new university graduates expect to stay on the job for more than three years.
"Abundant supplies of domestic natural gas from shale have moved the US from being a high cost producer of key petrochemicals and resins to among the lowest cost producers globally, creating a period of unprecedented growth," said ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley. "We currently have more than 262 new chemical projects announced that are valued at over US$161 billion. For the first time in more than a decade, the US chemical industry is once again creating good, high paying American jobs and it's vital that we be able to attract and retain a talented workforce that helps us continue to drive economic expansion, innovation, and global competitiveness," he added.
Executives interviewed noted that chemical companies have effective knowledge transfer programmes and can hire millennials with non-technical degrees and train them in the technical knowledge to do the job. The challenge for some is keeping millennials for long, productive careers in an industry considered ‘old’, despite its track record of tremendous innovation.
"Companies in all industries have a range of generations in their workforce," said Julie Sweet, Accenture's Group Chief Executive – North America. "We find that across generations, employees all want interesting work, an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution and a balanced life. By focusing on transparency, providing a hyper personalised employee experience centred around these values, and providing a feedback loop to keep close to their people, companies can attract and inspire the best people across the generations."
Most chemical firms compete with peers for personnel, filling open positions mainly by hiring from other companies in the industry. This makes for a limited talent pool and fierce competition. More than half (52%) of chemical companies reported hiring professional talent from competitors. This compares with US Bureau of Labour Statistics data (from May 2015) showing that two thirds of chemistry, chemical engineer and material science graduates, fields desired by chemical companies, work in other industries, including government agencies and energy firms.
Exacerbating the workforce challenges is the so-called ‘missing middle’ of workers ages 35 to 54. This is also a tight labour pool from which to recruit and replace retiring workers with valuable expertise. "Now that innovation in the US energy sector has created a surge in demand for chemical professionals, particularly skilled craft and technical workers, the industry needs to work collaboratively to close the growing gap," said Peter Cella, incoming ACC Chairman of the board and President and CEO of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company. "Awareness is a critical first step, but we also need to work closely with our schools, communities and government leaders to ensure resources are in place to prepare tomorrow's workforce."
"When you sum it all up, we are fighting the war for talent on many fronts," said Inga Carus, ACC board member and Chair of Carus Corporation. "We must not only hire the right people as older workers retire and transfer their knowledge to a younger work force, we must bridge the gap with millennials and get them excited about what we do with chemistry as we develop new products to meet the needs of their generation."
Another challenge is that new technologies are changing the face of the chemical industry workforce. Nearly two thirds (63%) of respondents said that half or more of the workforce is changing compared to three years ago due to the advent of new skills, automation, robots and cognitive agents. Most (78%) expect further change due to digital technologies automating jobs, causing moderate (56%) to significant (22%) workforce reductions, though more skilled support jobs will be needed.
"While all of these workforce issues exist, 60% of chemical companies said they are adapting to digital technologies, but with some resistance," said David Yankovitz, Managing Director and Chemical Practice Lead for Accenture. "They also recognise a greater need to embrace digital technologies to gain a competitive advantage. So as the industry overcomes this resistance and advances a ‘people first’ mindset to bolster the workforce, success will come in many areas from the production plant to the back office to the market with new products and services."
http://www.energyglobal.com/downstream/petrochemicals/08062016/North-American-chemical-companies-face-workforce-shortage-report-from-ACC-Accenture-3486/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Safety Rules Pass Congress. What’s Next for Manufacturers?
Jun 9, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
The US Senate late Tuesday night approved a measure to update the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing.
The Senate’s passage of the new chemical safety rules, which followed the US House’s final approval late last month, was largely praised by industry and environmental groups.
“By delivering clear, modernized rules, this reform will make it easier for manufacturers to ensure the safety of our products and deliver quality goods to our customers,” said National Association of Manufacturers president and CEO Jay Timmons in a statement. “The regulations on these chemicals will be clearer and more straightforward, meaning time and resources that would have been spent trying to navigate outdated, confusing rules can now be spent on driving innovation and creating jobs.”
The American Chemistry Council called the passage of the bill “truly historic,” with ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley adding: “This legislation is significant not only because it is the first major environmental law passed since 1990, but because TSCA reform will have lasting and meaningful benefits for all American manufacturers, all American families and for our nation’s standing as the world’s leading innovator.”
Some public health and environmental advocates, however, did criticize the bill for being too lenient on chemical companies, which worked with lawmakers to draft language that they would support.
Under the outdated 1976 law, about 64,000 chemicals in the marketplace have not been tested or regulated by the EPA. The new law would require the EPA to test all existing and new chemicals to determine if they pose a threat to human health or the environment. The agency only has to examine about 20 chemicals at a time, however, and has seven years to assess each chemical.
In a win for chemical companies, the new federal rules will pre-empt stricter state-level chemical rules.
Now that the new chemical safety rules have passed both the US House and Senate, with President Obama expected to sign the bill any day, what can companies expect?
“The impact to the manufacturing sector may be enormous,” said attorney Maureen Gorsen in an email. Gorsen is a partner in Alston & Bird’s Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources group and former director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
“This will be the largest authorization of new jurisdiction to the US Environmental Protection Agency since the Clean Air Act reauthorization in 1991,” Gorsen said. “Reform has been a long time coming, but it remains to be seen how new safety standards and regulations will be enforced and what changes manufacturers will need to make.”
Judah Prero, an attorney at Sidley Austin LLP and former assistant general counsel at the American Chemistry Council, says because the new provisions have a more distinct focus on use of and exposure to chemicals, the size of the population affected by the new rules will expand from the traditional chemical manufacturers and processors to potentially any manufacturer that incorporates chemicals into their products.
“This bill directs EPA to look at chemicals in the context of their use in a much more pointed fashion than exists today,” Prero said in an interview with Environmental Leader. “To do that, EPA is going to need information on use, which doesn’t necessarily come from manufactures because manufactures will sell chemicals that are used in all sorts of substances. Downstream industries that didn’t necessarily feel a TSCA impact are going to have to start paying attention to what EPA is doing.”
The EPA’s first task under the new bill is to determine which chemicals are in the marketplace. This will require input from chemical manufacturers and processors to identify the chemicals they make and provide this information to the agency.
“Once this accurate chemical inventory has been established, if manufacturers have solid information and date that supports the safety of their chemicals, they are going to want to make sure the EPA has that information,” Prero said.
If the chemical is deemed “high priority” by the EPA, then the assessment — and manufacturer’s involvement — will scale up as the agency will likely ask for additional testing and information.
“Having to amass the chemical data, aggregate it and send it to EPA won’t be a new process for a lot of companies. But it will be for a new purpose, with different regulations and perhaps a different degree of detail,” Prero said. “There’s going to be a learning curve.”
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/06/09/chemical-safety-rules-pass-congress-whats-next-for-manufacturers/
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Faces Uncertain Funding Future
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to celebrate passage of the bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's chemical law, but questions loom over funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's new obligations under the statute, lawmakers and legal experts told Bloomberg BNA June 8.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a primary negotiator on the bill, told reporters June 8 current funding levels for chemical regulation provide the EPA with the resources necessary to set the reforms in motion. Several House and Senate appropriators, however, skirted questions on funding for Toxic Substances Control Act reform in the coming fiscal year.
Asked whether the law's implementation is likely to receive adequate funding in fiscal year 2017, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) responded guardedly.
“It remains to be seen,” he told Bloomberg BNA June 8.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which passed on June 7 and is currently en route to President Barack Obama's desk, revised TSCA, a law enacted in 1976.
The legislation (H.R. 2576) requires review of all commercial chemicals, as well as chemicals new to the market, using a risk assessment.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups criticized the previous law because it did not provide for the review of the roughly 85,000 chemicals in U.S. commerce, many of which may threaten human health and the environment.
The bill is now headed to President Obama's desk, and he is expected to sign it.
Current Levels Enough for Launch
Speaking June 8 at a news conference with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), another chief architect, and other TSCA reform leaders, Udall vowed to ensure funds are in place for the EPA to move forward with implementation.
The roughly $56 million annual allocation for the current TSCA statute will allow the EPA to make headway towards its first deadline, a mandate to select the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed within six months of enactment.
The New Mexico lawmaker serves as the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Environment and Interior Subcommittee, the panel that funds the EPA.
“Clearly what I'm going to be fighting for is to make sure that EPA has the funds to do the job,” Udall said, while pointing to asbestos and 1-Bromopropane as candidates for the first round of reviews.
The subcommittee is set to convene a preliminary markup June 14, followed by a full committee markup two days later, a staffer for Subcommittee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) confirmed to Bloomberg BNA June 8. Murkowski praised TSCA reform passage in a June 8 statement but didn't mention funding.
A spokeswoman for Murkowski, Karina Peterson, said the Alaska lawmaker is also committed to securing proper funding.
“Senator Murkowski wants to ensure this landmark bill can succeed and operate in the manner that is intended,” Peterson told Bloomberg BNA. “She and her colleagues on the appropriations committee are in discussions as to what funding is needed in order to implement the reforms.”
A spokesman for Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) didn't respond to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment.
Fee Supplement
Supporters of the new law routinely champion the $25 million in annual industry fees the legislation is poised to generate.
Those fees will provide a critical lifeline for the EPA as implementation advances, Udall said.
The fees aren't likely, however, to flow into the agency for a substantial amount of time, said Judah Prero, counsel at Sidley Austin's LLP environmental practice and former counsel to the American Chemistry Council .
“Once the regulations are rolled out and the rules are implemented, then the fees will start to come in,” Prero told Bloomberg BNA. “Implementation will likely be funded wholly by appropriations to start. Then the fees will supplement the appropriations.”
The law requires EPA to set fees through rulemaking, only after consulting with affected industries. That rulemaking could occur within a year of enactment, Mark Duvall, a Beveridge and Diamond environmental attorney, told Bloomberg BNA.
Back Door Leverage
Duvall pointed to a provision that requires Congress to appropriate for EPA, at a minimum, the fiscal 2014 TSCA funding level or the agency won't be allowed to impose fees, a back door type of leverage to ensure adequate funding is maintained.
“Obviously Congress holds the purse strings and they'll do what they choose,” Duvall said. “But Congress works in funny ways. They just gave EPA a whole lot more responsibility and deadlines, and complained a lot of the prospect of EPA failing to meet deadlines, but they don't seem intent on appropriating more resources. Sometimes there is a disconnect.”
An EPA spokeswoman, Monica Lee, declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA.
“EPA is not in a position to speculate on specifics until the President signs the bill,” she said in response to a funding inquiry.
House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee chief John Shimkus (R-Ill.), another architect and the only House member at the June 8 press conference, told Bloomberg BNA appropriators largely the backed the bill, indicating they'll be willing to provide the right funding.
“This is a law that had to change; everyone thought it was broken,” Shimkus told Bloomberg BNA. “So we should make sure that we give it a chance to work through the funding mechanism.”
The House passed the legislation 403-12 vote in late May.
Prero said lawmakers are likely to get pressure from industry and health advocates, many of which have declared support for the legislation, in the coming months to adequately fund the new law.
During debate before the uncontested voice vote that passed the measure in the Senate, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said “an EPA that is not funded right, I say to my dearest friend on the floor today, is not going to do anything. So the states will have the ability to do it. I would hope we would fund the EPA so we have a strong federal program and strong state programs as well. But we will have to make sure that the EPA doesn't continually get cut.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361141&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495959000&searchid=27763597&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Feels 'Pure Elation' on TSCA as Advocates Hunker Down
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
A heavily negotiated and long-awaited chemicals safety bill is headed to the White House where President Obama is ready to sign it into law.
Now, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle celebrate the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, environmental and chemical industry advocates are preparing to monitor and influence how regulators implement the legislation.
Senators approved the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," which updates the nation's chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years, by voice vote this week. The proposal cleared the House last month 403-12 (E&E Daily, June 8).
The measure gives U.S. EPA the authority to review all new and existing chemicals, to identify and address high priority substances and to take action by requiring labeling or the banning of hazardous products.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund who served as an adviser on the legislation, said EPA will need to begin working on the bill's provisions as soon as the president signs it into law. The agency has six months to meet its first implementation deadline.
"The clock starts ticking when the ink dries on the president's signature," he said. "If EPA can get moving and get off to a good start, that will bode well for smoothing the transition to a new TSCA."
The language requires EPA to update its inventory of existing chemicals, determine which are high priority and create a risk evaluation process -- all within one year.
"The next year we're going to see a flurry of activity from EPA when it comes to laying the foundation for their new regulatory program," said Judah Prero, an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP and former American Chemistry Council assistant general counsel.
EPA leaders have said they are up to the task, praising the legislation for equipping the agency with tools to more effectively "protect human health and the environment from chemical risks."
An agency spokeswoman said: "We stand ready to get to work on implementing these new reforms, which will increase public transparency of chemical information and better protect the public before chemicals enter the market."
James Votaw, a partner with the firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, said it was important for companies to begin taking stock of the chemicals they either manufacture or purchase to be aware of potential health hazards and document preventative exposure methods.
Votaw, who counsels clients on chemical reporting requirements, said companies should prepare for new scrutiny of substances.
"Customers or retailers or producers of consumer products -- they need to be aware of which chemicals are in the products that they're buying and understand whether these are chemicals that are on EPA's list," he said. "And make sure everything in your supply chain is being reported to EPA as part of the inventory reset process."
Douglas Troutman, general counsel and government affairs vice president for the American Cleaning Institute, which represents the cleaning products supply chain, said the group would meet with members, hearing their concerns and getting everyone up to speed on TSCA.
"For our members, we will be working with them very closely this month," Troutman said. "We're really thrilled to be at this point though. In this day and age, and this Congress, something that needed to be done got done."'Big deal'
Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called reforming TSCA unprecedented and historic. Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the legislation would protect the health and safety of all Americans.
"This is a big deal, what we're doing here," he said during a press conference yesterday. "Republicans should look at this as fulfilling our constitutional duty."
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the bill's chief sponsors, said, "Somebody asked me, 'How does this feel?'" He said, "I'm a mountain climber and when you're on top of a summit, it's pure elation. And that's how I feel today."
Not everyone is celebrating the bill's passage, however. The organization Greenpeace sent President Obama a letter urging him to veto the bill.
"Although environmental groups and allied members of Congress worked very hard to make this bill acceptable, they were unable to eliminate the central provisions advanced by the chemical lobby," spokesman Rick Hind wrote in an email.
The overhaul prevents states from taking stronger action against chemicals than EPA. The Greenpeace letter warned that such a provision could lead to similar rollbacks in other environmental bills.
New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) yesterday said the federal government should not be able to diminish the state's authority to "protect their citizens from the hazards of toxic chemicals."
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she would have preferred the bill did not pre-empt states, but she said a compromise was necessary for such a complex issue.
"The journey to this moment is the most complicated journey I've ever had to take," she said. "And I've been here a long time."
Boxer also stressed that states have time to continue implementing stricter regulations before EPA moved forward with its own plans. She urged states to take advantage of certain allowances in the bill to move forward strict regulations.
Many stakeholders are reserving judgement until EPA begins work. The law is only as strong as the agency is proactive.
"The EPA is going to have to demonstrate what it can do with new authority," said Sidley Austin attorney Prero. "But it has new tools and stronger tools to use so the chances that they can use them well are pretty good."
Some advocates worry that a new guard at EPA after the elections could change the way the agency applies the law. While a Hillary Clinton administration is likely to continue Obama's vision, Donald Trump's EPA could be radically different.
But EDF's Dension said there were enough core staff members working on the law at EPA to temper the whims of political appointees.
Udall said he is going to be "all over" the implementation of the law in the coming months but for now is celebrating its passage.'Bittersweet'
Udall said progress has been "bittersweet" because the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, for whom the bill is named and who championed an update to chemicals law during his career, is not alive to see the fruit of his labor.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said he remembers when he and Lautenberg first sat down to discuss a bipartisan path to reforming TSCA.
"I don't think either of us could have expected the roller coaster that followed. The next year and a half were not easy," Vitter said in an email. "Between Senator Lautenberg, myself, and our staff, there was an often-brutal stretch of difficult negotiations and challenging times that tested everyone's patience."
Even though Vitter and Lautenberg did not agree on every issue, when Vitter became the Environment and Public Works Committee's ranking member in 2013, the two decided to buckle down and come up with a solution.
"A true compromise," Vitter said.
In April of 2013, a small group of lawmakers started meeting every day for two week, sometimes long into the night, to reach a final agreement.
"From those discussions emerged the first-ever bipartisan TSCA reform bill, which was the impetus for one of my most enjoyable successes in the United States Senate, being able to shake hands with Senator Lautenberg on an agreement that would end up changing everything," Vitter said.
Lautenberg died a month later of viral pneumonia at 89. Udall agreed to pick up the bill, and he and Vitter renamed it after the New Jersey statesman.
"While it's deeply unfortunate that Frank is not here to celebrate this huge victory with us, I know that he would be immensely pleased with his namesake legislation that certainly lives up to his legacy of being the Senate's champion of public health," Vitter said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060038544/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Passes Chemical Safety Reform Legislation
Jun 8, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The United States Senate passed legislation to reform a 40-year-old chemical safety on Tuesday, drawing praise from a number of industry organizations before the measure goes before President Barack Obama to be signed into law.
The legislation, titled the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21stCentury Act, would change the way that chemicals are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). If signed by the president into law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be mandated to create a process to assess the risk of chemicals currently in commercial use.
“This legislation is significant not only because it is the first major environmental law passed since 1990, but because TCSA reform will have lasting and meaningful benefits for all American manufacturers, all American families, and for our nation’s standing as the world’s leading innovator,” a statement from Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said.
The TSCA was passed in 1976 and did not require a review of safety risks posed by some chemicals already in use at the time the law was made. The new act will require companies to disclose what chemicals they are producing and submit them to an EPA risk review process. Designating chemicals as either low or high priority for safety assessments and determinations, if a chemical presents safety concerns the EPA will either ban its use, require that it is phased out, or create restrictions that require the company to alter the chemical so it meets safety standards.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) praised the Senate’s move, positing that the reform will help increase growth and competiveness in the chemistry industry.
“By delivering clear, modernized rules, this reform will make it easier for manufacturers to ensure the safety of our products and deliver quality goods to customers,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons in a press release. “The regulations on these chemicals will be clearer and more straightforward, meaning time and resources would have been spent trying to navigate outdated, confusing rules can now be spent on driving innovation and creating jobs.”
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) said it is “pleased” by legislation’s passage.
“Last night’s historic vote is a significant ending and beginning. It ends many years of elusive bipartisan compromise to reform our nation’s chemical control law and begins the process of regaining the public’s confidence in everyday products made possible by our industry,” SOCMA’s president of government and public relations, William E. Allmond, said in a statement.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/Senate-Passes-Chemical-Safety-Reform-Legislation-06-08-2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Styrofoam Industry Makes Its Pitch
Jun 9, 2016 | The Daily Mail
By Katie Kocijanski
The Greene County Legislature has continued discussions on a new local law regulating the use of Stryofoam materials at local food establishments.
Industry experts spoke on the benefits of using the material and its restrictions at the recent Public Safety Committee meeting.
At the beginning of the year, Legislator William Lawrence, R-Cairo, the committee chairman, had introduced the idea of banning the use of Styrofoam, also known as extruded polystyrene, from being used at local food service establishments in the county.
Similar laws were passed in Ulster and Albany counties in the last couple of years banning the material from local eateries.
“We have industry experts here from the American Chemistry Council and Gen Pak on why restrictions should not be there,” said Mike Levy, senior director at the council, which is based in Washington D.C.
Levy said the foam is made of 98 percent air and provides excellent insulation for food. Coffee cup lids prevent spilling and keep liquids enclosed in the cup.
The director said much of the packaging that is produced should be recycled. New York State has several packaging facilities that employ close to 1,500 people.
No other state has a ban on the use of the material. Levy said when a person looks at the economics of the industry, it doesn’t make any sense to regulate it.
Gen Pak is a manufacturer of food packaging based in Glens Falls. The manufacturer makes to go packaging for plates, bowls and platters, clear deli food packaging and microwave safe food containers.
Chris DeAngelis, a tooling engineer for the company, said when manufacturing Stryofoam there are three important characteristics that are considered, which are efficiency, strength and insulation.
DeAngelis said one of the advantages of the material for restaurants is that it is cheaper than other products to package food.
“Albany County banned the use of it mainly because of the large amount of litter seen on the streets,” Levy said.
Levy assured the committee that no ill health effects have been associated with the use of the material as previously claimed by anti-Styrofoam activist Charles Lake of Cairo.
He spoke to the legislature’s Health Services Committee in February 2014 to ask them to consider a countywide ban on Styrofoam food containers.
As a former transporter of Styrofoam packaging materials, Lake said his ensuing health problems led him to campaign against use of the material.
9Styrofoam is a brand name for a product produced by the Dow Chemical Company in food packaging since 1999.
Parts of the law under consideration include not allowing “chain food service establishments” to sell or “provide prepared food in any disposable food service ware that contains polystyrene foam.”
The first draft of the local law proposes not allowing any of these restaurants to sell or provide prepared food in any disposable food service ware that contains polystyrene foam.”
-
Why Passage of Toxic Chemical Reform Is a Really Big Deal
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Richard Denison
First, the obvious: It's the first major environmental legislation to be enacted in more than 20 years. And it's all the more remarkable that it passed, with strong bipartisan support, in a divided Congress and at a time when most environmental issues are highly polarizing. Last month, the House passed the bicameral agreement by the overwhelming margin of 403-12. And just this week, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576) came to the Senate floor by unanimous consent, passed on a voice vote and was sent the president's desk for his signature.
While virtually every provision of the new law significantly improves on existing law, it does so by delicately balancing long-standing interests that are competing or in direct conflict. The new law is built on carefully crafted compromises, classic in the sense that no one got everything they wanted but everyone got something, and not just overall but in each major section of the law. What makes this accomplishment extraordinary is that the balance was reached, not by skirting around the most contentious issues, but by directly tackling and seeking to resolve the differences.
How Was This Possible?
First, it took a long time. My organization started working 20 years ago toward legislative reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The first conversations on Capitol Hill that planted the seeds that grew into the Lautenberg Act took place in 2004—convened, appropriately enough, by staff for the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who made the cause of improving chemical safety his last crusade in a long congressional career devoted to improving public health. Those conversations yielded the first reform legislation, the Kids-Safe Chemicals Act of 2005, a 35-page “message” bill aimed primarily at demonstrating that there was interest in Congress in reforming TSCA.
Not surprisingly, that bill went nowhere. It was actively supported by health and environmental groups, and actively opposed by the chemical industry. And members of each party in Congress lined up accordingly—to the extent it got their attention at all. Nonetheless, in retrospect it was an important milestone because it began a serious conversation about both the need for reform and what reform should look like.
A series of bills built on that first one were introduced in both houses, one nearly every year from 2008 through 2013. And while they grew in length and in co-sponsorship, and increasingly reflected input from a broader range of stakeholders, they too went virtually nowhere—supported only by Democrats and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and uniformly opposed by Republicans and industry interests.
Industry Embraces Reform
The second critical ingredient was a shift that began in 2009 in the chemical industry's stance, to acknowledge the need for reform—which it termed “modernization.” That shift was spurred by years of incremental but important actions driven by state and national advocates calling on states and the market itself to restrict chemicals. These critical players stepped in to fill the void left by a failed TSCA and to respond to the rising demands from consumers and the public for safer chemicals.
Industry's decision to come to the federal negotiating table was an acknowledgment of a growing loss of confidence in the safety of chemicals. Thereby was born a first piece of common ground: a mutual interest in a stronger federal system, for the industry as a means to restore lost confidence among the public and the marketplace, and for health, labor and environmental advocates as a means to better ensure the safety of chemicals.
That common interest fostered a host of formal and informal stakeholder dialogues, both on and off Capitol Hill, that were instrumental in delineating the issues and articulating stakeholders' often diametrically opposed positions, but also gradually illuminating where common ground on specific issues might be found.
A Pinch of Political Courage
All of that might still have been for naught had not a bold step been taken by a most unlikely pair of senators: public health champion Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a staunch ally of the chemical industry. They rather hastily negotiated the first bipartisan reform bill, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013—introduced, as it turned out, less than two weeks before Lautenberg's untimely death. That bill, flawed as it was, opened for the first time a bipartisan path forward—a critical development if there was to be any hope of actually enacting legislation in such a divided Congress.
That bill also served as the starting point for what became the Lautenberg Act. Over the next three years, an ever-enlarging group of lawmakers from both parties and both Houses engaged in both moving and improving the TSCA reform legislation.
On the Senate side, Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Vitter and then Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) managed extensive negotiations that expanded as colleagues lent their support in exchange for strengthening changes—deepening and broadening engagement that proved critical to sustaining the momentum necessary to secure passage. A significantly revised bill introduced a year ago, named in honor of Lautenberg, was further negotiated to gain more bipartisan support during committee consideration, and then again in the lead-up to final passage in December 2015, by that time attracting 60 co-sponsors and passing by unanimous voice vote. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) all played significant roles.
The House process was much quicker but equally bipartisan, with a bill introduced in May 2015 and passed in June of last year, by the remarkable margin of 398-1. Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), and later, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Gene Green (D-Tex.), shepherded and supported moving the bill through the House and the bicameral negotiations.
Reconciling Two Very Different Bills
Those negotiations had to reconcile a more comprehensive Senate bill with a much narrower House bill. They occupied the past several months, intensifying in recent weeks and literally running right up to the House's filing deadline for the bill last month. The resulting bill adopts the more comprehensive approach taken by the Senate bill, while adhering to the structure and retaining much more of current TSCA—the House's preferred approach. The final bill largely incorporates the Senate bill's policy reforms for new chemicals, but integrates them into the structure of current law. It also includes the Senate bill's provisions for updating the inventory of chemicals active in commerce and addressing confidential business information. A more streamlined prioritization process for existing chemicals than was in the Senate bill was agreed to. The bill's chemical testing provision is a blend of the two original bills, and House negotiators convinced Senate negotiators to leave several sections of TSCA (e.g., exports and imports) largely untouched, as the House bill had done.
Last month, the House passed the bicameral agreement by the overwhelming margin of 403-12. And just this week, the bill came to the Senate floor by unanimous consent and was passed on an uncontested voice vote.
After 40 years, a New TSCA
The result is a new law that, while a compromise, is an enormous improvement over current law in every major respect. Specifically, the Lautenberg Act:
• Mandates safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce.
• Requires a safety finding before new chemicals are allowed on the market.
• Replaces TSCA's burdensome safety standard—which prevented the Environmental Protection Agency even from banning asbestos—with a health-based, as opposed to cost-oriented, standard.
• Explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women.
• Enhances the EPA's authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals.
• Sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions and compliance with restrictions.
• Makes more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies' ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs.
• Requires the EPA to reduce animal testing where scientifically reliable alternatives exist that would generate equivalent or better information.
• Requires the EPA to prioritize chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulative, and that are known human carcinogens and have high toxicity.
• Retains a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety, by grandfathering in past state actions, preserving states' ability to take many types of actions and providing for states to get waivers to act both before and after the EPA takes final action on a chemical.
The Next Phase
Of course, now the real work begins—implementing the law. Which brings me to my last point: a fervent hope that stakeholders will give this new law every chance to work. Similar to any major legislation, no one is completely happy with it. Many critical details of the law are left to the EPA to flesh out. And, for the new law to be successful, the agency will need to make far more—and far more timely—decisions about chemicals' safety than has been the case historically. This job will be an enormous challenge for the EPA, and stakeholders no doubt will be watching closely.
I realize it's a tall order to expect stakeholders with strong interests in certain outcomes not to use every possible avenue to influence every step the EPA takes under the new law. But it's vital that its implementation lead to improved public health protection as well as a restoration of public confidence, after decades of erosion of that confidence under a badly broken chemical safety system. That means the EPA needs to be given some breathing room, to get a new system up and running, and to get some points on the board early that demonstrate its ability to make decisions and take needed actions.
We should take a long moment to celebrate a major and rare environmental achievement, recognize that it took sustained cooperation and compromise by a diverse set of players to make it happen, and hope that some of that commitment to finding common ground persists as we turn to the next phase in this long journey.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361120&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361120&jd=91361120
-
Rep. Shimkus Touts TSCA Reform's Regulatory Certainty As Major Victory
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is touting regulatory certainty for chemical manufacturers and other proponents of chemical safety reform as a major win in the final legislation to overhaul the decades old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which the Senate approved June 7 and sent to President Obama for his expected signature.
“Overall . . . there's certainty, for everybody, there will be more certainty,” including for industry, consumers, state and federal regulators and other stakeholders, Shimkus, chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment and economy panel, said during an exclusive May 26 interview with Inside EPA.
One of the goals of the bill is to remove a number of obstacles in current law that many say prevent EPA from adequately regulating chemicals believed to be unsafe, such as removing language that would require the agency to identify the “least burdensome” option before regulating a chemical in the marketplace.
The language is believed have hindered EPA's efforts to ban asbestos following a 1991 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA that the agency failed to adequately identify the least burdensome option, a case that was also seen as constraining EPA on regulating other chemicals.
“Through litigation is probably not the way to have chemical safety determinations” being set, Shimkus said in the interview, referring to the ruling in Corrosion Proof Fittings. He noted that there are now thousands of chemicals in commerce that have not been evaluated by EPA, but could be under the TSCA reform bill.
Shimkus -- who introduced the House version of TSCA reform legislation and was a key figure in talks with the Senate to craft the final compromise -- also touted a host of other provisions in the final measure. For example, he said the bill could spur greater collaboration between EPA and the chemical sector on scientific data; that it will protect confidential chemical industry data; and strikes a fair compromise on preempting state programs.
The final TSCA bill is the result of lengthy talks between Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) that introduced the original Senate version of TSCA reform, as well as Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and House Energy & Commerce Committee lawmakers including Shimkus and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), among others.
The Senate's approval of the legislation by voice vote June 7 leaves Obama's signature as the last step before the bill becomes law. The White House said in a May 23 Statement of Administration Policy said that the president plans to sign the bill into law. “While not perfect, the bill meets the high goals set by the Administration for meaningful reform and we commend the House and Senate for taking this historic step,” the statement said.
The legislation will give EPA major new powers to address both existing and new chemicals of concern, funded in large part through industry fees. The failings in the current toxics law have led to patchwork of state agencies seeking to regulate chemicals in the absence of a strong federal program, and retailers taking steps to ban products that use chemicals about which there are safety concerns, both of which industry have cited, along with the need to ensure consumer confidence in chemicals' safety, as motivating factors in the need for TSCA reform.
Regulatory Certainty
Shimkus in the interview said that providing regulatory certainty for the chemical industry and others was one of his main goals for TSCA reform that he achieved. He pointed to the bill's final preemption provisions, which were the result of lengthy and often contentious negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, saying the “three year preemption pause allows certainty for people trying to bring new chemicals to market.”
The preemption provision would create a "pause," that would effectively halt all new state chemical requirements beginning when EPA defines and publishes the scope of a planned safety assessment of a chemical, ending either when the agency finalizes a safety determination for a chemical under section 6 of TSCA or misses a three-and-a-half year deadline for issuing the determination. Existing state rules would remain in effect, however.
Vitter told Inside EPA in a May 25 interview that the bill "fundamentally achieves our objective" of giving industry "one federal rulebook moving forward," instead of a patchwork of state-by-state chemical safety rules, but acknowledged there are exceptions in the language to when state rules would be preempted by EPA actions.
Separately, Shimkus also highlighted language that he said should ensure EPA is able to get a significant amount of information on chemicals' safety from manufacturers under a more streamlined process than is currently available to the agency when it begins assessing risks to the environment and human health posed by a chemical.
Shimkus said that provision could hopefully could spur greater collaboration between EPA and the chemical sector, and also highlighted language in the bill requiring testing and new and existing chemical rules to follow a new set of scientific standards. “So many times we're fighting over the science,” Shimkus said.
He said that the final TSCA reform legislation will ensure EPA has a way to resolve disputes over science because it requires a preponderance of the evidence type of standard for which studies to consider.
The bill would require EPA to base decisions made under TSCA's section 4, 5 and 6 -- which outline the agency's test authority and govern requirements for new and existing chemicals, respectively on the “weight of the scientific evidence,” and also to make a host of information underlying risk evaluations to be made publicly available, including a list of studies considered and every five years to review the methodologies used in testing, revising if necessary, among other requirements.
Shimkus also said he believes the bill strikes the right balance on protecting confidential business information (CBI). He said this will help drive innovation by shielding proprietary information to prevent reverse engineering, under which companies obtain information in a bid to try and reproduce a competitor's product. The bill would require companies to substantiate CBI claims and allow the claims to sunset after a 10-year period.
TSCA Negotiations
During the interview, Shimkus also talked about the negotiations between the House and Senate to reconcile differences between Shimkus' narrower House-approved TSCA measure and the more comprehensive Senate bill authored by Vitter and Udall.
Shimkus said the “big stuff” in the informal conference talks “was preemption,” citing a compromise announced in May between Inhofe and Boxer on the preemption language.
Some House Democrats, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), ranking member on the House energy panel's environment subcommittee, criticized the preemption language and said they would not support a bill absent major revisions.
Shimkus said it would have been “impossible” to risk changing the compromise between Inhofe and Boxer. Boxer had strenuously objected to the preemption language earlier in the process, so winning her approval was a major gain in conferencing the legislation.
The final compromise on preemption “was hard for our Democrats to accept,” Shimkus said, given that the House bill initially had a more limited preemption window that would only preempt new state restrictions when EPA promulgated a final action under section 6, which addresses reviews of existing chemicals.
In response to a question about Democrat and Republican concessions made during the negotiations, Shimkus pointed to language requiring EPA to assess at least 10 chemicals from its 2014 work plan under current TSCA and separate language on low hazard that would create a subcategory of chemicals EPA designates as low priority, but did not specify who made which concession.
Referring to the lengthy conference talks to reconcile the bills, Shimkus said “eventually you get Stockholm Syndrome, start taking on aspects of your captives,” making it difficult to distinguish between some of the partisan specific positions, but that he is “happy where we're at” with the final bill.
In terms of where Shimkus plans to focus his environment subcommittee's effort now that TSCA reform has cleared Congress, Shimkus said he will “continue to watch the Senate as they struggle with coal ash” legislation. In addition, he will also likely turn an eye toward Superfund and brownfields reauthorization.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/rep-shimkus-touts-tsca-reforms-regulatory-certainty-major-victory
-
Sen. Udall Says EPA's Funding Adequate To Start Implementing TSCA Reform
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) -- a key figure in crafting the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill and also a top Democrat on the Senate appropriations panel -- says EPA's existing funding is adequate for the agency to start implementing the TSCA overhaul, and that EPA is unlikely to get a budget boost because of the bill.
At a June 8 press conference, Udall said in response to a question from a reporter that he believes EPA's enacted fiscal year 2016 budget level for TSCA programs, set at $56 million, “is enough” to support the agency's first year of implementing the pending new law -- including selecting an initial set of 10 chemicals to assess.
Even in future years, the agency might not need a significant hike from its $56 million Congressional appropriations because industry will eventually be required to pay part of the cost of assessing chemicals' safety, said Udall, who is ranking member on the Senate appropriations interior panel that oversees EPA's budget.
“The $56 million appropriations is enough for EPA to start on the first 10, and once the fees kick in in three years EPA will begin identifying more chemicals -- a minimum of 20, and they have the ability, I think, to do more than that. . . . they feel they have the capacity to work on selecting the 10, and we'll be working on appropriations in the future,” Udall said.
A staffer for Udall added that EPA had input into the bill's assessment mandate and funding structure, and has pledged to legislators that it will not need an appropriations boost to begin implementing the reform bill.
“We structured the fees by working with EPA, and we picked the numbers -- that's how we figured that the first 10, they could do with their base budget,” the staffer said.
Consensus Legislation
The consensus TSCA reform bill, H.R. 2576, was approved in the House by a 403-12 vote on May 24, and cleared the Senate by voice vote June 7. The votes send the measure to President Obama, who has already voiced support for the legislation, to sign it into law soon.
The bill will require EPA to select 10 chemicals from among those already slated for “work plan” assessments under existing TSCA authority for review under the new law within 180 days. By three and a half years after enactment, the agency would be required to have active evaluations on at least 20 chemicals.
At that point EPA would also be empowered to collect fees from industry to support the cost of assessing both existing and new chemicals of concern, which Udall noted would supplement funding authorized by Congress.
He emphasized that the agency will need time to rework its TSCA procedures and regulations, and said one of EPA's goals should be to “manage expectations” while it works “to turn the ship around.”
However, he noted that the 180-day deadline to begin work on 10 chemicals is enforceable and said “ EPA will not miss that deadline.” He also noted that EPA has already begun reviewing its options, including beginning study of many work plan chemicals.
“EPA has already begun to set chemical priorities, before the law was passed. I expect EPA will not throw away the work they've done on work plans and putting those chemicals in various orders,” he said.
Preemption Provisions
Udall also defended the bill's preemption provisions, which include a “pause” that blocks new state regulations of chemicals temporarily while EPA assesses whether a chemical is safe, and blocks state rules permanently if the agency enacts a final restriction on the same chemical.
However, existing state requirements are grandfathered in the legislation and therefore not subject to preemption, which Udall said gives states an opportunity to identify areas where EPA plans to regulate soon and focus their chemicals rules and legislation on chemicals that fall outside the federal agenda.
“All of those thousands [of chemicals] that are out there are open to regulation by states, so there's more than enough for everyone to work on. When EPA's working on 20 or 25, you still have probably thousands that are considered dangerous that the states can work on. So you still have plenty of work for both state and federal government,” he said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/sen-udall-says-epas-funding-adequate-start-implementing-tsca-reform
-
A Big Victory for Lab Rats: Congress Moves to Limit Chemical Testing on Animals
Jun 8, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Karin Brulliard
The Senate’s approval Tuesday of a far-reaching bill to overhaul government regulation of toxic chemicals was hailed by environmental and public health experts as a key move toward protecting Americans, as well as their land and water, from harmful substances.
But the legislation, which passed the House and is expected to be signed by President Obama, also will have many other beneficiaries: thousands of animals.
[Sweeping overhaul of nation’s chemical-safety laws clears final legislative hurdle]
The measure, which updates the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, includes a provision aimed at reducing the Environmental Protection Agency and chemical firms’ use of animals to test the safety and effects of chemical products. The EPA should use non-animal alternatives where possible, the legislation says, and must come up with a plan to develop and adopt more non-animal methods, such as computer modeling or cell-based tests.
Millions of animals are killed in U.S. lab tests and experiments each year, the vast majority of them mice, rats, birds and fish. The legislation addresses only some of these tests, and it doesn’t forbid them. But animal welfare groups say it sets an important precedent that is a reflection of both changing public attitudes and a slow, ongoing movement away from animal testing by some industries and research agencies. The National Institutes of Health, for example, has deemed biomedical research using chimpanzees unnecessary and ended it.
[NIH ends era of U.S. medical research on chimpanzees]
“This is the first signal from Congress that it is a priority to move away from animal testing,” Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in an interview. “It’s a combination of growing moral concern for animals and a recognition that there’s a social cost to using animals, but also of these new scientific methods that are giving us options we never really had before.”
(iStock)The alternatives, proponents say, are often faster, cheaper and more effective. Chemical tests have been criticized not only for harming animals — by forcing them to ingest, inhale or absorb large quantities of toxic substances — but also because the results are not always applicable to people.
“We lack information on many chemicals and how they affect a diverse human population, because we rely too heavily on slow, unreliable, and expensive animal tests,” Kristie Sullivan, vice president of toxicology for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said in a statement. “Because information obtained on chemicals will be human-relevant, products Americans use will be safer.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/06/08/a-big-victory-for-lab-rats-congress-moves-to-limit-chemical-testing-on-animals/
-
Inhofe Confident Trump Would Implement New Chemical Safety Law
Jun 8, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
Sen. Jim Inhofe hasn’t spoken to Donald Trump or his campaign about the sweeping new chemical safety law that is about to go into effect, but he is confident the presumptive Republican nominee would fully implement the law if elected, despite Trump’s pledges to dramatically pare back the EPA.
“Here’s what I think about Trump.... I can’t believe he said what he said about that judge. But you can’t say that he’s a dumb guy – look what he’s done with his life,” Inhofe said in a brief interview today. “And he’s done it by surrounding him with people who know – and I happen to be somewhat privileged to have some idea of knowing who these people are going to be.”
Inhofe declined to name any potential Trump cabinet members he’s heard mentioned, but said he was confident Trump would assemble a good team that understood the value of Toxic Substances Control Act reform. Chemical regulation is one of the few areas where the federal government needs to play a role to avoid a patchwork of state rules.
The Oklahoma Repubulican said he was not worried Trump would stymie lawmakers’ work in getting their bill passed. He spoke to POLITICO after a press conference celebrating H.R. 2576, which updates TSCA and is expected to soon be signed by President Barack Obama.
“He knows what he’s had to do with his businesses and how punitive over-regulation can be,” he said. “So the answer is no.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard#
-
Jun 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro (Morning Energy)
By Eric Wolff
TSCA-NINI SINGS! The Senate swept aside any remaining procedural hurdles Tuesday night and passed a major revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act, sending one of the biggest environmental bills in years to President Barack Obama for his signature. The bill gives the EPA broader authority to regulate chemicals over the states, who had been left holding the bag for 40 years. But that was also the point: The chemical industry preferred a strong federal regulator to a patchwork of rules across the 50 states.
Story Continued Below
Both sides agree, chemicals need regulating: The bill emerged from years of work by the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who died before his bill could become law. Lautenberg joined with Republican Sen. David Vitter to get the wheels turning on an update. It had broad support in part because everyone from environmentalists to business interests agreed that the original bill had not succeeded in protecting anyone. The agency regulated only few of the thousands of chemicals in its mandate, and when it did come up with a ban, as it did with asbestos, the courts struck it down. "You had extremists in both sides in agreement," said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe, "You had people who liked it because it was a major environmental achievement and then people who liked it for just the opposite reason." The bill passed the House 403-12, and the Senate on a voice vote.
Kumbayah, says everyone: Reactions to the bill's passage were unusually positive across interest groups, at least if ME's inbox is to be believed. The National Association of Chemical Distributors praised the bill for increasing consumer confidence and for creating more regulatory certainty. "We now strongly urge the President to sign the bill without delay," the association said in a statement. " Environmentalists chimed in: “Today’s vote is an historic victory for public health,” said Dr. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund.
WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY! I'm your host Eric Wolff, stopping the counter just shy of 96 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment to mark that the country now has its first woman nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton. Send your tips, quips, and comments toewolff@politico.com, or follow us on Twitter @ericwolff, @Morning_Energy, and @POLITICOPro.
PHMSA BILL CLOSER TO PASSAGE: The House is expected later today to approve a pipeline safety proposal that blends the work of the Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees with provisions the Senate passed in March to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The skinny: The effort attempts to reach middle ground on the contentious question of PHMSA's request for emergency order authority to compel the industry to make changes after spills occur. The measure would give the agency a power that's "tailored to the pipeline sector," according to a fact sheet the two House committees released this week. Like the original Senate-passed package, the new bill would require PHMSA to propose federal standards for underground natural gas storage areas, to mitigate against situations like what happened last fall, when an underground facility in the L.A. area spewed tens of thousands of tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Sensitive concerns: Unlike the initial Senate product, the package set for a House vote is silent on whether to give lawmakers access to pipeline operators' unredacted emergency response plans — a hot-button issue for companies concerned about sensitive internal data reaching the public eye.
FLINT AID FINDS A NEW BUNK IN MILITARY BILL: Democrats are proposing $1.9 billion in water infrastructure funding, which would include aid for Flint, Mich., as part of a larger package of domestic spending to attach to the National Defense Authorization Act. As Pro Defense's Connor O'Brien reports, Democrats are asking for $18 billion in total to match the $18 billion Sen. John McCain wants to add to the NDAA for defense spending. The package includes billions to tackle the Zika and opioid crises, not to mention infrastructure spending and improved cybersecurity. Various aid packages for Flint have flitted about different Senate bills, existing at one time as a stand alone bill that, for procedural reasons, held back the energy bill for weeks, and now as part of the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act bill. McCain said on the Senate floor he hopes his amendment will be debated Wednesday or Thursday. http://politico.pro/22ObvK7
OZONE DELAY ON HOUSE FLOOR TODAY: The House today is slated to take up H.R. 4775, a bill delaying implementation of the 2015 ozone standard and making other changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard statute. The bill was moved out of committee last month on a 30-23 party-line vote. The White House last night threatened to veto the legislation, saying it “would significantly undermine Clean Air Act protections, would block efforts to reduce harmful ground-level ozone pollution in communities across the country, and could delay future scientific reviews for other harmful pollutants.”
Amendment watch: Lawmakers approved two Republican amendments to get time on the floor. One clarifies that the act does not contain appropriations to carry out its requirements, and that EPA must rely on "amounts otherwise authorized,” while the other requires a study on ozone formation required by the legislation to take into account wildfires. The House will also consider four Democratic amendments: One allowing EPA to buck the bill's requirements if it determines it would harm public health or the environment; one requiring EPA to regulate hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant and striking language from the Clean Air Act prohibiting aggregation of emissions from oil and gas wells; one striking a requirement to consider technological feasibility in setting air standards; and one allowing states to opt out of a requirement that new NAAQS standards not apply to preconstruction permits until implementation regulations have been published. Links to amendments are here.
BISHOP READY TO BARGAIN: House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop says he is open to giving up some of his more controversial priorities in a pending energy bill if Senate Democrats would agree to form a conference committee to let the horse-trading begin. Among other objections, Democrats say the energy bill should not be used as a vehicle for wildfire-prevention legislation that would exempt certain logging activities from the National Environmental Policy Act.
Bishop, meanwhile, says it is a “nonstarter” to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as the bipartisan Senate bill would. LWCF’s reauthorization does not lapse until 2018, thanks to last year’s sweeping omnibus budget deal, so that may be fertile ground for a trade. “Anything can happen in a conference committee, that’s why it’s very positive to do it. But you’ve got to get to that point, and ping-ponging bills back and forth ain’t going to work in divided government,” Bishop told ME Tuesday night.
Bishop also rejected Democrats’ argument that the House is acting in bad faith by sending a package laden with veto-bait. “You tell me anything that hasn’t had a veto threat from the White House,” he challenged. The Senate bill didn't. “It didn’t do anything either,” he quipped. “That’s one of the reasons why the conference is extremely important — if you want to solve some of these problems, you’ve got to get over the veto threat concept. That’s why the legislative process is a legislative process.”
IF FAA EXTENSION IS A SHORT HOP, TAX EXTENDERS COULD TAXI OUT: The House is considering a short extension of FAA funding, which could open the door to tax extenders for renewables when it comes back to the Senate, Sen. John Thune warns. As Pro Transportation’s Lauren Gardner reports, the Senate approved a full reauthorization in April, but because the bill is a tax vehicle, it had to slog through an attempt to attach a series of small tax extenders for small wind and other renewable energy resources. Ultimately the bill took off without the extenders, but proponents, like Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, are itching for another chance. "My concern is, the longer you wait, the harder it is to protect those opportunities for good private sector employment, so suffice it to say the schedule is pretty fluid," he added.
If the House sends a short term bill back to the Senate, extender supporters could get another shot. "That's a tax vehicle, and if they send over a short-term extension, we're going to have a lot of our members over here who are going to see it as another magnet to do all the tax stuff that we were able to keep off when we sent the bill over there," the Commerce Chairman said.
HOUSE PANEL MARKS UP BILL ENDING CHEVRON DEFERENCE: The House Judiciary Committee today will mark up a Republican bill to end a 32-year-old judicial doctrine that the Obama administration has relied on a number of times to support its regulatory decisions at EPA and elsewhere. The bill would effectively limit judges from employing the so-called Chevron deference (named for the 1984 case Chevron v. NRDC), under which courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute — a cornerstone of EPA’s defense of its Clean Power Plan, among other policies. The bill also would limit Chevron’s lesser-known cousin, the Auer doctrine, which applies to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation (a principle that could play a major role in the dispute over the federal government’s transgender bathroom policy, for example).
Power Grab: Republicans — with backup from some jurists, including Justice Clarence Thomas — say the doctrine gives too much power to the executive branch to decide what the law says and permits, a power they argue is part of the judiciary’s constitutional mandate. Opponents of the bill, including environmentalists, argue it’s a direct reaction to Obama’s EPA regulations, and that ending Chevron deference will only increase uncertainty because judges will effectively wind up making decisions on technical matters over the subject matter expertise of the agency. Republicans have a new version of the bill, to be voted on today, that would expand the legislation’s scope to bar Chevron deference in challenges to all final agency actions, not just those taking place under the Administrative Procedure Act. The markup will commence at 10 a.m. in Rayburn 2141.
This is a great time to remind you that if you haven’t seen the legal earworm that is “The Chevron Two Step,” you gotta.
ACTIVISTS DEMAND FRACKING BAN PLANK IN DEM PLATFORM: A crew of activists will deliver a 50,000-signature petition to the Democratic National Committee platform committee today. The coalition included MoveOn.org, Food & Water Watch, Climate Hawks Vote, 350.org, and others. Banning fracking has been a major tenet of Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign.
BATTERIES LOOK TO FERC FOR MARKET SUPPORT: Power market rules don't quite know what to do with batteries, which can be both generator and consumer of power. As Pro's Esther Whieldon reports, FERC took input on how to tweak its market rules. The Energy Storage Association, the industry group for grid-scale batteries along with other power storage technologies, wants FERC to force all grid operators to redefine storage so operators can bid in any market. Energy storage is seen by some as a solution to the problem of variable power generation from renewable power sources.
SCIENCE! Clean Power Plan would deliver benefits to most parts of U.S.: Researchers found that the EPA's carbon rule for power plants would provide net benefits to 13 of 14 U.S. regions, according got a study published in the journal PLOS-ONE on Tuesday. Scientists from Harvard, Resources for the Future, and Syracuse University found that the rule would provide a net benefit of $33 billion nationwide, accounting for health and climate benefits. "Our results suggest that net economic benefits from power plant carbon standards tend to be greatest in highly populated areas near or downwind from coal-fired power plants that experience a shift to cleaner sources with the standards," co-author Charles Driscoll, a professor at Syracuse University, said in a statement.
DEPARTURE LOUNGE — DOE STAFFER STORMS NYC: After three years at the Energy Department, public affairs extraordinaire Aoife McCarthy is kicking off her new adventure today, running comms at the U.S. Mission to the UN. Her adventure is twofold: There’s the job itself, but also this: Aoife’s never lived in the Big Apple before (and therefore never experienced how disgustingly stagnant and ripe the summer air can get in Manhattan in July and August). Monday was her last day at DOE, and to mark the occasion she sent out a fairly unique Mad Libs-style farewell note. “If I could leave you all with just one thought, remember <insert sage advice — don’t run with scissors>.” Congrats on your new life as a sardine — albeit one surrounded by great food options!
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/06/like-opera-with-tsca-nini-214713 -
Lawmakers Celebrate Passage of Chemical Safety Reform Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Lawmakers took a victory lap Wednesday to celebrate the Senate passing a major chemical safety overhaul and sending it to President Obama’s desk.
It was a long-fought battle to pass the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals for the 21st Century Act, and lawmakers framed it as nothing short of a miracle.
The Senate passed it by voice vote Tuesday night, following its overwhelming passage two weeks ago in the House. Obama is likely to sign it into law soon.
The bipartisan bill would dramatically overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, giving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sweeping new authority to regulate harmful chemicals while limiting states’ authority.
It’s the first major environmental bill to pass Congress since the Clean Air Act of 1990.
“This law has been in need of updating for decades,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a lead sponsor of the legislation, told reporters Wednesday. “Every stakeholder in sight, everyone involved in this part of the economy and the law has said that. The trick has been bringing everyone together on a bipartisan basis.”
Vitter said the bill accomplishes the two goals he had set out when he joined the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in working on the bill.
“First, make sure we fully protect all Americans’ health and safety. And second, make sure we create a workable regulatory environment so that our leaders in science and innovation and technology ... can remain world leaders and continue to innovate,” Vitter said.
Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the lead Democratic sponsor, called the feat “a great triumph of bipartisanship” and compared it to climbing a mountain.
“Most Americans think, when you go to a grocery store or you go to a hardware store and you buy a product, they think that it’s been tested for safety. It hasn’t been tested,” he said.
“Now we’re going to see that that testing takes place, and we’re going to move forward with a very tough cop on the beat, which will be the EPA, looking at the safety of products, doing that analysis.”
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who led House efforts as chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on the environment, spoke about how long the process has taken.
“David Vitter came over five and a half years ago ... and said he was going to do this with Sen. Lautenberg, and I said, ‘come see me when you get any success,’ ” Shimkus joked.
“And then a couple years later, he popped back in, and that made us really get more serious in moving on the House side.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the legislation “a new chemical Magna Carta, a chemical bill of rights for every American that will serve as the foundation for protecting the American people from the dangers of toxic substances.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282725-lawmakers-celebrate-passage-of-chemical-reform-bill
-
Winners and Losers in TSCA Reform Battle
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Josh Kurtz
The Toxic Substances Control Act became law in 1976, and it feels as if members of Congress have been trying to reform it ever since.
That's an exaggeration, of course.
But the fact is, reform efforts have been underway for several years but always came crashing to a halt. This time, in a rarity for modern-day Capitol Hill, a genuine compromise came to pass, against steep odds.
Now the legislation is headed to President Obama's desk, and a spokesman said he would sign it, making the chemicals law the last major 1970s-era national environmental initiative to be updated.
The bill was such a classic compromise that nobody got everything they wanted. Still, some clear winners emerged -- and also a few losers.
The winners
· Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.): The prime sponsor of the House version of the TSCA reform legislation, Shimkus burnished his reputation as a legislative tactician by steering the bill through -- and racking up more than 400 votes for it. That's helpful momentum for Shimkus as he bids to become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress.
· The chemicals industry: Companies had to make some concessions as the process moved along but got the regulatory certainty they craved and brakes on states that want to supersede federal law.
· Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.): Senate co-sponsor of the legislation -- and son of the late, legendary Interior Secretary Stewart Udall -- took early slings and arrows for joining with industry and Republicans but remained steadfast in his insistence that TSCA reform would help small states that struggle to regulate chemicals. He also succeeded in keeping some environmental groups at the table when negotiations turned tense.
· Regular order: The two chambers of Congress pass significantly divergent visions of TSCA reform, then work out their differences. What a concept. Still, critics would point out lawmakers opted for direct negotiations rather than a formal conference committee.
· Most environmental groups: They had to swallow a lot, but they stuck with the process and held firm on certain principles. No environmental leader would say the bill is perfect, but they proved they can be bipartisan players and work with industry.
· U.S. EPA: Holy cow, Republicans and industry want more federal regulation? Doesn't happen very often -- and doesn't carry over to other environmental fights. But EPA leaders can be forgiven if they bask in this a little bit.
· Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): The chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee played their roles masterfully. Boxer hated the bill as originally written, but thanks to her unprecedented self-described "journey," came to be a player in the negotiations when it counted. Inhofe was a hard-liner when he needed to be and a conciliator at other times.
· Sen. David Vitter (R-La.): After some disappointments and embarrassments, Vitter gets to end his 18-year congressional career on a bipartisan high note as co-sponsor of the TSCA bill. A nice credential if he seeks lobbying work when he leaves Congress at year's end.
· Jessica Alba: The actress, model and purveyor of clothing made with nontoxic chemicals became a key lobbyist for TSCA reform.
· Frank Lautenberg: What the late New Jersey Democratic senator wasn't quite able to accomplish in life, he was able to achieve through the work of his ex-colleagues, invoking his good name. Now a landmark environmental measure will bear his name. Probably better than having the train station in Secaucus, N.J., named for you.
The losers
· Environmental Working Group: One green group that held out -- and took it on the chin.
· Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.): His objections to the legislation, publicly articulated minutes before final Senate passage, were certainly legitimate. But the way he almost derailed the compromise, claiming he hadn't had time to read the bill, didn't add up when it had been out on the streets for several months.
· Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.): Saw their top rival for the Energy and Commerce Committee gavel, Shimkus, win a major victory. See above.
Somewhere in between
· States that wanted to preserve the right to enact tougher chemicals laws: The bill improved, in their view, from the way it was originally written, but some still weren't happy. Just yesterday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) issued a statement saying he was "disappointed that the amended Toxics Substances Control Act passed by Congress expands federal preemption, creating new obstacles to the ability of New York and other states to protect their citizens from the hazards of toxic chemicals."
· Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.): The Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member entered the fray late, announcing his opposition in the eleventh hour. Still, he remained vigilant during final negotiations and won at least a few concessions.
· Cosmetics companies: There was some talk early on that their products would be regulated by EPA as well as the Food and Drug Administration under the legislation, but that's no longer the case. Instead, only the chemicals used in the products continue to be policed by EPA. But there are still questions about how the pre-emption rules in the bill will be implemented, and that makes the industry a little uneasy. Similarly, it is not clear how the enactment of TSCA reform will affect legislation by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) reforming the regulation of the personal care products industry.
· Advocates for regulating asbestos: They like the bill because they say it will finally allow EPA to ban asbestos in the United States. Advocates however, worry it could still take several years for EPA to go through the regulatory process to do so.
Reporters George Cahlink, Jeremy P. Jacobs, Geof Koss, Manuel Quiñones and Arianna Skibell contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038540
-
EPA Announces Public Science Meeting on ETBE
Jun 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The EPA has announced an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) public science meeting on 7 September to discuss the draft assessment for ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE).
Key science topics to be discussed include:liver tumour modes of action;potential for increased susceptibility to toxic effects resulting from a decreased rate of acetaldehyde clearance in the liver; anduse of 2-stage carcinogenicity bioassays.
Nominations for expert participants can be submitted to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) until 1 July.
ETBE is used as a fuel additive for gasoline to increase octane rating, and has been used to meet air pollution reduction goals. The use of ETBEs in reformulated gasoline "was effectively eliminated" in the US in 2006. However, use and production of these oxygenates has continued, according to its IRIS toxicological page.
Meeting materials and expanded descriptions of the discussion topics will be available by early July. A preliminary meeting agenda will be available in mid-August.
The meeting is set to take place at EPA Potomac Yards South in Arlington, VA. It will also be webcast.
In a separate announcement, the EPA has provided the preliminary agenda for the IRIS public science meeting on 29-30 June. This will further discuss the draft toxicological assessments for tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) and benzo[a]pyrene (BaP).
Meeting registration is now open.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47936/epa-announces-public-science-meeting-on-etbe
-
U.S., Canada Designate Great Lakes Chemicals Of Concern
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
The United States and Canada have targeted eight chemicals of concern for the Great Lakes as part of a binational agreement to improve the water quality in the shared lakes and protect human health by reducing anthropogenic releases of the chemicals.
“Designating these Chemicals of Mutual Concern puts us on the road to reducing them to protect the public health and water quality of the Great Lakes region,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a June 7 statement. “Together with Canada and the region’s partners, we’re making the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement work hard for the tens of millions of people who live, work and play around these magnificent water bodies.”
The two countries in 2012 signed an updated version of the water quality agreement, which set more stringent controls for nutrients and toxic substances and renewed efforts to control the introduction of invasive species. An annex to the agreement required the countries to identify “chemicals of mutual concern” that are potentially harmful to human health or the environment and that originate from anthropogenic sources.
The first set of chemicals announced June 7 includes hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs).
EPA has proposed adding flame retardant HBCD to its Toxics Release Inventory as well as proposed a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that would limit uses of HBCD and PBDEs, which are also flame retardants, and in 2014 it finalized a TSCA rule to limit new uses of SCCPs, which are believed to no longer be used in the United States.
PFOA, PFOS and LC-PFCAs are all types of long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). EPA worked with U.S. manufacturers to phase out use of PFOA and PFOS, and in January 2015, the agency proposed a TSCA rule to prevent imports of several PFCs. The European Union and environmentalists have urged EPA to seek a TSCA banon PFCs rather than restricting new uses of the chemicals.
EPA in May also finalized long-term health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, lowering the concentration of each contaminant in water that it says is safe.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/us-canada-designate-great-lakes-chemicals-concern
-
Are Antibacterial Building Materials Making You Unhealthy?
Jun 9, 2016 | GreenBiz
By Molly Miller
As green design turns its eye to health, architects are looking not only at chemical properties in materials but also at the microbes around us to promote environmental health and sustainability and human health.
Rare and minor metals, or chemicals made from metals such as cadmium, titanium and molybdenum, are in everything in our buildings from sheeting, to LEDs, to solar panels, to appliances, equipment and paints. We use them, for example, to enhance steel and prevent corrosion.
Tracing the environmental and health consequences of acquiring and using and recycling these metals is unwieldy, from destructive open pit mining in Mongolia to unregulated waste disposal of materials in China to the unstudied health effects of these metals, Ken Geiser of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Products at University of Massachusetts told an audience at the BuildWell symposium in San Francisco.
With an increasing emphasis on health and wellness in green design, how are building professional addressing this heretofore somewhat unexamined aspect of their supply chain? Labeling and transparency of materials is a start. Geiser's recommendations to design teams: Check all the components of a product, know your sources and, until we can clean up our supply chains, put a gap in between construction and move-in dates.The microbial cloud
Erica Hartmann, a Fulbright scholar at the Biology and the Built Environment Center at the University of Oregon, is the first person to look at how chemicals in building materials affect microbes.
A healthy "microbial cloud" is not necessarily intuitive. You may be surprised that scientists claim more microbes are healthier than fewer microbes in a space. That’s because it’s better if pathogens face more competition. Outdoor air contains more microbes and is healthier as a result. Scientists are finding hospitals with operable windows have fewer pathogens, for example.
Manufacturers, however, operate on the opposite assumption — that more microbes are bad, and they have set about diligently eliminating them. Hartmann disclosed an alarming fact: Manufacturers of all kinds of building materials and products place an anti-microbial called triclosan in practically everything from paint, tiles and carpets to keyboards.
But antimicrobials don’t stay there. They end up in dust. "Almost all dust from indoor environments contain triclosan," she explained to the BuildWell audience. Contrary to their intention to kill bacteria, antibacterial products seem to make bacteria stronger.
"There is a corollary between tricloasan and antibiotic resistance. So, merely by being inside you increases your chance of an antibiotic resistant infection," according to Hartmann. (This is why Kaiser Permanente has banned the use of antimicrobials in interior building products in its hospitals and facilities. It also bans anti-bacterial soaps for the same reason.)
Hartmann already knows outdoor air improves the health of an indoor microbiome, so what about sunlight? In fact, she is currently studying glazing on windows to see how blocking UV light affects the microbiome in a room.Green chemistry
By studying what’s different about how nature handles molecules and how it manufactures and recycles products, innovative manufacturers are learning about what’s wrong with industrial processing of materials.
John Warner of the Warner Babcock Institute used to work at Polaroid. Then he went to work on environmental toxicity for the EPA, and now has his own company doing things such as developing an asphalt product that contains a molecule that allows it to rejuvenate itself rather than be ripped out and repaired as it ages.
This may sound like magic but "bio" products that mimic nature in their manufacturing process hold huge potential, both for reducing environmental impacts and for increasing profits. Pike Research stated "green chemistry" will be a $98.5 billion global industry by 2020 as many safer and greener alternatives make their way out of the laboratory and into the market.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/are-antibacterial-building-materials-making-you-unhealthy
-
Clarity Needed for Exemptions to DecaBDE Restriction
Jun 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Some EU member states have asked for the exemptions for recycled materials and spare parts to be more clearly defined in a draft Regulation which proposes to restrict the brominated flame retardant, decaBDE.
The clarification was requested at a 3 June REACH Committee meeting to discuss the text of the draft Regulation. There, the majority of the member states “reacted positively” to the text. They particularly welcomed the transition period and the consideration of a restriction in military objects.
A decision on the text is expected in the September REACH Committee meeting.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47879/clarity-needed-for-exemptions-to-decabde-restriction
-
Jun 8, 2016 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Jamison Cocklin
Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's decision to build a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Western Pennsylvania marks the first time in more than 20 years that such a facility has been built in the United States outside of the Gulf Coast.
The company's announcement on Tuesday was hailed by those throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia as a watershed moment in the evolution of the Marcellus and Utica shale plays (see Daily GPI, June 7). Shell's historic decision, sources said, lays the groundwork for the future of supply and demand, opens the door for similar facilities to be built and clears a path for the creation of what could be thousands of ancillary jobs in the region.
"Shell's decision to move forward with its Western Pennsylvania ethylene cracker marks a major turning point for the region," Consol Energy Inc. said. "Since unconventional shale gas began to flow from the Appalachian Basin over a decade ago, the buildout of large-scale, end-use opportunities have been critical in realizing the generational benefits of the vast resource that lies beneath our feet. Today, those benefits and the opportunity to build and sustain a new middle class in our region are becoming reality."
Consol has signed an agreement to supply Shell's cracker with ethane. The facility would be built on a 400-acre site adjacent to the Ohio River in Potter and Center townships in Beaver County, about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. With a capacity to produce 1.6 million metric tons/year (mmty) of polyethylene and 1.5 mmty of ethylene, which are key building blocks for plastics, the facility is expected to employ 6,000 during construction and another 600 permanent employees once it's operational sometime in the early 2020s.
The company has already spent millions of dollars on site preparation and administrative work (seeShale Daily, March 4).
There would also be three on-site natural gas-fired turbines to generate electricity and steam (see Shale Daily, Aug. 5, 2014). Shell's final investment decision (FID) is good news for Appalachian exploration and production companies that haven't had a lot of it lately, said BTU Analytics LLC Partner Kathryn Miller.
"The pieces of the puzzle are falling into place. You'll see increasing demand from Gulf Coast crackers that will come online next year and now Shell's cracker in the Northeast is an additional source of demand," Miller said. "The outlook is getting better for ethane pricing. It's not going to completely change the economics for drilling for wet gas in Southwest Appalachia, but it should improve breakeven economics and rates of return by an amount that's not completely insignificant."
As the commodities downturn has dragged on, a majority of the Appalachian Basin's leading producers have retreated almost exclusively to their dry natural gas acreage, where low breakeven prices and prolific wells have outperformed wetter assets and helped to defend against the downturn (see Shale Daily, April 7). Ethane has sold for pennies on the dollar in recent years. Mont Belvieu, TX, spot prices on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange have consistently settled at less than 20 cents/gallon since 2014.
Ethane is a major part of the gas stream in Appalachia, accounting for more than 50% of production in some of the wells there.
"Producers haven't been getting much for it," Miller added. "They've actually been figuring out how to dispose of it in some cases. This [cracker] could help move rates of return up by 10% where producers, for instance, might break even at a price closer to $2.20 rather than $2.50."
The facility would join a growing list of midstream options for Appalachian liquids production, as well. The 1,230-mile Appalachia-to-Texas Express ethane pipeline entered service in 2014 (see Shale Daily, Dec. 5, 2013). Sunoco Logistics Partners LP is also delivering ethane and propane from Western Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex near Philadelphia for export overseas. Sunoco plans to bring its Mariner East 2 pipeline into service in 2017 to carry more natural gas liquids (NGL) from Ohio and Pennsylvania to Marcus Hook, and it is gauging interest in a third pipeline (see Shale Daily, Feb. 26).
Among other projects, Mountaineer NGL Storage LLC said last month that it received requests for more than three times its initial planned capacity in Ohio during a nonbinding open season (see Daily GPI, May 25).
A bump in ethane prices, Miller said, could occur as early as 2017. In the Appalachian Basin, Ohio Oil and Gas Association Executive Vice President Shawn Bennett said Shell's facility "creates a market for ethane right here in Ohio." Having a local end-user would cut transportation costs and make the product more marketable, he said.
"By the time they pay for [ethane] transport, producers have been getting very little netbacks," said Danielle Sandusky, principle at Level 2 Energy, an energy market analysis website that also offers hedging and risk management services. "The economics haven't justified spending the money to pursue wet gas and it's one of the reasons you've seen this push into dry gas where these guys are getting massive estimated ultimate recoveries instead of pursuing wet gas."
Shell's facility is one of five that have been proposed for the Appalachian Basin (see Shale Daily, Sept. 3, 2015; May 21, 2014; Nov. 14, 2014; Jan 19, 2012). In 2012, Aither Chemicals LLC said it would construct a $750 million cracker that would utilize Marcellus ethane, but never identified a site and has mentioned little about the proposal since. Appalachian Resins Inc. in 2013 said it would construct a small-scale 15,000 b/d facility in Monroe County, OH, but later said it would put those plans on hold after Thailand's PTT Global Chemical (PTTGC) pcl said it would spend $100 million on preliminary design work for a multi-billion dollar facility in Belmont County, OH.
Like PTT's proposal, Odebrecht SA, through its petrochemical affiliate Braskem SA, announced plans in 2014 for a facility in Wood County, WV, that would be comparable to Shell's cracker. Odebrecht said last year that it would postpone its plans for the West Virginia facility pending further project analysis amid the commodities downturn (see Shale Daily, April 23, 2015).
"In my opinion, I think it bolsters Ohio's position in acquiring a cracker," Bennett said. "What you have is Shell has done the due diligence, assessed the resource viability in the region. The ethane is here and logistically it works out. They're moving forward, and that opens the door to other projects."
Executive Director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association Corky DeMarco agreed with Bennett even though he had hoped his state would land the region's first cracker.
"I certainly would have wanted the first cracker in West Virginia, given that people were talking about this back in 2009," he said. "But I think this shows people that there is the supply here and having the commitment up here, I think, will increase the likelihood of other commitments. I've always thought once the first one is committed, then a bunch of folks will say we better get there before someone else does."
Braskem spokesperson Stacy Torpey said the company had no comment about Shell's FID but added that plans for its cracker in West Virginia remain unchanged. PTTGC spokesperson Dan Williamson expressed a similar sentiment and said Shell's announcement has no bearing on the company's plans.
"Shell's decision to move forward with its project in Pennsylvania will have no impact on our process," Williamson said. "There are rich feedstock resources in this region of the United States, which are closer to our project compared to projects on the Gulf Coast and other regions of the country. Our front-end engineering and design process continues to move forward, and we look forward to making a final investment decision early in 2017."
When Shell's cracker is completed, both DeMarco and Bennett said thousands of other downstream jobs should be created in the supply chain and in regional manufacturing. Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said the project is "monumental," likening it to the construction of 25 large stadiums. Allegheny Conference on Community Development CEO Dennis Yablonsky said the cracker is the largest single 'from the ground up' industrial investment in the Pittsburgh region in a generation."
Shell floated the idea of constructing an ethane cracker in Pennsylvania in 2011 and signed a site option agreement for a former zinc smelting plant in 2012 in Beaver County (seeDaily GPI, March 16, 2012; June 7, 2011). Shortly after the company made its announcement, the Pennsylvania Economy League released a study that said the cracker could create annual economic output of $4.8 billion.
The American Chemistry Council said Tuesday that 262 chemical industry projects valued at $161 billion are completed, under construction or planned for the United States. The new factories and capacity expansions could create $105 billion in annual chemical industry output and 738,000 permanent jobs throughout the country by 2023.
What's more, several of the world's largest polymer companies are located in Northeast Ohio, including Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Parker Hannifin Corp. and PolyOne Corp. The Pittsburgh region is also home to more than 100 plastics-related companies that employ more than 5,000 people, according to the Pittsburgh Regional Alliance, an economic development organization.
"I think they believe they have the supply and that they can get it at an advantaged price," Miller said, when asked what factored into Shell's announcement after five years of decision-making. "When making this evaluation, I'm sure they were considering the supply side and there is a fair bit of demand in the Northeast market."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106686-shells-pennsylvania-ethane-cracker-decision-seen-as-historic-for-appalachian-natgas-market
-
'Big Four' to Huddle on Conference Impasse
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Key House and Senate lawmakers are planning to meet next week to discuss how an energy conference committee would operate, as Democrats in the upper chamber continue to express doubts about the prospects of reconciling competing bills.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and co-sponsor of the Senate package, S. 2012, told E&E Daily about the likely meeting.
"I think we're going to sit down and talk among ourselves, the four corners, and see," she said, referring to herself, Senate Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
Cantwell reiterated concerns about the House including multiple bills in the chamber's revised energy package. The White House has threaten to veto many of the new provisions in statements of administration policy.
"Sending over seven bills that have already been SAPed is kind of not a great place to start," Cantwell said. "So let's have a discussion."
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the Energy and Power Subcommittee and will play a key role in conference, said yesterday he would welcome a discussion about Democratic concerns, but he rejected the notion that any issues should be taken off the table ahead of conference.
"We don't view that this is that strong of an energy bill," he told E&E Daily yesterday. "It's not like we accomplished a lot in this bill, so we're not about to give up the few things we did, but we're happy to have some discussions and maybe they've got some things and we can get some more things and whatever. That's what a conference is about."
Whitfield described two Democratic concerns -- House language giving states a greater role in setting Department of Energy efficiency standards and repealing a 2007 law that requires some federal buildings to zero out fossil energy use by 2030 -- as "sort of minor things."
"I don't know what they're talking about," he said. "If they want to be more ambitious, then we're certainly willing to try to meet them halfway because I think there are other things that we can accomplish."
Whitfield said, "So if they don't like what we've sent them, then I guess what they need to do is come forth with a specific package of what they're really trying to accomplish."
Cantwell said she was particularly concerned about some of the House's efficiency provisions. She said they would undercut provisions of the broad efficiency title in the Senate bill, which are based on the legislation authored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
"When you have a bill that basically strips out all the energy efficiency -- that's what we voted for 85-12, was Shaheen-Portman plus greater energy efficiency -- and they have a bill that's coming over that's you know 'kill all that,'" said Cantwell, "I'm just trying to understand how they see us resolving these issues."
She added: "I have no idea whether they're serious about working out those differences in a bipartisan fashion. So we'll have to see."
Shaheen, who has labored for years to see the broad efficiency package enacted, said she was dismayed to see the latest iteration on the ropes.
"I think it's disappointing what the House has sent over, legislation that has gutted so many of the positive provisions that were in the Senate energy bill," she said in an interview. "And I hope they will reconsider and we can put out something that is positive. I don't understand the opposition to creating jobs and reducing costs to consumers and cleaning up pollution."
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he had real doubts about the ability of negotiators to reach a compromise based on what the House sent over.
"My first thought is that the House bill has so many troublesome provisions that I don't know if a conference would be productive at this point," he said.
Murkowski said yesterday she was working to assure wary Democrats that the conference, which she would chair, would be focused on producing a bill that the president would sign.
"As I've said so many times before, I'm not interested in spending a lot of time just to have it be vetoed," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038539
-
House GOP Will Limit Amendments to Spending Bills
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Citing the surprise defeat of the energy and water spending bill, House Republican leaders are cracking down on poison pill amendments in a bid to get the fiscal 2017 appropriations process back on track.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) outlined a plan at a GOP caucus meeting yesterday to have the Rules Committee determine what amendments to spending bills will be allowed floor votes. Since taking over the House in 2010, the GOP has allowed spending bills to move under open rules that allow any member to offer an amendment.
"It's something Ryan preferred not to do, but it was something he felt he had to do," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator, said after the meeting.
The Rules Committee will start determining what amendments will be made in order when it writes its rules for calling up spending bills. It's the same process used for most other legislation, but one that has not been used on spending bills regularly in six years.
Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said there would still be plenty of amendments allowed, but the panel would block those that could bring down a bill. Like other GOP leaders, Sessions said it would help the House to move its annual spending bills more easily.
The first test of the new amendment process will come on the annual defense spending bill due to hit the floor next week. House lawmakers have until Monday morning to file any proposed amendments with the Rules Committee.
Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) told the caucus he favored open rules but saw limiting amendments as the best option to get spending bills moving. A committee aide said Rogers sees the move as temporary and hopes to eventually see the spending bills return to moving under regular order.
Republican leadership made the move after a provision related to LGBT rights for federal contractors wound up bringing down the fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill two weeks ago (Greenwire, May 26).
The measure had been expected to pass, but conservatives frustrated with the LGBT provision and Democrats opposed to the bill's overall spending level defeated it with more than 300 votes.
"I suspect we'll see it again," House Energy and Water Appropriations Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said of the prospects for the energy bill returning to the floor.
But, Simpson said, he had "no idea when" and suggested the $37.4 billion bill would need to be rewritten before it could return.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, the ranking Democrat on the spending panel, gave the measure a "50-50" shot at making it back. She said it was tough to know exactly when or how it might return given "all the commotion" over amendments.
"I believe in open rules unless the process is being abused. If you have 400 amendments it's being abused, but we did not have 400 amendments. They did not just want to be fair to people who might be LGBT," she said.
Another bill closely watched by greens, the Interior and Environment spending bill, is due to be marked up by House appropriators next week. It's not yet clear when that measure, likely to contain provisions blocking U.S. EPA rules, will move to the House floor.
Senate appropriators are also expected to unveil their version of the Interior and Environment spending legislation next week.Conservative concerns
In making the move to limit amendments, Ryan risks alienating the members of his party's right flank, who elected him after he promised to run a more open House. For now, conservatives are supportive of Ryan's approach and blamed Democrats for forcing the move.
"This is still open, but what it does is strip out the political chafe," said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of more than 170 House conservatives.
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), a leader of the Freedom Caucus, said he backed the move because Ryan assured lawmakers he was targeting Democratic poison pills, not GOP amendments opposed by leaders.
"If they start using it against conservatives then we are going to vote against the rule and with Democrats against it too we will take down the rule" and block the bill, Labrador added.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he was concerned that making leaders "gatekeepers" risks cutting out rank-and-file lawmakers and might block conservative ideas from being considered.
Democratic leaders were quick to pounce, noting that Republican leaders have repeatedly promised regular order on spending bills. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Republicans are more interested in "protecting special interests" than in preserving regular order.
Cole countered that when Democrats controlled the House they had similar restrictions for spending bills.
"I am not going to shed a lot tears for people that used this tactic themselves and then frankly provoked the majority to adopt it again now," he said. "They are sort of reaping what they sowed."Senate showdown
The Senate meanwhile, faces votes today that could go a long way in determining whether they are able to move most of their fiscal 2017 spending bills.
The parties will offer competing amendments to the pending defense authorization bill that would increase discretionary spending for fiscal 2017 to $18 billion above the cap set by last year's budget accord.
The Republican plan would direct the money toward Pentagon war accounts, while Democrats would direct it toward domestic programs -- including $1.9 billion for repairing water infrastructure in Flint, Mich., and other cities with aging water systems.
It's not clear if either amendment can get the 60 votes necessary to move toward a final vote on adding the provision. Democrats however, have said if Republicans increase defense spending without doing the same for non-defense accounts they will bring to a halt the chamber's work on spending bills (E&E Daily, June 8).
So far, the Senate has found bipartisan success in passing three of its annual spending bills with the defense appropriations bill headed to the floor next week.
Crucial to the early success on appropriations has been eliminating any contentious amendments.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038537
-
Resolutions Opposing Carbon Taxes Near House Votes
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House is expected to vote as soon as June 9 on non-binding resolutions stating that a carbon tax is “not in the best interest” of the U.S. and opposing a proposed fee on each barrel of oil produced.
Both the carbon tax (H. Con. Res. 89) and the oil taxresolutions (H. Con. Res. 112) are expected to pass the Republican-controlled House, which has consistently resisted any new tax efforts and many environmental initiatives from the Obama administration.
President Barack Obama has voiced support for a carbon tax throughout his administration, but the idea has never gained much traction in Congress. He proposed a $10.25 fee per barrel of oil produced as part of his fiscal year 2017 budget that would be used to boost low-carbon and clean energy transportation efforts, but Republicans called the idea dead on arrival.
Carbon Tax ‘Detrimental.'
H. Con. Res. 89, sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), says that imposing an economy-wide carbon tax would hit poor citizens hardest, harm economic growth and result in jobs moving abroad.
Therefore, “it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States,” the resolution states.
H. Con. Res. 112 opposing the oil barrel tax, offered by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), says that any additional fees would harm the oil and gas industry while resulting in higher energy prices for all citizens.
“In considering future policy, Congress should carefully review the detrimental impacts of placing any new taxes on any industry that has seen a slash in jobs, revenue and production,” the resolution concludes.
Outside Groups Weigh In
Leading the charge for both resolutions is the American Energy Alliance, which said lawmakers should vote for both measures.
“By opposing any new energy taxes, lawmakers can send a clear message to their constituents that they're against burdensome and damaging policies designed to increase the cost of energy,” the group said in a blog post.
Other groups countered that the efforts represented “ignorance about climate change” and pointed out that economists representing the full political spectrum have backed carbon taxes as the most efficient way to address greenhouse gas emissions.
“Not only would an economy-wide carbon tax be the best way to stop climate change, it could also boost the economy by funding tax cuts for businesses and consumers, much-needed infrastructure and supporting the recovery of coal-dependent communities,” Richard Eidlin, vice president of policy for the American Sustainable Business Council, said in a statement. “No one likes higher taxes, but it is cheaper in the long run to stop climate change than to pay for the damage it will cause.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361125&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361125&jd=91361125
-
Supporters Laud 'Momentum' for Carbon Tax Despite House Vote
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly
The fact that the House is taking up a resolution opposing a carbon tax shows that the idea of putting a price on the greenhouse gas is gaining traction, some supporters of the policy argued yesterday.
In a floor speech yesterday, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said that the idea of a carbon tax has momentum and that he believed the debate and vote on the resolution would move the discussion forward in Congress.
"Honestly," Polis said, "this is the first sign of momentum for a carbon tax cut -- and you'll hear me referring to it as a carbon tax cut because that's essentially what it is: using carbon tax revenues to cut taxes for the American people."
"You don't see these kinds of resolutions if a concept and an idea doesn't have momentum," Polis added.
The nonbinding resolution sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) states that the sense of Congress is that a carbon tax would be "detrimental" to the U.S. economy and disproportionately affect poor people.
The House is expected to vote on the resolution this week, along with a resolution that opposes President Obama's proposed $10 tax on barrels of oil. Both are likely to pass along mostly party lines.
While many conservative and free-market groups are urging Congress to pass the resolution, some conservative organizations are pushing for a carbon tax as the most economically efficient policy to address climate change.
Catrina Rorke, director of energy policy at the R Street Institute, said yesterday that the resolution was mostly a product of the contentious politics around climate change but that it signaled that efforts to sway more conservatives to rally around a carbon tax were having an effect.
The R Street Institute supports an economywide carbon tax in lieu of regulations and in which the revenue is used to reduce taxes on capital and income. The institute also supports cross-border price adjustments so that companies exporting goods overseas are not penalized if other nations don't put a price on carbon.
"We're having some traction, so that's why the politics are rearing their ugly head this week with a vote on the House floor," she said.
Former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, whose group RepublicEn is pushing for a carbon tax, said he was "not discouraged" by the House resolution.
He predicted that more Republicans would come on board with the idea of a carbon tax as climate change impacts, such as wildfires and lack of snow, become more apparent.
Already, sea-level rise in Florida has driven some Republicans in the Sunshine State to seek congressional action on climate change (E&E Daily, April 19).
"What's happening is that people are going to come to an awareness of the need, and they're going to be looking for a solution," Inglis said. "But the solution has to be one that's acceptable to us."
A carbon tax could keep government from "getting too big," something that appeals to conservatives, Rorke said.
For example, she said, if a carbon tax were in place instead of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, it would mean EPA wouldn't have to devote staff to state planning efforts that are required under the program. The Clean Power Plan, which is currently frozen by the Supreme Court, requires states to put in place plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
"We don't want to see EPA grow," she said.
Getting rid of EPA greenhouse gas regulations -- Rorke ticked off fuel efficiency regulations and Department of Energy efficiency rules as other rules that could be eliminated -- would be a hard pill for environmentalists to swallow, though.
Polis, who yesterday quoted conservatives who support a carbon tax, predicted that there may be up to a dozen Republicans in the House who support a carbon tax. He said that the upcoming vote would put members on record.
"I think this discussion moves us forward," he said, "because I fully expect there will be bipartisan opposition to this resolution, which opposes, presumably, any and all carbon tax cuts."
In August 2013, the House passed an amendment to an anti-regulatory bill that would require the administration to receive approval from Congress before implementing a carbon tax. That amendment, which also stated that a carbon tax increases energy costs for consumers, was approved by a 237-176 vote.
To be sure, Inglis said, the price of electricity, gasoline and other commodities would likely go up under a carbon tax. Higher prices would represent the actual cost of those goods by taking into account environmental damages, he said.
The Niskanen Center, a libertarian carbon tax supporter, also acknowledged in a recent blog post that "one could agree almost entirely with the statements" about economic doom made in the Scalise resolution and a companion Senate measure.
But a carbon tax would still be in the interest of the United States because revenue collected from the tax would offset "many of the negative aspects of higher energy costs," the center argued.
Inglis said that Scalise's home state of Louisiana, which has experienced a natural gas boom in recent years, would be particularly well-positioned under a carbon tax given that electricity produced from gas has a lower carbon footprint than coal.
"If I were the Louisiana Natural Gas Association, that's how I'd be speaking to Steve Scalise," Inglis said. "I would be saying, 'Steve, why are you doing this resolution, man? We've got money to be made here in Louisiana.'"
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038536
-
Low Clean Power Plan Costs Seen During Litigation
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency's currently stayed Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) will have “near-zero” costs until 2025 due to prevailing market, technological and policy trends, according to a new analysis from Resources for the Future.
“The electricity industry has been changing because of forces that predate the [Clean Power Plan] and likely overshadow it in importance,” the paper said. “Claims of irreparable harm to the coal sector during courts’ reviews are unsubstantiated.”
While the regulation aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants likely will impose substantial costs on the coal sector after 2025, the flexibility and timeframes included in the Clean Power Plan make it highly unlikely any large and irreversible costs would be imposed during the ongoing litigation, the report concluded.
Resources for the Future is an independent nonpartisan organization focused on the economics of environmental and natural resource policy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361126&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361126&jd=91361126
-
Unlikely Casualty in California's Renewable Energy Boom: Natural Gas
Jun 9, 2016 | Reuters
By Nichola Groom
In February of 2001, then California Governor Gray Davis stood at the site of Calpine Corp's new Sutter natural gas power plant and unveiled his plan to fast-track construction of similar stations to add 20,000 megawatts of modern, efficient generation to the state in three years.
Natural gas, Davis said, was "the most environmentally friendly, clean, appropriate fuel" to help the state move beyond the energy crisis it had just endured and enable its 34 million residents "to enjoy the good life that California represents."
Today, the plants inaugurated that day are among the casualties of a monumental shift in the U.S. energy landscape.
An unexpected combination of oversupply of natural gas and a boom in solar and other renewable energy has depressed power prices and threatened the viability of natural gas plants that sell power into the Golden State's electricity market. These developments are good for consumers and the environment, but tough on power producers who placed huge bets on natural gas.
"The world is really changing for these independent power producers," said Michael Picker, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, in an interview. "We don't need a lot of gas."
Calpine, in fact, shut down its Sutter plant earlier this year because of "poor economics." And rival Dynegy has said it plans to leave the California market, citing the state's focus on renewables.
To offset losses, Rockland Capital, Calpine and other plant owners, including General Electric and the Carlyle Group's Cogentrix, are asking the state for help. They argue that it is in the state's interest to support the natural gas plants because they provide stability and reliability -- attributes that are important to the state's power grid and something weather-dependent wind and solar can't offer. If the plants don't get needed support, their owners have warned, a critical safety net for the grid could disappear.
GE, which owns the Inland Empire Energy Center in Southern California, said in a statement that state policies "rank reliability and cost as low priorities," adding that generators may be forced to shut down prematurely. And in a letter to California officials in April, Rockland Capital called its 13-year-old La Paloma plant in Kern County "one of the victims" of the rise of large amounts of renewable power, and warned the plant could shut down later this year. Power producers want more long-term contracts that will compensate them for being there when wind and solar power are unavailable or when demand is particularly high.
"You do need natural gas generation as a backup for solar,"said Andrew Bischof, an analyst who tracks the power industry for Morningstar.
Nuclear power plant owners have made similar arguments in Illinois and New York, where they are competing with renewables and cheaper gas-fired power. But last week, nuclear power plant operator Exelon said it would close two Illinois plants due to a lack of progress on state legislation to support them.
Texas faces similar challenges due to an abundance of wind energy, but the Lone Star state has far more nuclear and coal-fired power than California, which would see shakeouts first.
SOLAR'S RISE
Built largely after California's 2000 and 2001 energy crisis, the state's new fleet of natural gas plants were meant to address a shortfall in power supplies and fuel population and economic growth for decades to come. Some plants had 10-year contracts that have now lapsed, while others were built to support the state's spot power market.
But power prices in California fell to their lowest level since at least 2001 last year, and in 2016 so far are trading even lower. The low price of natural gas, thanks to the fracking boom, is largely responsible. But renewables also depress spot prices because those prices are determined by the cost of the fuel source, which for wind and solar is zero.
California's big push for renewable power began in earnest with Davis' successor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a decade ago. He set a goal for the state to obtain 33 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020, an ambitious target that the state's top three utilities are on track to exceed because of government support for wind and solar power and a dramatic drop in the price of those technologies.
Graphic on growth of renewable energy in California: tmsnrt.rs/1U7HvVX
At the same time, rooftop solar capacity has soared faster than expected while older gas-fired power plants have not retired as quickly as state energy officials had projected. On a recent Thursday, solar was able to provide more than 40 percent of the state's power in the middle of the day -- making the state's new goal of sourcing 50 percent of its power from renewables by 2030 seem in reach.
With eight times the solar capacity online than there was just three years ago, gas-fired units built to satisfy mid-day demands are increasingly being asked to kick in quickly as the sun goes down.
Last month, California's grid operator, the Independent System Operator, said in a report that revenue estimates for many natural gas power plants are substantially below their fixed costs, adding that new gas-fired capacity "does not appear to be needed at this time."
Relief is not expected soon. A Moody's report last year forecast that margins for gas power generators selling into California would fall an additional 30 percent by 2019.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-energy-analysis-idUSKCN0YV0BX
-
Colorado Has 40 Times More Natural Gas Than Previously Estimated
Jun 8, 2016 | AP (In The Wall Street Journal)
Western Colorado has 40 times more natural gas than previously thought, potentially making it the second-largest formation in the country, the U.S. Geological Survey said Wednesday.
Mancos Shale formation in Colorado’s Piceance Basin holds about 66.3 trillion cubic feet of gas, up from 1.6 trillion estimated in 2003, the USGS said, citing new research.
A trillion cubic feet of natural gas is enough to heat 15 million homes for a year, the U.S. Energy Department said.
The U.S. already has 2.9 trillion cubic feet of the fuel that has been extracted and put into storage, which has weighed on natural-gas futures prices. The contract for July delivery fell 0.6 cent, or 0.2%, to $2.468 a million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Wednesday.
David Ludlam, executive director of the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said prices are too low to spur a boom.
If prices reach $3.50/mmBtu, companies would likely begin drilling, Mr. Ludlam said.
The U.S. also needs more facilities to export natural gas to Pacific nations to help make the Colorado gas competitive, he said, citing the proposed Jordan Cove Liquid Natural Gas terminal at Coos Bay, Ore.
The Piceance Basin, which spans much of western and northwestern Colorado, already has multiple well sites, pipelines and processing plants in place from a previous round of drilling in a shallower formation, Mr. Ludlam said.
Much of the basin is federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and getting approval from the BLM to drill is often more difficult than getting private landowners to agree, said Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs at the Western Energy Alliance, an industry group.
“I hope with this reassessment the government understands that indeed the Mancos Shale is an important formation that should be developed responsibly,” Ms. Sgamma said.
Neither BLM nor USGS officials immediately responded to requests for comment.
The new estimate could mean the Piceance Basin has the second-largest natural gas reserves in the country, after the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and neighboring states, Mr. Ludlam said.
USGS said the Marcellus has 84 trillion cubic feet of gas.
More important than the volume of the reserves is the cost of extracting them, said Porter Bennett, an energy analyst and president of Ponderosa Advisors in Denver. The Piceance Basin has traditionally had high drilling costs, Mr. Bennett said.
However, Mr. Ludlam said the next wave of energy companies with leases in the area likely would have lower costs than previous operators.
Drilling companies would use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to recover the gas from the Mancos Shale, Mr. Ludlam said.
Fracking uses a mix of water, sand and chemicals under high pressure to force open underground formations and release oil and gas. Opponents say fracking poses a risk to public health and the environment, but the industry says it is safe.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-has-40-times-more-natural-gas-than-previously-estimated-1465430936
-
Panel Passes Plan to Revamp Infrastructure Protection
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
The House Homeland Security Committee yesterday approved a measure to restructure the U.S. agency responsible for guarding critical infrastructure from cyber and physical threats.
The "Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Agency Act"would cement the Department of Homeland Security's status leading "national efforts to protect and enhance" cyber and infrastructure resilience, while shuffling roles at a key office.
An overhaul of the DHS branch in charge of infrastructure defense -- the National Protection and Programs Directorate -- has been in the works for at least a year (EnergyWire, Oct. 8, 2015). Lawmakers and administration officials worried that the agency's name didn't reflect its day-to-day work.
The latest legislation, now set in advance for a full vote on the House floor, would rebrand the NPPD as the "Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Agency."
The change is more than just semantic. The new agency also would be required to conduct a national assessment of cybersecurity risks and physical threats to critical infrastructure such as oil pipelines and power grids, using the results to inform spending decisions.
"This measure realigns and streamlines the department's cybersecurity and infrastructure protection missions to more effectively protect against cyberattacks that could cripple the nation," said committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who introduced the measure Monday.
Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), co-founder of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, said during markup yesterday that "it's clear that [NPPD has] outgrown its current organizational structure."
"I think the bill as a whole maintains the broad outline of the structure that both the department and the committee agree would increase effectiveness," he said, adding that "I hope that this reorganization would also help to clarify for private entities whom to call when faced with a breach."
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) has said he is working on similar legislation to streamline and rename NPPD in the Senate, aligning its cyber and physical functions "so the 'left hand' knows what the 'right hand' is doing."
The House bill would maintain separate divisions for cybersecurity and infrastructure protection.
This story also appears in EnergyWire.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038527
-
House Passes Pipeline Safety Bill, Sending It to Senate
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would receive authority to issue emergency orders in the event of a spill or other accident under a five-year reauthorization bill passed by the House June 8.
Some pipeline operators said they opposed the provisions providing the emergency powers to the safety administration.
The House's passage of its version of the SAFE PIPES Act (House amendment to S. 2276) on a voice vote, sends it to the Senate, which passed its version (S. 2276) by voice vote in March.
The House bill combined provisions from separate bills approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (H.R. 5050) and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (H.R. 4937) reauthorizing PHMSA, a Department of Transportation agency that regulates 2.6 million miles of pipelines operated by companies such as Kinder Morgan Inc., NuStar Energy LP, and Plains All American Pipeline.
Unfinished Business
In addition to reauthorizing the agency through 2019, the bill sets new federal minimum safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities, increases inspection requirements for certain underwater oil pipelines and ensures that the agency completes unfinished rulemakings required in the 2011 reauthorization legislation, according to a summary of the bill.
“Two and a half million miles of energy pipelines run throughout communities all over the United States, often unnoticed or neglected until they fail,” according to Rep. Lois Capps (R-Calif.), whose district was affected earlier this year by a 100,000-gallon crude oil leak from a corroded pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline. “One of our jobs in Congress is to take lessons learned from past incidents, like the Plains spill, and use them to craft commonsense policies to minimize the risks of future spills. That is what this bill does and I am happy to have helped lead the way on its adoption,” Capps continued.
The legislation also explicitly designates coastal areas, marine coastal waters, and the Great Lakes as “unusually environmentally sensitive” areas subject to greater protections, according to the summary.
Emergency Language Tweaked
The bill retains, but tweaks, language giving PHMSA authority to issue emergency orders in the event of oil spills and other accidents that had been requested by agency Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez.
Among the changes made was language requiring PHMSA to consult with pipeline operators and others on the impacts of emergency orders before they are issued and a provision allowing those affected by such an order to appeal to an administrative judge, a staffer to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who was involved in preliminary negotiations with the House over the bill, told Bloomberg BNA.
The original language had drawn opposition from pipeline operators who complained the provision was overly broad and didn't adequately define “emergency.”
Support for Modifications
“We appreciate the interest in creating this new authority, but feel strongly that such potentially broad and open-ended authority must include strong due process protections,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a letter to Congress that urges passage of S. 2276. “Several additional changes were made to this section since committee markups, and INGAA strongly supports these modifications.”
The Washington-based group represents companies such as Dominion Transmission and Cheniere Energy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361144&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361144&jd=91361144
-
Safety Bill Sails Through House But Faces Senate Critic
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Pipeline safety legislation that sailed through the lower chamber last night now faces stiff opposition from a top Senate Democrat who's calling the bill a giveaway to the oil industry.
The House unanimously approved by voice vote a 55-page House amendment to S. 2276, the "PIPES Act of 2016," a compromise that incorporates legislation passed out of two House committees -- the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee -- in April.
Although bipartisan House members lined up yesterday on the lower chamber floor to applaud the years of cooperation that went into the language, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) quickly blasted Republicans for scrapping an oil spill provision related to the 2010 BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that he had hoped to include.
"Today, Big Oil's Republican allies in the House have stripped my provision to require that full and complete copies of pipeline spill response plans are provided to Congress," Markey said in an email. "When it comes to oversight of our nation's oil pipelines by Congress, API doesn't stand for the American Petroleum Institute, it stands for Avoiding Proper Inspection."
Markey late last year pushed language when the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee took up the bill that would have required pipeline safety regulators to provide Congress with unredacted copies of oil spill response plans.
The senator last night lashed out at the GOP for blocking that provision, saying he had learned that oil companies had included plans to evacuate walruses from the Gulf of Mexico "even though walruses hadn't called the Gulf home in three million years."
Markey will be able to express his concerns again when the measure comes up for a vote in the upper chamber.
But many senators support the language and even passed almost identical legislation from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) in March (EnergyWire, March 4).
And last night, House members from both sides of the aisle -- many of them with districts that have experienced pipeline spills or other accidents -- said the legislation represented major safety upgrades that promise to promote stronger oversight of gas and oil projects.
The bill would reauthorize the federal pipeline safety program within the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration through fiscal 2019 and direct the agency to prioritize implementation of 42 mandates required in its last authorization before initiating new rules.
The language would also give PHMSA its first-ever authority to halt pipeline operations or take other steps if certain practices or situations creating an "imminent hazard" are detected.
Rep. Steve Knight (R-Calif.) applauded a provision in the legislation that would create a federal task force to study the cause of the Aliso Canyon gas leak. The leak at the facility, located in Knight's district, has triggered fears of gas shortages and blackouts in Southern California.
Under the bill, PHMSA would also be required to set new minimum safety standards for underground gas storage facilities.
Members whose home states lie within the Great Lakes region hailed a separate provision that would increase inspections of pipelines traversing sensitive areas, including the Straits of Mackinac coastal beaches and marine coastal waters.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said the bill is especially personal for him, given the oil pipeline leak into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, saying such an event "smacks the senses and leaves a lasting impression."
Upton said the Straits of Mackinac is a "tremendously sensitive" area, noting that the legislation would require pipeline operators to consider worst-case scenarios and conduct more inspections. The bill would also "close the gaps" on liquefied natural gas export terminals and underground gas storage facilities by ramping up required inspection, Upton added.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the nation's vast network of pipelines is "out of sight, out of mind" until deadly and devastating accidents occur when something goes wrong.
The bill is a "good proposal that moves the ball forward on safety," Pallone said.
The legislation also has support among industry groups. Don Santa, president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, said in a statement yesterday that he's hoping for swift approval.
"We hope the Senate can pass this bill -- and send it to the president for his signature -- as soon as possible," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038541
-
House Unanimously Passes Pipeline Safety Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House on Wednesday passed a bill to reauthorize the federal pipeline safety oversight board.
Members attached their bill re-upping the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to a Senate bill passed earlier this year doing the same thing. The measure now goes back to the Senate.
The bill passed unanimously, and both the ranking Republican and Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee praised it on Wednesday.
“We promised action, and today, I am proud that we have a bipartisan agreement that will make a real difference,” said Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) added: “The legislation before us — while not the bill I would write as Chairman — is a good proposal that moves the ball forward on safety. It is the result of a number of weeks of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and, while some compromises were made, this is a product that in many ways is greater than the sum of its parts.”
The legislation makes changes to PHMSA safety policies, including a push to add more transparency to the regulatory process. It also gives the Department of Transportation more power to issue emergency energy pipeline shutdown orders and requires a study of pipeline operators’ management plans.
Besides bipartisan House support, industry groups approved of the measure as well.
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which represents pipeline operators, said it meets the goals they had set out when PHMSA’s reauthorization landed on lawmakers’ plates last year.
In a statement, Louis Finkel, the executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, said, “As domestic production grows, pipelines will be the critical link to connect our abundant oil and natural gas resources to refineries, chemical plants, business and consumers.”
He added, “The bill will enhance safety, improve transparency of PHMSA’s rulemaking process, shorten inspection reporting time, and improve workforce management.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282791-house-unanimously-passes-pipeline-safety-bill
-
Oil Train Rules Move to White House Review
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Regulators are one step closer to adopting new standards for oil trains that Congress mandated last year.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) sent the standards to the White House Office of Management and Budget for its final review, it said Wednesday.
The Obama administration is hoping to make the standards final and unveil them publicly by October.
The PHMSA and Federal Railroad Administration jointly wrote comprehensive standards for oil trains last year, including new standards for the tank cars and operational rules such as speed restrictions in certain areas.
Transportation of oil by rail has increased dramatically, as have derailments and other disasters.
In last year’s highway bill, known as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation, or FAST Act, Congress told the administration to make some tweaks to the oil train regulation.
The changes include a new, faster timeline for phasing out old rail cars from oil use, new construction standards for cars retrofitted to comply with new standards and a requirement that all cars in certain trains meet the mandates, not just the ones carrying oil.
Since Congress asked the PHMSA to put out the new rule immediately, the agency skipped the usual process of proposing a regulation and gathering public input before making it final.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282692-oil-train-rules-move-to-white-house-review
-
Eight-Year Ozone Delay Passed by House
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Implementation of the 2015 ozone standards would be delayed by eight years under legislation passed June 8 by the House.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and passed on a vote of 234-177, also would revise the process for reviews of national ambient air quality standards by the Environmental Protection Agency. The legislation would allow the agency to conduct reviews less frequently than the current five-year cycle and to consider the technological feasibility of meeting tougher standards as part of a review.
Olson's bill, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 (H.R. 4775), is supported by a number of industry associations, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that opposed the EPA's decision to set more stringent ozone standards of 70 parts per billion in October 2015.
The EPA touted that rule as providing billions of dollars in public health benefits, but many industry groups said the tighter standards would impose higher costs than the administration has estimated and would be difficult to achieve in many parts of the country.
Olson described his bill as containing “carefully thought-out, common-sense changes” to the Clean Air Act that would not change any existing standards or put cost consideration before science.
“I want clean air,” Olson said during floor debate. “This bipartisan bill is not about fundamentally changing the Clean Air Act.”
Administration Threatens Veto
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) criticized the bill for containing a number of “radical provisions” that would fundamentally alter an important Clean Air Act program.
Pallone highlighted language that would allow the EPA to consider economic costs and technological feasibility in its decision on where to set standards for ozone, particulate matter and other pollutants. Pallone acknowledged those issues are important and are considered in the implementation phase of the air quality rules, but said they “shouldn't come into play” when setting health-based standards
“H.R. 4775 is not a package of minor changes to minor provisions of the Clean Air Act,” Pallone said. “H.R. 4775 is a dangerous bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote no on increased ozone pollution.”
Key Provisions of H.R. 4775
Olson's bill would:
• delay the deadline for states to submit their recommendations on area designations for the updated ozone standards from 2016 until 2024;
• prohibit the EPA from proposing a revised ozone standard earlier than October 2025;
• allow the EPA to review national ambient air quality standards every 10 years, compared to the current five-year review cycle;
• allow for the consideration of technological feasibility in future reviews; and
• allow for new and modified industrial facilities to obtain permits based on the less stringent 2008 standards until 2025.
The White House also strongly opposes the bill, which the administration said would unnecessarily delay future reviews and make other “detrimental” changes to core protections offered under the Clean Air Act.
Advisers would recommend that President Barack Obama veto H.R. 4775 if it were to be presented to him, the administration announced June 7.
Democrats Downplay Chances
Several Democrats were critical of House leadership for spending floor time on Olson's bill, which they said has little chance of becoming law.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said H.R. 4775 won't pass the Senate, so it was not clear why the House would spend time debating it. Polis suggested that instead of passing a bill that would “eviscerate” the Clean Air Act, House leadership should have instead spent time on legislation to address the spread of the Zika virus or immigration reform.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) also criticized the House leadership's decision to bring the bill to the floor, describing it as “a waste of time” that could have been better spent on measures to combat climate change or address the drinking water problem in Flint, Mich.
However, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said H.R. 4775 is a reaction to concerns raised by states that are tasked with meeting federal air standards. Whitfield noted that areas in 24 states, as well as the District of Columbia, still don't meet the 2008 standards of 75 ppb, yet are now being asked to implement even more stringent standards.
“That's why we're here,” Whitfield said.
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a June 8 statement that H.R. 4775 would “help ease the burden of the overbearing ozone rule” on the manufacturing sector while allowing for continued air quality improvement.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute also issued statements welcoming passage of H.R. 4775, while Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and the American Lung Association issued statements that criticized passage of the bill.
No Additional Funding Allowed
During consideration, the House adopted a Whitfield amendment to clarify that no additional funding be authorized to carry out the requirements of H.R. 4775. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that language requiring the EPA to conduct a study on ozone formation and submit a report to Congress describing the effect of foreign air pollution on ozone standards compliance would cost the EPA about $2 million.
Whitfield acknowledged that cost, but he said it would not be “a burden” for the EPA to repropose funds to carry out a study that they already should have been doing. He noted that the EPA likely spent millions of dollars to issue the Clean Power Plan regulation to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, even though Congress never authorized funding for that purpose. Whitfield's amendment passed on a vote of 236-170.
The House also adopted by voice vote an amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) to require that the EPA's ozone formation study include an analysis of emissions from wildfires.
The House also rejected several Democratic amendments, including an amendment that would have struck the technological feasibility language from the bill and an amendment that would have allowed the EPA not to follow provisions of the bill if the agency determined that their application could harm human health or the environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361140&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361140&jd=91361140
-
House Passes Ozone Bill After Contentious Debate
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The House approved legislation yesterday to push back full implementation of U.S. EPA's new ground-level ozone standard by eight years and make the first consequential changes to the Clean Air Act in more than a quarter-century.
The 234-177 vote on H.R. 4775 fell mostly along party lines as supporters shrugged off an Obama administration veto threat and sent the bill to the Senate.
The measure would rewrite the act to require EPA to review -- and potentially tighten -- the standards for ozone and five other "criteria" air pollutants only once every decade instead of once every five years. It would also give the agency a green light to take "technological feasibility" into account in setting new benchmarks, although protection of public health would still remain the leading factor.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a prominent Energy and Commerce Committee member, labeled the bill "disastrous" and accused House Republicans of adopting the ethos of Donald Trump, the party's presumptive presidential nominee.
"The art of the deal should not mean putting corporate welfare over the public well-being," Rush said. "Our breathing is nonnegotiable."
But the bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), called it a common-sense measure that would give states a reasonable amount of time to put the new 70 parts per billion ozone standard in place without hurting the environment or imperiling economic growth.
"It does nothing to roll back any of the progress that has been made" under the Clean Air Act, Olson said.
House lawmakers voted down four Democratic amendments.
The measure, officially known as the "Ozone Standards Implementation Act," has the strong backing of industry groups, which urged the Senate to follow the House's lead.
"Tightening the standards will not improve air quality any faster, but these regulations could hurt jobs and the economy by imposing unachievable emission reduction requirements on many parts of the nation," Louis Finkel, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a news release after the vote.
Environmental groups, which had dubbed the bill the "Smoggy Skies Act," dismissed it as a sellout to polluters.
"Every American should be able to breathe air that doesn't make them sick, but today Congress said that was too much to ask," Anna Aurilio, head of Environment America's Washington, D.C., office, said in a statement.
The White House shared her view. In the veto threat Tuesday, the president's aides said the legislation would "jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and significantly delay health benefits worth billions of dollars" (E&E Daily, June 8).
Even before the veto threat, the legislation faced long odds of clearing the Senate. Several other House-passed bills targeting EPA air pollution regulations are already languishing there; election-year pressures and a tight calendar make it more difficult than usual for controversial measures to get attention.'Implementation relief'
While the National Association of Manufacturers likes Olson's bill, the group is open to other options for "implementation relief," Ross Eisenberg, the group's vice president for energy and resources policy, said in an interview.
He pointed to the bipartisan deal that this week sent an overhaul of the nation's main chemical safety law to President Obama for his signature.
"Why can't that happen here?" Eisenberg asked.
In April, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introduced S. 2882 as a companion to Olson's measure. Capito is hopeful that the bill, pending in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, will soon get a hearing, a spokeswoman said in an email.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is created by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Besides irritating air passageways, ozone can trigger asthma attacks and worsen symptoms of emphysema.
After years of review, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy set the new 70 ppb ambient air standard last October. The agency predicts that the annual health savings by 2025 will amount to at least $2.9 billion, or more than double the projected yearly $1.4 billion compliance cost.
The agency's analysis excludes California, which is expected to need more time than the rest of the nation to fully comply.
The new benchmark replaces the 75 ppb standard set in 2008 under former President George W. Bush. But it was only last year that EPA issued final instructions to states on implementation of the 2008 standard, meaning they could simultaneously have to juggle two sets of rules, Olson and other GOP critics again noted yesterday.
The bill would delay final designation of nonattainment areas under the new standard from 2017 to 2025, with permitting requirements adjusted accordingly.
Yesterday's debate also underscored a sharp partisan divide over the urgency of further strengthening protections under the Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990. Since 1980, ozone levels have fallen by one-third, with EPA expecting the trend to continue, Olson said.
But in the District of Columbia alone, some 17,000 children suffer from pediatric asthma, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said. "We need to go much more rapidly," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/09/stories/1060038543
-
Overnight Energy: House Votes to Delay Obama Ozone Rule
Jun 8, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
HOUSE SAYS 'NO' TO OZONE RULE: The House on Wednesday voted to delay new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules governing surface-level ozone standards, or smog.
The bill, which would also slow down the review schedule for EPA air pollutant rules and give regulators the chance to consider cost -- not just public health impacts -- when reviewing those rules, passed on a 234-177 vote, with seven Democrats joining Republicans in batting back the ozone standards.
Republicans say the bill is necessary to prevent local governments from falling into "nonattainment," a designation that they were unable to reduce ozone levels below those set by the EPA.
Such a designation will endanger jobs, they say, as would the steps necessary for businesses to reduce their pollution fast enough to bring down ozone levels.
But Democrats slammed the measure, saying it would threaten public health and undermine the Clean Air Act.
"These changes are radical revisions intended to roll back the progress we have made in public health," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the Energy Committee.
"I ask my colleagues to reject the choice between jobs and clean air. The fact is we can have both."
The White House threatened on Tuesday to veto the bill if it should reach President Obama's desk.
Read more here.
CHEMICAL BILL ON TO OBAMA'S DESK: Lawmakers celebrated Wednesday the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals for the 21st Century Act, the first major environmental bill in more than 25 years.
The bill passed the Senate by voice vote late Tuesday, and is now on its way to President Obama's desk.
If signed into law, the bill would give the EPA new authority to regulate thousands of chemicals, while cutting off states' authority to regulate.
"This law has been in need of updating for decades," Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), a lead sponsor of the legislation, told reporters Wednesday. "Every stakeholder in sight, everyone involved in this part of the economy and the law has said that. The trick has been bringing everyone together on a bipartisan basis."
Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the lead Democratic sponsor, called the feat "a great triumph of bipartisanship" and compared it to climbing a mountain.
"Most Americans think, when you go to a grocery store or you go to a hardware store and you buy a product, they think that it's been tested for safety. It hasn't been tested," he said.
"Now we're going to see that that testing takes place, and we're going to move forward with a very tough cop on the beat, which will be the EPA, looking at the safety of products, doing that analysis."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Obama will sign the bill.
"We believe this is a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress. And we're pleased to see that the Environmental Protection Agency has been given additional authority to ensure we can keep our families safe," Earnest told reporters.
Read more here.
HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES PIPELINE SAFETY BILL:
The House on Wednesday passed a bill to reauthorize the federal pipeline safety oversight board.
Members attached their bill re-upping the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to a Senate bill passed earlier this year doing the same thing. The measure now goes back to the Senate.
The bill passed unanimously, and both the ranking Republican and Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee praised it on Wednesday.
"We promised action, and today, I am proud that we have a bipartisan agreement that will make a real difference," said Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) added: "The legislation before us -- while not the bill I would write as Chairman -- is a good proposal that moves the ball forward on safety. It is the result of a number of weeks of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and, while some compromises were made, this is a product that in many ways is greater than the sum of its parts."
The legislation makes changes to PHMSA safety policies, including a push to add more transparency to the regulatory process. It also gives the Department of Transportation more power to issue emergency energy pipeline shutdown orders and requires a study of pipeline operators' management plans.
Besides bipartisan House support, industry groups approved of the measure as well.
Read more here.
ENERGY EXEC'S DEATH RULED AN ACCIDENT: Former natural gas company executive Aubrey McClendon died due to an accident, an Oklahoma medical examiner ruled Wednesday.
The report came the day after Oklahoma City police said there was no evidence that the founder of Chesapeake Energy Corp. had committed suicide.
The autopsy said the cause of McClendon's death was multiple blunt force trauma to the torso and extremities from an accidental car crash, The Oklahoman reports.
McClendon died the day after he was indicted on federal charges for allegedly conspiring to rig oil and gas drilling lease sales with another company executive.
ON TAP THURSDAY: The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the implications for the Supreme Court's February stay of the EPA's Clean Power Plan.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/282787-overnight-energy-house-votes-to-delay-obama-ozone-rule
-
White House Threatens Veto Of Ozone NAAQS Delay Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
The White House is threatening to veto legislation the House approved June 8 that would delay implementation of EPA's stricter 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and would also extend the review cycle for all future NAAQS from the existing five-year Clean Air Act timeline to a 10-year review cycle.
The administration “strongly opposes” the bill, H.R. 4775, “because it would significantly undermine Clean Air Act protections, would block efforts to reduce harmful ground-level ozone pollution in communities across the country, and could delay future scientific reviews for other harmful pollutants,” according to a June 7 Statement of Administration Policy.
“Further, the bill would make other detrimental changes to the NAAQS core protections--most significantly allowing a fundamental shift away from the principle that the standards should be based solely on public health and welfare considerations,” according to the SAP.
The bill, which cleared the House June 8 in a 234-177 vote with 22 lawmakers not voting, is sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) and 43 co-sponsors, of which 40 are Republican.
The final version cleared with GOP amendments ensuring that no additional funds could be used to implement the legislation, and that EPA would have to consider wildfire impacts when studying ozone formation.
It would would extend implementation deadlines for the ozone NAAQS and delay any further revision of the standard until at least 2026, and would further reset the statutory five-year review cycle for NAAQS for all six "criteria" pollutants to 10 years, among other measures.
It would also ease permit requirements, allow NAAQS to be set based on technological feasibility instead of purely health considerations and qualify a wider array of events as "exceptional" and hence eligible for regulatory exemptions. The House bill has a Senate companion, S. 2882, introduced in the Senate April 28 and sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and seven other GOP senators.
Public health groups urged lawmakers to oppose the bill, with over 100 health, environmental and other organizations signing on to a June 7 letter to lawmakers asking them to block it. “This legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans’ 46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and delay life-saving health standards already years overdue,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, Karen Kerrigan, President of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, in a June 8 statement on behalf of the conservative Center for Regulatory Solutions said, “I strongly urge the White House to withdraw their veto threat of H.R. 4775 and allow this common sense bipartisan legislation to move forward, granting states the time and flexibility they need to comply with the 2015 ozone standard.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/white-house-threatens-veto-ozone-naaqs-delay-bill
-
Senators Seek Environmental Amendments To Defense Authorization Bill
Jun 8, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan & Stuart Parker
Senators from both sides of the aisle are seeking to attach environmental amendments to the pending fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill -- including a measure that significantly impedes implementation of EPA’s 2015 tighter air standard for ozone -- despite President Obama's threat to veto the bill due to broad objections over national security and foreign policy measures.
Environmental amendments to the FY17 defense authorization bill, S. 2943, include one sought by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) that is similar to many other legislative amendments sought by lawmakers on other bills that would impede implementation of EPA’s ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) specifically, or would diminish EPA’s NAAQS program in general.
Cassidy’s measure would affect EPA’s revised ozone NAAQS, adopted last October, of 70 parts per billion. The provision would extend state deadlines for designating areas in attainment or nonattainment with the standard for all states with a military installation or Defense Department (DOD) activity -- likely most states -- far beyond the current October 2017 deadline to 2024. It also would push other related regulatory deadlines out further into the future.
Further, it would declare that states with DOD bases or activities would not need to issue preconstruction permits under the new source review and prevention of significant deterioration program until EPA issues implementation guidance for the NAAQS, and says that EPA must issue guidance for any NAAQS concurrently with the standard. EPA is often years behind schedule in releasing such guidance.
In addition, the Senate June 7 adopted an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) that seeks to spur the use of alternative destruction technologies in place of open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) methods for destroying military munitions. The measure comes after a coalition of environmental and citizen groups around the country began a national campaign urging EPA to require the use of safer, less polluting alternative destruction technologies in place of OB/OD when disposing of military munitions.
Demilitarization Program
The amendment would require a National Academy of Sciences study of DOD’s conventional munitions demilitarization program. The study would review the existing stockpile and disposal methods currently used and compare them with emerging technologies. It would also evaluate any barriers to full-scale deployment of alternatives, and whether emerging technologies would enhance the military’s demilitarization capabilities, according to the amendment.
The Army would be required to submit a report to Congress on the study 18 months after the bill’s enactment, the amendment says.
A third environmental amendment being sought for inclusion in the defense bill would require EPA and the Air Force to submit a report on contamination from two perfluorinated chemicals at a New York Air National Guard base. Thepush for the measure, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), comes just after EPA last month released drinking water health advisories for the two chemicals that significantly lower the concentration at which EPA says are safe levels in drinking water.
But even if Cassidy and Schumer's amendments are adopted, the bill is unlikely to become law. The White House June 7 issued a statement of administration policy that says Obama would veto the bill, if presented to him, due to strong objections to measures the administration says would hinder DOD’s ability to execute defense strategy and carry out foreign and national security policy.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/senators-seek-environmental-amendments-defense-authorization-bill
-
States to Ask EPA for Ozone Standards Assistance
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A coalition of 12 states and the District of Columbia plan to ask the Environmental Protection Agency for more help in meeting federal standards on ground-level ozone.
The Ozone Transport Commission intends to send to the EPA this week a pair of resolutions adopted during a recent meeting in Philadelphia, David Foerter, executive director of the commission, told Bloomberg BNA in a June 8 e-mail. The OTC consists of states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic that advise the EPA on pollution that crosses state lines and work on regional solutions to ozone pollution.
One resolution adopted by the commission will ask the EPA to take steps to fully address the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” provision for both the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion and the more stringent 2015 ozone standards of 70 ppb. That provision requires states to address emissions of ozone precursors that interfere with the ability of downwind areas to meet the ozone standards.
The EPA in 2015 proposed (RIN:2060-AS05) an update to its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that would require power plants in 23 states to achieve additional reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides—an ozone precursor—in order to fulfill good neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone standards. However, the commission said in its resolution that the agency has acknowledged that rulemaking is only a “partial remedy” and urged the agency to take further action to offer a “full remedy” to ozone transport issues.
The other resolution will request that the agency update its guidance on reasonably available control technology to identify demonstrated pollution controls that will allow states to meet the 2015 ozone standards. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to issue and periodically update guidelines that define reasonably available control technology for sources that make the most significant contribution to the formation of ground-level ozone, as well as alternative control techniques for pollution sources that have the potential to emit at least 25 tons of ozone precursors.
The EPA's failure to update its guidance “hampers states' efforts” to address air quality in a cost-effective way, the commission said. The commission will request that the EPA update its guidance “as soon as possible.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361113&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361113&jd=91361113
-
EPA to Remove Affirmative Defense Permitting Language
Jun 9, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency would remove language from the permitting program for industrial facilities that allows them to claim an affirmative defense from civil penalties due to violations of emissions standards caused by “emergencies” as part of a proposed rule released June 8.
The proposed rule (RIN:2060-AS96) is part of the EPA's ongoing efforts to remove the affirmative defense language from its various regulations in response to a court decision striking those provisions. The latest proposal would amend 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to remove the affirmative defense provisions for Title V federal operating permits and state operating permit programs.
While the affirmative defense for emissions violations caused by emergencies—which the statute defines as “any situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the control of the source”—was not required as part of state permitting plans, states that adopted that language would be required to amend their implementation plans to remove it once the rule is finalized.
D.C. Circuit Driven
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2104 ruled that a civil penalty shield included in air toxics standards for cement kilns was outside the scope of the agency's Clean Air Act authority (NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 2014 BL 108218, 78 ERC 1369 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
“The affirmative defense for malfunctions in the Portland cement [national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants] and the affirmative defense for emergencies in the EPA's part 70 and part 71 regulations are functionally similar provisions that operate in essentially identical ways to establish affirmative defenses in civil enforcement actions,” the EPA said in the proposal.
Since that 2014 decision, the EPA has been periodically removing affirmative defense language from its various regulations, particularly for emissions of toxic pollutants. The EPA also has ordered 36 states to update their implementation plans to remove similar affirmative defense provisions.
The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Comment can be made at http://www.regulations.gov and should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0186.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=91361121&vname=dennotallissues&fn=91361121&jd=91361121
-
California’s Cap-and-Trade Law Is a Success
Jun 8, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
The purpose of California’s cap-and-trade program is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions (“California’s Cap-and-Trade Bubble,” Review & Outlook, May 31). By that crucial measure, California’s program is working well. Emissions under the cap fell more than 3% in its first two years, beating the program’s targets.
The recent dip of less than a dollar in the allowance price, after a steady rise to over $13, hardly indicates a “bubble.” Nor is low auction demand, due mainly to litigation by the program’s opponents, cause for alarm. Raising money isn’t the program’s aim, and the possibility of lower-than-expected revenues has been planned for. If anything, the program’s resilience—exemplified by continued robust activity on the secondary market—is a testament to its sound design and strong fundamentals. Meanwhile, the revenue that has been raised is promoting equity, not “windfalls.” Over half of the auction proceeds invested to date have benefited disadvantaged communities.
Today, emission trading programs are in place in more than 50 jurisdictions around the world. That’s good news for future generations—and for all of us who (still) believe in the power of markets to solve environmental problems.
Nathaniel Keohane
Environmental Defense Fund
New York
Cap and trade must be viewed as part of California’s comprehensive package of climate policies, including efficiency standards for new homes and appliances, that have driven emissions reductions while contributing to lower demand for permits. High carbon prices aren’t a goal of the system. The goals are emission reductions, efficiency, consumer protection and growing businesses set to compete in the 21st-century economy. Globally, renewable electricity investment and job growth exceeded coal and gas investment last year.
California is decarbonizing even as the state’s economic recovery has outperformed national trends, adding 50% more jobs than the national average over the last year. In April the state added 60,000 jobs, 33% of all those nationwide. California’s climate policy is succeeding, thanks in part to cap and trade.
Chris Busch, Ph.D.
San Francisco
http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-cap-and-trade-law-is-a-success-1465400258
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested