Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/9/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Four Risks That Could Push the U.S. Economy Into Recession
Jun 9, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
Many economists believe the U.S. faces a non-negligible risk of entering a recession within the next year. -
(ACC Mentioned) Will the EPA Be Up to the Task of Enforcing TSCA Reform Rules?
Jun 9, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Lawmakers on each side of the political aisle lauded a long-sought chemical oversight law after it cruised through Congress Tuesday evening. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Aims to Limit Harmful Products
Jun 9, 2016 | Associated Press (in Arkansas Online)
By Matthew Daly
Congress sent to President Barack Obama a bill that would for the first time regulate tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, including household cleaners, clothing and furniture. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Heads to President Obama for Signature
Jun 9, 2016 | EHS Today
By Sandy Smith
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, on June 8 praised the final Senate passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. -
Congress Sends Chemical Safety Reform Legislation to Be Signed into Law
Jun 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By John McGahren and Drew Cleary Jordan
The historic reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act overhauls the United States’ primary chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years. -
TSCA Reform Bill Broadens EPA’s Authority
Jun 8, 2016 | Lexology
By Hunton & Williams LLP
On June 7, 2016, Congress passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Lautenberg Act”) and sent the bill to President Obama for signature. If the bill is signed by the president, as expected, businesses that manufacture, process, distribute, use or dispose of certain chemical substances will be subject to a host of new registration and chemical safety requirements. -
With Rand Paul's Reluctant Consent, Congress Grants EPA More Power
Jun 8, 2016 | Town Hall
By Joe Pappalardo
“The EPA can now jail you for putting dirt on your own land,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a speech before the Senate Tuesday. -
Manchin, Capito Back Chemical Bill Rewrite
Jun 9, 2016 | Charleston Gazette--Mail
By Ken Ward Jr.
West Virginia’s two U.S. senators are joining in the bipartisan praise for a major rewrite of the nation’s chemical safety law that some critics are saying still doesn’t go nearly far enough to fix a decades-old system that all sides agree is broken. -
New Toxic Chemical Legislation Fails on Federalism
Jun 9, 2016 | Reblog
By Sarah E. Light
Earlier this week, the Senate approved the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The House approved this bill several weeks ago, so it now heads to the President for his expected signature. -
Cancer Cluster Bill Pushed by Idaho Survivor Likely to Become Law
Jun 9, 2016 | Magic Valley
By Nathan Brown
A bill named after an Idaho childhood cancer survivor that will allow for tracking of clusters of cancer has passed Congress after seven years of work and delay and now heads to the president’s desk. -
Big News for Little Friends: Congress Seeks to Limit Animal Testing
Jun 9, 2016 | RT
An updated Toxic Substances Control Act that could change the way chemicals are tested on animals has passed both the Senate and the House and is expected to be signed into law. Animal welfare advocates welcomed the news affecting millions of lab animals. -
Chemical Safety Bill Aims to Prevent Spills Into Waterways
Jun 8, 2016 | WV Public Broadcasting
By Dave Mistich
U.S. Senators Joe Manchin and Shelly Moore Capito are applauding the passage of a bill that’s been called the first major environmental reform in two decades. -
Wood Products Makers Urge EPA To Revise, Issue Formaldehyde Air Rule
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Wood products manufacturers are urging EPA to revise and then quickly finalize a pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that would set formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood, reiterating calls for the rule to mirror a California standard that exempts certain products and does not require testing of others. -
U.S. Could Outpace Climate Rule Through Mid-2020s, Studies Say
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The U.S. power sector may be able to comply with federal climate regulations through 2025 without changing any plans, according to a new analysis by MJ Bradley & Associates. -
Texas Energy Regulators Seek To Challenge EPA Methane Rule
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas operations in the state, is urging Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) to challenge EPA's recently finalized rule for regulating methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas facilities, likely marking the first of numerous similar challenges. -
Methane Emissions are Extremely Harmful, and the Government Might Not Know How Much There is.
Jun 9, 2016 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Methane is a colorless and odorless. But it is a powerhouse in the way it contributes to global warming. In the atmosphere, it’s more than 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide. -
EPA Science Board Hears Testimony on Water Study
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is preparing to decide what it will recommend about the agency's study of hydraulic fracturing. -
USGS Finds Huge Reserves in Colo.'s Mancos Shale
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Western Colorado is home to the second-largest shale natural gas basin in the United States, according to a new scientific study by the U.S. Geological Survey. -
Five Injured in Wisconsin Factory Chemical Spill
Jun 9, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
Five employees of the Gehl Foods factory were injured after a chemical spill Tuesday at the Germantown, WI facility, according a release from the Germantown [WI] Fire Department. -
House Passes Amended Version of Pipeline Safety Bill
Jun 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. House of Representatives passed by a voice vote Wednesday its version of a pipeline safety bill that includes changes to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). -
Derailed Oil Train in Ore. Met N.D. Standards
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The oil train that derailed in Oregon last week met North Dakota's gas pressure standards before hitting the rails, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. -
We Don't Just Need Rail Safety, We Deserve It
Jun 9, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Tommy G. Thompson
It was just over a year ago that America suffered the tragic Amtrak derailment at Philadelphia’s Frankford Junction that resulted in the loss of eight lives and injuries to more than 200. -
GOP Chairman: EPA Could ‘Restructure Every Industrial Sector’
Jun 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A high-ranking Republican senator said Thursday that he fears that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule could give it power to regulate the entire industrial sector. -
Virginia Permit Adopts Novel Tiered GHG Limits To Address Plant Degradation
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Virginia officials are poised to decide whether to finalize a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit for a proposed natural gas combined-cycle power plant that includes the first “tiered” greenhouse gas limit that accounts for expected efficiency degradation over time, a step that environmentalists are praising.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Four Risks That Could Push the U.S. Economy Into Recession
Jun 9, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
Many economists believe the U.S. faces a non-negligible risk of entering a recession within the next year. Asked to rank the probability of being in recession at some point over the next 12 months, respondents to The Wall Street Journal’s monthly survey of economists, on average, put the odds at 21%. That’s about double what they were a year ago. Not high enough to panic, but high enough to pay attention.
We asked the group of about 70 business, financial and academic economists to list the biggest risk factors they believe could tip the U.S. into recession. Most of their responses fall into just four distinct categories of worry: risk from China, falling levels of business investment, U.S. political uncertainty and concern that slower job growth and economic growth leave the U.S. at risk of stalling out.
1. China
The single risk getting the most attention in the U.S. economy is not even part of the U.S. Just over 40% of the respondents to the WSJ survey listed the potential fallout from China as the biggest risk.
“China is building a house of cards, and the risk is that it collapses sooner as opposed to later,” said Diane Swonk of consultancy DS Economics.
The world’s second-largest economy is seen as especially dangerous because it has relied heavily on debt to fund infrastructure and economic expansion. If all that debt can’t be paid back, it could lead to a full-blown Chinese financial crisis in worst-case scenarios, or to a Chinese recession in less-severe-but-still-troubling scenarios. China is a notoriously hard economy to monitor, and few are confident about what exactly will transpire. But a collapse in China could spark turmoil in financial markets, a slowdown in global trade, hurt many U.S. exporters and cause commodity prices to tumble even further.
2. Business investment
Many economists have an increasingly nervous eye on the levels of U.S. business investment. Though it gets much less attention than the monthly jobs report, one report worth watching is the Commerce Department’s measures of spending on capital goods. The report shows companies are spending less on things like machines, computers and raw materials powering their businesses. As of April, orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft — a key gauge of overall business investment — fell by 0.8% in April and has declined nearly 12% since September 2014.
“Poor revenues and declining earnings causing cutbacks in capital spending and hiring is the risk,” said Allen Sinai, chief economist at Decision Economics Inc.
Companies face a range of pressures. Exporters and manufacturers are contending with a weak global economy and risks from China. U.S. oil companies have, of course, been battered by low oil prices. And firms are facing a highly uncertain environment, driven in part by the third-largest risk: U.S. politics.
3. U.S. politics
Every presidential election introduces an element of uncertainty into the U.S. economy, but this election has been especially challenging because of stark differences between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and in the case of Mr. Trump, a great deal of uncertainty about the policies he would pursue if elected. About 15% mentioned this politically induced uncertainty as a large risk.
Leave aside your personal politics for a moment, and consider Mr. Trump’s statements about the U.S. debt. He has said he can eliminate $19 trillion of debt in eight years while simultaneously proposing large tax cuts, not touch major entitlement programs and increase military spending. He’s also suggested he might renegotiate the debt, but also said he would merely seek to refinance it. Now, with all that in mind, if he’s elected what do you think the yield on the 10-year-Treasury will be next year?
“The chance of a recession depends increasingly on the comfort level Americans have on who sits in the White House next year,” said Bernard Baumohl, chief economist of theEconomic Outlook Group.
4. Stall speed
The final concern, mentioned by about 15%, is the risk that with the economy growing more slowly and adding fewer jobs, the U.S. is simply more vulnerable to tumbling into recession from small shocks. Economists sometimes call this “stall speed,” a term borrowed from aviation, where if a plane is traveling too slowly it can easily be knocked off course by things that would be a minor squall at higher speeds.
“The slowdown that we’ve talked about for the last year raises the risks,” said Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, a trade group.
The economy grew just 0.8% in the first quarter of the year, according to the Commerce Department. The most recent jobs report was an “unqualified dud.” If the U.S. economy is simply running out of momentum, it wouldn’t necessarily take much from China, or business investment or U.S. politics or any of a number of other factors, to be flirting dangerously with recession. (Here’s a detailed case on how this vulnerability might play out.)
A few notable things are absent from the list of economists’ worries. While people are keeping a careful eye on the United Kingdom’s vote later this month on whether to leave the European Union, few economists see the so-called “Brexit” as a major source of U.S. economic risk. Only three of the survey’s respondents mentioned it as a key risk. Right now, with the Fed likely on hold in June, few economists are worried the Federal Reserve will knock the economy into recession.
The economy could be tipped into recession by a combination of these factors, or by something else entirely. Most economists still think the U.S. will probably avoid recession entirely for now, but these remain four key risks to watch.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/09/four-risks-that-could-push-the-u-s-economy-into-recession/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Will the EPA Be Up to the Task of Enforcing TSCA Reform Rules?
Jun 9, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
Lawmakers on each side of the political aisle lauded a long-sought chemical oversight law after it cruised through Congress Tuesday evening.
But some experts warned in a Bloomberg report that implementing its new policies will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Environmental Protection Agency.
The legislation, which is expected to be signed into law by President Obama, would overhaul the four-decade-old and generally ineffective Toxic Substances Control Act. The measure would, in part, create new procedures and deadlines for the EPA to evaluate new and existing chemicals.
The bill secured the support of environmental and industry groups alike and moved through both the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Critics, however, argued that the EPA lacks the funding and staffing to begin evaluating chemicals in a timely manner.
"It is going to take a long time, even if the administration gives the program a slug of money on day one," James Aidala, a consultant and former head of the agency's chemical safety office, told Bloomberg.
The Environmental Working Group, which was critical of the TSCA rewrite, suggested that implementing new rules for 90 "high-priority" chemicals alone would take 35 years. More than 80,000 chemicals are currently used in commerce.
Critics also questioned whether Congress would be eager to bolster EPA funding, which stagnated in recent years, and noted that the next occupant of the White House will disproportionately affect how the new law is put into effect.
Others, however, were more hopeful. One expert told Bloomberg that he expects the first rules under the bill to be implemented by 2022, and that the EPA will improve its evaluations with time.
The chairman of the American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, vowed that the chemical industry would lobby for more EPA funding to carry out the law.
Proponents of the bill added that despite the criticism, the new law remains a vast improvement over the regulations currently on the books.
"Our existing law is so broken, the EPA hasn't even been able to regulate asbestos," said co-sponsor Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/06/will-epa-be-task-enforcing-tsca-reform-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Aims to Limit Harmful Products
Jun 9, 2016 | Associated Press (in Arkansas Online)
By Matthew Daly
Congress sent to President Barack Obama a bill that would for the first time regulate tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, including household cleaners, clothing and furniture.
The Senate backed the measure on a voice vote Tuesday evening after Republicans and Democrats spoke enthusiastically about the legislation. Backers of the bill said it would clear up a hodgepodge of state rules and update and improve a toxic-chemicals law that has remained unchanged for 40 years.
The Senate vote followed approval in the House last month. Obama is expected to sign the measure.
The wide-ranging bill was more than three years in the making and had support from a broad coalition, including environmental and public health groups, the chemical industry, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The bill would set new safety standards for asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, including formaldehyde, styrene and Bisphenol A, that have gone unregulated for decades. The rules will affect an $800 billion-a-year industry.
The measure would update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act to require that the Environmental Protection Agency evaluate new and existing chemicals against a new, risk-based safety standard that includes considerations for children and pregnant women. It also establishes written deadlines for the EPA to act and makes it harder for the industry to claim that chemical information is proprietary and therefore secret.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., one of the legislation's chief sponsors, said the bill's passage ensures that "for the first time in 40 years, the United States of America will have a chemical safety program that works ... and protects families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives."
The bill is named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, in honor of the New Jersey Democrat who worked for years to fix the toxic-substance law before his death in 2013.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the bill "historic" and "a great example of the Republican-led Congress working for the American people by enacting meaningful and common-sense legislation."
Some environmental groups opposed the bill, saying it did too little to protect consumers from dangerous chemicals that have been linked to illnesses, including cancer, infertility, diabetes and Parkinson's disease. Under current law, only a small fraction of chemicals used in consumer goods have been reviewed for safety.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also opposed the bill, calling it a "sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation." Paul said the bill would pre-empt state regulations in favor of "overzealous" federal regulations.
Business groups have been asking Congress to bring clarity to what they say are an assortment of state regulations, with tough rules required by liberal-leaning states such as California, Massachusetts and Vermont, and looser standards in conservative states such as Texas and Louisiana.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, said the bill would provide greater certainty to the industry while holding the EPA accountable for imposing reasonable requirements.
The legislation would "bring chemical regulation into the 21st century ... and have far-reaching benefits for America's economy and public health," the group said in a statement.
The chemical bill is "not perfect," but it "meets the high goals set by the administration for meaningful reform," the White House said in a statement, adding that the legislation is likely to restore public confidence in the safety of chemicals while improving public health and environmental protections.
The 181-page bill declares that any state law or rule in place before April 22 would not be pre-empted by federal law. The legislation also would allow states to work on some regulations while federal rules are being developed, a process that can take up to seven years.
States that do not regulate chemicals closely would follow the federal standard.
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/jun/09/bill-aims-to-limit-harmful-products-201/?f=business
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Reform Heads to President Obama for Signature
Jun 9, 2016 | EHS Today
By Sandy Smith
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, on June 8 praised the final Senate passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The legislation, which includes sweeping reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), now goes to the president’s desk to be signed into law.
“Congress has taken the final step to send the Lautenberg Act to be signed into law,” said Inhofe. “This historic piece of environmental regulatory reform is a great example of the Republican-led Congress working for the American people by enacting meaningful and commonsense legislation.”
The Lautenberg Act received bipartisan support from industry, manufacturers and several environmentalist groups. TSCA long has been perceived as one of the weakest environmental laws. Supporters claim the new law will create a better framework for regulating chemicals and that it gives the EPA more authority to test and regulate chemicals.
“Passage of this bill demonstrates that we can responsibly achieve regulatory reform, enact sensible environmental laws that protect the health and safety of all Americans, and simultaneously support job creation and economic opportunity here at home,” said Inhofe.
Reaction to Passage of Lautenberg Act Is Swift
Chemical industry associations and manufacturers praised the legislation, with Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemical Council calling it “truly historic.”
“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,” said Dooley. “The path to more modern chemical regulation has been decades in the making and it’s been over three years since work to achieve TSCA reform began in earnest. We look forward to the enactment of H.R. 2576 by President Obama in the coming days."
Environmental and consumer advocates admitted concern about provisions in the law that suspend states’ ability to take action while the EPA studies a chemical’s safety. It would grandfather existing state laws and allow states to quickly act to regulate a chemical that EPA might deem a “high priority” chemical, but if a state fails to act quickly, state action would be suspended for up to three years while EPA completes its review.
Carli Jensen, toxics campaign director U.S. PIRG (the Federation Of State Public Interest Research Groups), said in a blog that she is disappointed with the TSCA reform bill because it “preempts state action to regulate a chemical while the EPA is merely assessing its safety – a years-long process that will leave us all at risk. The bill also preempts state laws after the EPA has issued a final regulation, preventing states from enacting additional protections. When it comes to health protections, the federal government should set a floor, not a ceiling.”
In a May 24 blog post, Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney, and Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs, for the Environmental Working Group, acknowledged the legislations contains “some important improvements,” but added it “falls short of adequately protecting Americans from exposure to hazardous chemicals.”
“Is the bill better than current law?” they asked, adding: “It’s a low bar, because TSCA is widely considered the least effective environmental law on the books.”
Faber and Benesh praised the fact that TSCA now will require EPA to determine whether a chemical is likely to meet the safety standard before it enters the market, and that it will require the agency to consider the most vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and children. It gives EPA new tools to collect data on chemicals and requires it to quickly regulate (or ban if needed) chemicals that build up in the human body and persist in the environment. TSCA now will require EPA to quickly review and regulate other “high priority” chemicals, including chemicals stored near drinking water sources, and sets deadlines for companies to comply with new EPA rules.
The bill doesn’t require adequate funding from the chemical industry, Benesh and Faber noted, adding, “Even the best law will be meaningless if EPA doesn’t have the resources needed to review the hundreds of dangerous chemicals already on the market… Most consumers expect EPA has the power to quickly review the most dangerous chemicals and that the chemicals in their cleaners are at least as safe as chemicals in their food. The new bill fails to meet that expectation.”
SC Johnson, Chemical Distributors Offer Support
Speaking of cleaners and household chemicals, manufacturer SC Johnson said it applauds the passage of TSCA reform.
“This legislation is a win for families and I am thrilled to see it finally approved. This modernization of TSCA raises the standard for all companies and can help provide the public with confidence that the products they use in their homes are safe for their intended uses,” said Fisk Johnson, chairman and CEO of SC Johnson. “The strong bipartisan support of this legislation also sends a very positive message. I especially want to thank the Senators and House members who led this effort, and the Wisconsin members of Congress who supported the legislation.”
SC Johnson has supported TSCA reform for many years, including testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2011 by Kelly Semrau, senior vice president for global corporate affairs, communication and sustainability.
National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) President Eric R. Byer urged President Obama to sign the bill without delay, adding, “Forty years of operating under an outdated law and more than 10 years of attempts at reform have demonstrated that TSCA was in desperate need of improvement.”
Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which serves as a global leader in ending asbestos exposure through awareness, prevention and policy, commented, “For too long, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 has failed to protect American families from harmful and deadly toxins, including asbestos. As a result of TSCA’s failure, asbestos remains legal and lethal in the United States, and as many as 15,000 Americans die every year from asbestos-caused diseases. It is clear that TSCA reform is long overdue.”
Under the new legislation, EPA has the clear authority to ban asbestos, a known human carcinogen. “Asbestos has been the poster child for TSCA reform and will be the litmus test for the efficacy of this bill. The EPA must limit delay by including asbestos in the list of the first chemicals it evaluates and quickly exercising its authority under this legislation to ban asbestos,” Reinstein added.
Referring to the years that TSCA reforms languished in Congress, Vice President of Government and Public Relations William E. Allmond of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates called the vote on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act “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.”
http://ehstoday.com/environment/tsca-reform-heads-president-obama-signature
-
Congress Sends Chemical Safety Reform Legislation to Be Signed into Law
Jun 8, 2016 | National Law Review
By John McGahren and Drew Cleary Jordan
The historic reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act overhauls the United States’ primary chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years.
Following months of closed-door negotiations, the US House of Representatives and Senate have approved the first major overhaul of the country’s primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), marking one of the final steps in a multiyear reform effort. After initial reports that congressional Republicans and Democrats had reached a deal to revise the outdated TSCA, the final text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576, the Lautenberg Act) was released in late May (as amended by a manager’s amendment sponsored by Representative John Shimkus [R-IL]). Shortly thereafter, on May 24, the House took action by overwhelmingly passing the legislation by a vote of 403 to 12. Although initially delayed because of a hold placed on the legislation by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY.), the Senate passed the legislation by unanimous consent on June 7, sending the bill to President Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law. This legislation constitutes a bicameral, bipartisan compromise that reconciles both of the House and Senate’s reform bills passed last year by merging the policy priorities of each.
Background
The TSCA was enacted to regulate certain chemical substances present in commercial goods in the United States to protect human health and the environment by requiring testing and necessary use restrictions. In the 40 years since TSCA’s enactment, it is largely viewed as one of the least effective federal environmental laws, resulting in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) taking minimal action under the law. At the time of TSCA’s enactment, nearly 65,000 chemicals on the market were grandfathered in and did not require EPA to review them for safety. Since TSCA’s inception, EPA has also been restricted to promulgating regulations that are the least burdensome option for the industry with the agency’s authority to promulgate regulation also limited to instances where another EPA statue or regulation could not adequately address any perceived risks. Until now, the law’s core provisions have not been significantly changed since the legislation’s initial passage.
Although TSCA reform has been a focus of congressional leaders for much of the last year, with both sides of the aisle largely in agreement that an overhaul of the country’s chemical safety law was needed, the breadth and reach of proposed reforms, however, led to delays in passage of a comprehensive reform bill. Nonetheless, a number of drivers of this reform legislation, including an increased understanding of the interplay between health and chemicals, market demand, effective policy reforms in other countries, state regulatory regimes, and EPA prioritizing TSCA reform have all resulted in a frenzied run up to the first significant reform of TSCA since the law’s enactment. The deal, first announced in May, was reached by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Ranking Member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and effectively cleared a path forward. House Republicans, after securing several key changes to policy positions, moved the chamber to support the deal. Ultimately, the bill passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Senate shortly thereafter followed suit and passed H.R. 2576 unanimously. President Obama, who issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the reform legislation on May 23, is expected to sign H.R. 2576 into law in the near future. The final legislation, although a compromise, is predominantly being touted as a vast improvement of the current law.
Key Provisions of TSCA Reform Compromise Bill
The newly reconciled Lautenberg Act implements a number of changes to the United States’ primary chemical regulatory scheme and will likely have far-reaching effects throughout the marketplace. The most considerable changes between TSCA’s current form and the new law include the following.
Testing and Safety Standards
Under TSCA’s prior form, EPA was mandated to manage existing chemicals using the “least burdensome” regulatory option in most instances. The reformed law significantly revises the criteria evaluated by EPA when reviewing chemical substances and adopts a new safety standard of an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” EPA must now make all decisions based on the best scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, or models available when conducting test, reviews, or risk evaluations. EPA must also consider whether a chemical’s conditions of use would conform to the bill’s safety standard while also explicitly requiring that that EPA consider potentially exposed or susceptible populations when evaluating the chemical’s risk. Such populations include infants, children, pregnant women, workers, and the elderly. Under the reform bill, EPA is also prohibited from considering costs or other non–risk factors when evaluating a chemical’s risk; however, such non–risk factors may be considered when determining how a chemical that does not meet the health-based safety criterion is regulated (i.e., risk management determinations).
Evaluation and Regulation of Existing Chemicals
Rather than operate from the presumption that every chemical is safe, EPA will now be required to implement a screening process for existing chemicals to evaluate any associated risks. EPA will also now be required to affirmatively undertake risk assessments to determine which chemicals require further evaluation for risk and designate chemicals as either low or high priority. High-priority chemicals or substances include those that EPA concluded may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment (via application of the new testing and safety standards outlined above). EPA will subsequently be required to undertake a risk assessment of any high-priority chemical as well as publish the scope of the risk assessment that it will undertake.
Under TSCA’s new form, EPA must initiate risk evaluations of at least 20 high-priority chemicals and designate at least 20 chemicals as low priority within three and a half years after the bill’s enactment. Additionally, manufacturers and processors could request EPA to prioritize specific chemicals for evaluation pursuant to the payment of certain fees, limited to 25–50% of the risk assessments of high-priority chemicals to those identified by manufacturers. If EPA determines that a chemical or substance does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA must then issue an order to that effect. Similarly, for any chemicals that EPA determines present an unreasonable risk, it must propose regulations to reduce any perceived risks within one year of publishing its final risk evaluation and finalize said regulation within two years. This is marked change from TSCA’s prior requirements, which did not include similar deadlines for regulating chemicals.
Evaluation and Regulation of New Chemicals
The reform law modifies EPA’s process of evaluating and dealing with new chemicals and the approval process of a chemical for a significant new use. Under the new law, new chemical substances will not be able to enter commerce until EPA makes an affirmative determination concerning the level of risk posed by the new chemical under the new standards outlined above and without regard of cost. A chemical may not be commercially produced until EPA makes a determination of its risk and the manufacturer or processor subsequently complies with EPA’s restrictions (if any). Under the new review procedure, EPA must make one of three determinations concerning the new chemical’s risk (without considering other non–risk factors or cost). These three determinations include determinations that the new chemicals or proposed new uses (i) will present an unreasonable risk (which would require immediate EPA regulatory action to address); (ii) may present an unreasonable risk, are produced in sufficient quantities, or involve a lack of information to make an appropriate determination (which would require EPA action under subsection (e) while also allowing the manufacturer or processor the opportunity to submit additional information); or (iii) are “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” (under such circumstances, manufacturing may begin).
EPA’s Expanded Authority
In addition to EPA’s current rulemaking authority and consent agreement process, the agency gains the authority to issue administrative orders directing that testing be undertaken to review manufacturer notices or significant new use notices. This new authority to simply order testing rather than having to undertake and partake in the longer and more cumbersome rulemaking or consent agreement process will likely expedite the assessment process while also greatly increasing EPA’s authority under the Lautenberg Act. The TSCA reform law also expands EPA’s authority to charge fees and at higher rates.
Preemption of State Laws
TSCA previously provided for preemption of state laws once EPA adopted a final rule or regulated the same chemical. Provided EPA’s limited activity in this regard, however, states had generally been responsible for regulating and implementing their own chemical safety regimes. Although this does not change under the reformed Lautenberg Act, § 13 includes a number of key differences from TSCA’s prior form, including a prohibition on states from implementing restrictions on the use of chemicals that EPA has determined to not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment or existing chemicals that EPA has issued a Significant New Use Rule for. Thus, if EPA determines that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk and does not require regulatory action, such a decision would preempt state laws that would contradict that conclusion (subject to some exclusions). Additionally, states will be prohibited from regulating chemicals that EPA has designated as “high priority” while EPA is conducting its risk evaluation (i.e., a “high-priority pause”). The reform law also includes a grandfathering provision for existing state laws and regulations enacted before April 22, 2016, and actions taken by states pursuant to laws that were in effect on or before August 31, 2003. The new law also dictates that nothing in the Lautenberg Act will preempt any state or federal common law rights or state or federal statute that creates a remedy for civil relief.
Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Under TSCA’s prior form, once information was claimed as CBI, the designation remained in place indefinitely and the information remained protected until EPA affirmatively found that it did not meet legal requirements for protection. Under the new law, however, EPA must develop a retroactive review plan for evaluating whether chemicals on the current CBI § 14 database list actually require CBI protection or whether they can be designated as nonconfidential. CBI protections will also be limited to 10 years, after which time a party claiming the CBI designation will be required to resubstantiate its claims of confidentiality. The bill also establishes new standards for claiming confidentiality, mandating that any party seeking confidential treatment must substantiate that (i) it has taken reasonable measures to keep the information confidential, (ii) the information is not required to be disclosed under any other federal law, (iii) disclosure would likely cause substantial harm to the manufacturer’s competitive position, and (iv) the information is not readily available via reverse engineering. EPA will also be authorized to disclose CBI if the information is determined to be needed for the protection of health and the environment, is needed by a state or local government for law enforcement, or must be disclosed under any other federal law.
Path Ahead
With the first significant overhaul of TSCA a reality, it is incumbent on businesses to begin to take certain steps to understand and deal with the reauthorization and changes associated with an entirely revamped and revitalized TSCA regulatory scheme. To be better positioned for TSCA reform, manufacturers and processors can take a number of preliminary steps, including making efforts to better understand and review supply chains, engage suppliers regarding TSCA inventory lists, protect and justify any confidentiality claims, review existing confidentiality claims of information in EPA’s authority, and understand the new requirements associated with new chemicals and new use notifications, including new fees and testing requirements.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/congress-sends-chemical-safety-reform-legislation-to-be-signed-law
-
TSCA Reform Bill Broadens EPA’s Authority
Jun 8, 2016 | Lexology
By Hunton & Williams LLP
On June 7, 2016, Congress passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Lautenberg Act”) and sent the bill to President Obama for signature. If the bill is signed by the president, as expected, businesses that manufacture, process, distribute, use or dispose of certain chemical substances will be subject to a host of new registration and chemical safety requirements.
The new law significantly overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) for the first time in that act’s nearly 40-year history by bolstering the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) authority to regulate chemical substances and setting the stage for more aggressive enforcement and oversight of chemical safety. The Lautenberg Act represents the most significant change in statutory environmental law since the turn of the century and, as a result, EPA will promulgate a host of new chemical restrictions on a statutorily mandated schedule. The law will also expand EPA’s role in reviewing, testing and approving new chemical substances and new uses for existing substances.
Since its passage in 1976, TSCA has been criticized by industry for failing to provide uniform national regulation of chemical substances. Conversely, environmental groups have expressed disappointment that the original law failed to provide EPA with broader authority over chemical substance manufacturing, importation, processing, distribution and use. Industry’s push for a TSCA overhaul has recently been given further urgency due to increasing state legislation seeking to fill the void created by the lack of uniform national chemical substance regulation under the existing TSCA provisions. That trend threatened to create a patchwork of competing standards and requirements that would significantly burden industry in the United States.
The campaign to modernize TSCA began in earnest last year, when the House and Senate each passed competing reform bills. Extensive negotiations were undertaken to reconcile the considerable differences between the more sweeping changes in the Senate bill and the narrower House bill. Environmental stakeholders pushed to strengthen EPA’s oversight and authority under TSCA, while industry stakeholders sought to ensure nationally uniform standards for chemical regulation.
The final bill approved by Congress retains many of the Senate’s reforms and imposes several substantial changes to the architecture of TSCA. These changes will broaden EPA’s authority to review, test, approve and restrict chemical substances and will require EPA to take action on certain high-priority substances within a short time frame. Significant new provisions include:
EPA will be required to make an affirmative determination for all new chemical substances or significant new uses of existing substances. To do so, EPA will consider whether the substance is, or is not, likely to meet the safety standard or whether more information is necessary. Manufacturing may commence only once EPA finds that the chemical substance is likely to meet the safety standard. Under the previous version of TSCA, a manufacturer was only required to give notice of the new substance or significant new use but could proceed if EPA failed to act within the window provided.
The new law no longer requires EPA to select the “least burdensome requirements” possible when imposing restrictions on chemical substances. This requirement had been one of the most significant barriers to more aggressive EPA regulation under TSCA since the Fifth Circuit struck down the agency’s ban on asbestos in the landmark case Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA in 1991. EPA will be authorized to impose whatever requirements are necessary to eliminate a substance’s risk to health or the environment, including banning the substance.
The law will limit consideration of economic cost and burden on industry by bifurcating the process for restricting chemical substances into two distinct steps: a “risk evaluation” phase and a “standard-setting” phase.
Risk Evaluation Phase. If EPA finds that a substance presents an “unreasonable risk of injury,” it is required to set any necessary standards restricting that substance. At this stage EPA is prohibited from considering “costs or other nonrisk factors” and must account for special risks to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
Standard-Setting Phase. EPA will take cost into consideration in setting appropriate standards for the chemical but must still impose sufficient restrictions to eliminate any “unreasonable risk.”
EPA is mandated to designate chemicals as either high or low priority and conduct risk evaluations for all high-priority substances. In designating the priority of chemical substances, EPA will consider the hazard and exposure potential with a special emphasis on substances listed in EPA’s 2014 TSCA Work Plan. Within 180 days, EPA must begin risk evaluations on at least 10 chemical substances. Within three and a half years, EPA must begin risk evaluations for at least 20 high-priority substances and must designate at least 20 substances as low priority.
Certain chemicals that EPA has identified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic must undergo an expedited review process. Within three years EPA must propose rules prohibiting or otherwise restricting certain of these substances, in order to “reduce exposure to the substance to the extent practicable.”
EPA’s ability to require health and safety testing of chemicals is expanded, allowing the agency to issue orders for testing where the information is necessary to prioritize chemicals or conduct chemical reviews. Unlike with current law, EPA will no longer have to make a showing of potential risk to initiate or require testing.
Claims to protect confidential business information for chemical substances will require businesses to provide greater substantiation and will expire after 10 years unless renewed.
The issue of preemption of state chemical regulations was one of the major sticking points in negotiations between the House and Senate. The compromise made in Congress will preempt any state laws that: (1) restrict chemicals for which EPA has performed a risk evaluation and adopted restrictions; (2) require notification of significant new uses specified by EPA; (3) require testing already required by EPA; or (4) otherwise conflict with EPA actions pursuant to the statute. States also may not restrict substances that EPA has determined, pursuant to a risk evaluation, do not present an unreasonable risk.
In addition, states will be prevented from imposing new restrictions on high-priority chemicals during EPA risk evaluations. However, when the risk evaluation is completed, states may “fill the gap” by imposing restrictions on chemicals that are deemed by EPA to present an unreasonable risk while EPA considers federal restrictions for the substance. Once EPA finalizes its own restrictions for a chemical substance, any state law will once again be preempted.
The preemption provisions are largely forward-looking and do not apply to state regulations enacted before April 22, 2016, nor will the preemption provisions restrict future actions taken under state laws passed before August 31, 2003, such as California’s Proposition 65.
The Lautenberg Act does not restrict states from requiring additional reporting and monitoring related to any regulated chemical substances.
When signed by President Obama, as is expected, the Lautenberg Act will provide the framework for greater national consistency in the regulation of chemical substances by providing EPA with broad new power to regulate chemical safety. But along with that greater consistency, the new law authorizes EPA to take far-reaching action to collect information about chemical substances and to restrict, and even ban, the use of existing chemicals and the introduction of new chemical substances in the United States. Industry will need to monitor EPA’s implementation of the new law closely in the coming years.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b037492a-915d-407f-ad27-849acd8a85e4
-
With Rand Paul's Reluctant Consent, Congress Grants EPA More Power
Jun 8, 2016 | Town Hall
By Joe Pappalardo
“The EPA can now jail you for putting dirt on your own land,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a speech before the Senate Tuesday.
Paul was discussing the EPA’s powers granted in the Clean Waters Act, cautioning the Senate against potential changes in the Toxic Substances Control Act. If legislation is passed, the EPA will be allowed to personally decide how strictly it regulates the chemical industry.
Yesterday Paul retracted his objection to an amendment to the TSCA, allowing it to pass through the Senate. The House introduced the TSCA Modernization Act in May 2015, and passed it 403-12 on May 24, 2016. The Senate intended to approve it under unanimous consent on May 26, 2016, but Paul, as the sole objector to the bipartisan bill, stalled its progress. He suggested the lawmakers read the 180-page act before passing it on to the President for signing.
The amendment will shift chemical regulations from the state to the federal level:
TSCA's scope is revised by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemicals so that they no longer present unreasonable risks of injury to health or environment instead of requiring the EPA to provide adequate protection against those risks using the least burdensome requirements.
Paul criticized this shift, saying the act “abandoned principle” by moving the government’s focus from reducing regulations to “making regulations regular.” He cautioned the Senate that the amendment could negatively affect the economy, because it states that the economic impact of regulations cannot be considered before the EPA puts regulations into effect.
“I always thought that we should balance the environment and the economy,” he said.
The Plastics Industry applauded the act’s progress in a public statement, calling it the “first bipartisan TSCA update in 40 years.” William Carteaux, president and CEO of SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, also praised the bill, saying:
This consensus-based bill is the product of thoughtful discussions by House and Senate negotiators. It gives consumers the confidence in the products they depend upon each day, while giving companies a more predictable regulatory system that’s based on science rather than rhetoric. The plastics industry also applauds lawmakers for ensuring that the new bill provides for the preservation of confidential business information, ensuring that the growth this bill is certain to unlock won’t be jeopardized.
Paul noted that many other businesses regret demanding for federal regulations to override restrictive state regulations. Hospitals, banks, and food distributors, he said, advocated for regulations at first but now face difficult standards.
“Does anyone remember ever seeing a limited, reasonable federal standard that stayed limited and reasonable?” Paul said.
Following Paul’s withdrawal of his objection, the Senate has passed the bill. The TSCA Modernization Act is now eligible to be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/joepappalardo/2016/06/08/with-rand-pauls-consent-congress-passes-tsca-amendment-to-grant-epa-more-power-n2175548
-
Manchin, Capito Back Chemical Bill Rewrite
Jun 9, 2016 | Charleston Gazette--Mail
By Ken Ward Jr.
West Virginia’s two U.S. senators are joining in the bipartisan praise for a major rewrite of the nation’s chemical safety law that some critics are saying still doesn’t go nearly far enough to fix a decades-old system that all sides agree is broken.
The Senate approved the long-awaited bill — the first significant changes in the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, in 40 years — on a voice vote Tuesday, sending it to President Obama for his expected signature.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., issued a statement calling the bill “much-needed legislation to modernize our severely outdated chemical regulatory system.”
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said the legislation “will protect our families and provide regulatory certainty to our businesses and manufacturers.”
The House of Representatives had approved the measure earlier on a 403-12 vote, with all three of West Virginia’s Republican representatives voting in favor of it.
The White House has said that the administration strongly supports the bill as “a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law.”
Supporters tout the bill as finally giving regulators the authority to ban dangerous chemicals and setting up a firm schedule for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review the safety of chemicals used in commerce. Opponents generally conceded that the bill is an improvement over current law, but say it doesn’t require the EPA to move quickly enough to review a large enough number of potentially harmful substances and contains other potential loopholes.
“It is not perfect,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who is the ranking minority-party member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, during Tuesday night’s floor discussion of the bill.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supported the bill, said the measure gives no one everything they wanted, but still represents a major strengthening of the law to protect public health from toxic chemicals.
Denison has noted, for example, that the bill establishes for the first time a mandate that the EPA review risks posed by chemicals already used in commerce, in contrast to the original law’s grandfathering-in of chemicals then in use without any risk review. The law now also will replace the TSCA’s cost-benefit balancing standard with one that ensures only human health and environmental impact are considered in assessing risk. Costs and other non-risk considerations can be examined in deciding how to regulate, not whether to regulate, under the new law, Denison said.
“At long last, [the] EPA will have stronger tools to protect Americans from toxic chemicals that impact the health of millions of Americans,” Denison wrote last month, when a deal was struck that paved the way for final passage of the bill.
In its own statement, the American Chemical Society, an industry group, praised the final bill, saying it “represents years of careful negotiation” among many parties.
The long-stalled drive to reform the TSCA gained some momentum after the January 2014 Elk River chemical spill, which contaminated drinking water for hundreds of thousands of residents in Charleston and surrounding Kanawha Valley communities. Advocates for improvements in chemical regulations seized on the lack of easily available data on human health effects of the chemicals involved and noted that some information about the materials that spilled had been designated as confidential as a trade secret.
Manchin and Capito mentioned the spill at Freedom Industries in their statements about the legislation.
Manchin said, “After the 2014 Elk River chemical spill, I vowed to do everything in my power to ensure a similar accident would never occur again.”
Capito said, “Incidents like the Freedom Industries spill in Charleston demonstrate the need to ensure that the chemicals we use in our everyday lives are properly regulated.”
The final legislation does include — in one nod to the Elk River spill — a requirement that the EPA, when choosing which chemicals to closely scrutinize, give preference to chemicals stored near significant sources of public drinking water. The Freedom spill occurred just 1.5 miles upstream from West Virginia American Water’s regional drinking water intake in Charleston.
But Andy Igrejas, director of the group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said the final measure is not “aggressive or comprehensive enough” to be able to say it would prevent another incident like the water crisis that followed the Freedom Industries spill.
“The minimum number of chemicals [the] EPA is required to review is so small and the pace is so slow that I wouldn’t predict the new program will intercept chemicals that pose and Elk River-type scenario in a timely fashion,” Igrejas said Wednesday.
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-politics/20160608/manchin-capito-back-chemical-bill-rewrite#sthash.ZGX9iwg1.dpuf
-
New Toxic Chemical Legislation Fails on Federalism
Jun 9, 2016 | Reblog
By Sarah E. Light
Earlier this week, the Senate approved the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The House approved this bill several weeks ago, so it now heads to the President for his expected signature. Although this legislation would make significant progress toward correcting some of the 1976 law’s greatest flaws, one significant failing remains. By preempting state toxics legislation while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is merely conducting a safety assessment, rather than waiting to preempt state legislation upon issuance of a final EPA rule, the new law violates an important principle ofprecautionary federalism.
Scholars and policymakers have long criticized TSCA for its failure to honor a general precautionary principle that tells government that it is better to be safe than sorry when there are potentially significant risks of harm to health, safety, or the environment. Under the precautionary principle, regulators need not wait until there is certainty about these risks to establish regulation. Toxic chemicals—whether in in car seats, clothes, or industrial processes— present precisely the kind of potentially significant risks to health, safety, or the environment for which a precautionary approach makes sense. The precautionary principle shifts regulators’ burden of proving risk and places the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to warrant less stringent regulation.
Under TSCA, which the new legislation amends, EPA hasborne the burden of demonstrating that a chemical is unsafebefore EPA can limit its manufacture, distribution, or use. As a result, EPA has only issued regulations for nine chemicals out of the tens of thousands in today’s marketplace.
Although the precautionary principle usually focuses on whether government should regulate, the principle of precautionary federalism focuses on a different question:who gets to decide whether and how to regulate toxic chemicals—the federal government, the states, or both?
The principle of precautionary federalism has three primary features. First, it embodies a default presumption against federal preemption of state or local law, and in favor of dynamic, overlapping federal and state jurisdiction under conditions of uncertainty about the magnitude of risks to health, safety, or the environment. Second, precautionary federalism requires taking into account tradeoffs across different kinds of risks, and thus recognizes that the default presumption against preemption can be overcome by a showing of the benefits of more uniform legal rules. Third, precautionary federalismrecognizes that the initial allocation of overlapping authority may be time-limited, and that a different allocation of regulatory authority between the federal government and the states may become appropriate when uncertainty about the magnitude of risk diminishes.
The principle of precautionary federalism requires that state efforts to regulate toxic chemicals more stringently than the federal government should not be automatically preempted by federal law. At the very least, state efforts to regulate toxic chemicals should not be preempted by federal law when EPA is merely conducting an assessment as to the risks of certain chemicals—that is the point at which uncertainty is at its height. If more information becomes known about the risks of certain chemicals, then an allocation of authority tot he federal government may become appropriate in order to ensure a uniform regulatory approach. Unfortunately, the new amendments to TSCA get the allocation of authority precisely backwards.
TSCA originally preempted certain kinds of state regulation of toxic chemicals, but it contained no limits on state action until EPA had promulgated a final rule once safety testing was completed. Because EPA undertook so few actions to regulate toxic chemicals under the original law’s burdensome requirements, many states stepped in to fill the gaps. In 1986, California adopted Proposition 65, and since then, more than a dozen other states likewise have adopted chemical safety laws.
The new legislation passed this week takes a step in an anti-precautionary direction—at least with respect to the allocation of authority between the federal government and the states. The amendments preserve existing state rules but would generally preempt states from adopting new regulations on the manufacture, processing, distribution, or use of a chemical as of the date that the EPA Administrator “defines the scope of a risk evaluation for a chemical substance”—even before EPA issues a final rule. During this period, when EPA is evaluating the risks of particular chemical, uncertainty is unquestionably at its height. When uncertainty is at its height, the need for precaution is at its height as well. Permitting states to regulate chemicals at that time can effectuate the underlying goals of the precautionary principle, by allowing them to guard against uncertain risks. Although there are some limits on these preemption provisions, including “pauses” that permit states to regulate during a limited time window, and states may continue to require information disclosure about potential risks, it is not clear that these limitations are sufficient to effectuate the goals of a precautionary approach.
Policy experimentation is most needed under conditions of uncertainty. Allowing states to regulate even when EPA is still investigating a chemical’s toxic effects can also limit the risk of interest group capture at any one level of government. Although states may apply for waivers of the preemption provisions under the new law, there is no guarantee that such waivers would be granted.
To be sure, industry tends to prefer uniform rules to promote innovation and to avoid facing potentially conflicting rules. The principle of precautionary federalism recognizes that uniformity may be desirable once better information becomes available. Thus, the initial allocation of authority can and should be revisited when there is greater certainty about risks, and a shift from dynamic, overlapping jurisdictions to a more uniform allocation of authority at the federal level may become appropriate. But the new legislation introduces preemption far too early in the process. A better approach would have been to permit state experimentation and regulation as a matter of course during the risk evaluation period, when uncertainty is at its height. Only once the uncertainty about a chemical’s health effects is reduced should preemption come into play.
http://www.regblog.org/2016/06/09/light-new-chemical-legislation-fails/
-
Cancer Cluster Bill Pushed by Idaho Survivor Likely to Become Law
Jun 9, 2016 | Magic Valley
By Nathan Brown
A bill named after an Idaho childhood cancer survivor that will allow for tracking of clusters of cancer has passed Congress after seven years of work and delay and now heads to the president’s desk.
In May, Trevor’s Law was wrapped into the Toxic Substances Control Act, a larger overhaul of the original 1976 law of the same name. It passed the House of Representatives 403-12 on May 24 and passed the Senate by voice vote Tuesday night. President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law.
Trevor’s Law is named after Trevor Schaefer. Now 26 and a Boise resident, he was diagnosed with brain cancer when he was 13. He believes the cancer was caused by pollution in the drinking water in his hometown of McCall, where several other young adults and children had brain cancer at the same time. In its current form, the law would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to compile data from the states to track cancer clusters — groupings of a higher than expected number of people with the same cancer in the same area. Schaefer’s experience led him to start pushing for the law.
U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who is a prostate cancer survivor himself, introduced the bill in 2011 along with California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. It passed committee that year but didn’t make it to the floor. The pair reintroduced the bill in 2013, when Schaefer joined well-known cancer activist Erin Brockovich and others to testify in favor. This year, Crapo worked with Boxer and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, to get Trevor’s Law in the compromise toxins bill. Boxer and Crapo are also on the committee.
“The passage of Trevor’s Law is a significant milestone in how cancer clusters will be identified, monitored and treated in the United States,” Crapo said in a news release and YouTube video announcing the Senate vote. “Every American, directly or indirectly, has been affected in some form by cancer and this legislation is another tool to continue fighting against this disease. Further, the passage of Trevor’s Law is a testament to the determination and commitment of many people — including Trevor Schaefer and his mother, Charlie Smith, — in never giving up to turn their plans into a law that will benefit everyone across America.”Advertisement (1 of 1): 0:14
“My heart is full tonight knowing that this necessary legislation, Trevor’s Law, will help so many children and adults who are part of a cancer cluster but have been unable to get the recognition from local, state and federal government that they deserve,” Smith said. “I am so proud of my son, Trevor for his brave fight to beat back brain cancer and his unwavering belief that good things can happen in politics. I am also eternally grateful to Sens. Boxer and Crapo and their staffs, for their tenacious work to make this law a reality.”
Crapo spokesman Lindsay Nothern said the bill’s passage is significant, both because cancer clusters will now be tracked at the federal level, hopefully leading to a better understanding of their causes and improvements in treatment, and because the larger toxic substances reform is going to become law, which he called “a fairly dramatic example of bipartisanship going on in a year when there’s not a lot of that happening.”
Nothern said the bill will be especially helpful in tracking concentrations of cancer in children, who haven’t been exposed to as many carcinogens throughout their lives as an adult may have been.
“We haven’t really done a good job of compiling where the concentrations of cancer are, and especially with children,” he said.
http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/cancer-cluster-bill-pushed-by-idaho-survivor-likely-to-become/article_8e056a16-135c-5027-bbf1-a7ff70d5a8ce.html
-
Big News for Little Friends: Congress Seeks to Limit Animal Testing
Jun 9, 2016 | RT
An updated Toxic Substances Control Act that could change the way chemicals are tested on animals has passed both the Senate and the House and is expected to be signed into law. Animal welfare advocates welcomed the news affecting millions of lab animals.
An overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 may signal the end of testing chemicals and cosmetics on live animals. While the legislation is by no means expansive, animal welfare groups believe that the precedent set could mark a shift away from using mice, rats, birds and fish as experiment subjects.
“This is the first signal from Congress that it is a priority to move away from animal testing,” Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, told The Washington Post. “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.”
Issues with animal testing are not only expressed in ethical terms. There are financial obstacles as well in preventing the killing and harming of animals.
“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, adding, “Because information obtained on chemicals will be human-relevant, products Americans use will be safer.”
David Andrews, senior scientist for the Environment Working Group, clarified that the legislation “doesn’t call for an outright ban,” according to Wired. The technology required to completely ban animal testing is not readily available – but it is in the works.
In fact, there is a growing industry that seeks to replace using live animals in different fields. Wired reported that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is already working on a human-on-a-chip that could mimic or grow an entire body in miniature. Not to be confused with growing tiny people, the team is working on creating a system that connects the brain, the peripheral nervous system, the blood-brain barrier and the heart.
An alternative to animal testing may even be available to veterinary school students, who soon may practice operating on a synthetic cadaver dog. The synthetic dog was created by SynDaver Labs and has lifelike tissue and functioning bodily systems that can simulate diseases, illnesses and even simulate the all too common medical issue facing dogs: eating a sock.
While a fake dead dog may sound like an actual nightmare, it could mark the end of terminal surgery labs in vet schools. Terminal surgeries are performed on dogs that are often chosen from the kill list at animal shelters and are euthanized when the procedure is over, activist network Care2 reported.
While this is one small step towards banning the use of animal testing, more extreme measures are less likely to pass.
Representative Martha McSally (R-Arizona) has introduced HR 2858, a bill that would prohibit testing cosmetics on animals. While it may be a more difficult sell, the European Union, India and Israel have banned cosmetics testing on animals. In addition, many companies in the US have voluntarily stopped using these tests.
https://www.rt.com/usa/345922-congress-animal-testing-precedent/
-
Chemical Safety Bill Aims to Prevent Spills Into Waterways
Jun 8, 2016 | WV Public Broadcasting
By Dave Mistich
U.S. Senators Joe Manchin and Shelly Moore Capito are applauding the passage of a bill that’s been called the first major environmental reform in two decades. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which aims to prevent another incident like the January 2014 Elk River Chemical Spill, passed the U.S. Senate Tuesday on a voice vote.
The Lautenberg Act aims ensure the safety of the chemicals Americans use every day by updating the United States’ regulatory program. One provision of the bill would prioritize the review and regulation of chemicals stored near water sources. The bill would reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which provided the EPA authority to review and regulate chemicals in commerce.
According to a news release, the TSCA is the only environmental law that has not been updated by Congress since its enactment.
Senators Manchin and Capito say the passage of the Lautenberg Act was a result of broad bipartisan support. Both senators from West Virginia, who were cosponsors of the bill, noted the January 2014 spill by Freedom Industries into the Elk River.
“Updating chemical safety laws is necessary to protect families and communities, and making sure we can properly manage toxic chemicals and prepare for the unlikely event of a chemical accident. After the 2014 Elk River chemical spill, I vowed to do everything in my power to ensure a similar accident would never occur again," said Senator Manchin in a Tuesday news release.
Senator Capito echoed Manchin's comments in a separate release.
“Incidents like the Freedom Industries spill in Charleston demonstrate the need to ensure that the chemicals we use in our everyday lives are properly regulated,” said Senator Capito.
“The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act will protect our families and provide regulatory certainty to our businesses and manufacturers," she added.
The Lautenberg Act now heads to President Obama’s desk, where he’s expected to sign it.
http://wvpublic.org/post/chemical-safety-bill-aims-prevent-spills-waterways
-
Wood Products Makers Urge EPA To Revise, Issue Formaldehyde Air Rule
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Wood products manufacturers are urging EPA to revise and then quickly finalize a pending Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that would set formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood, reiterating calls for the rule to mirror a California standard that exempts certain products and does not require testing of others.
"The American and Canadian industry has been complying with the [California] rule" for years, says an industry source. The lack of an EPA rule means imported wood products sold in other states do not have to meet California's rule, creating an uneven market given that most domestic producers already adhere to the California rule. "It's really not right that imports come in that aren't in compliance" with that standard, the source says.
The source says that although U.S. producers want swift issuance of the rule, which EPA projects it will publish in the Federal Register in July, they still want changes made before the agency finalizes it.
In recent meetings with officials from EPA and the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), industry officials outlined their concerns with the broad scope of the agency's June 2013 proposed version of the rule. The industry source says that U.S. wood products producers want EPA's final rule -- which has been under OMB reviewsince March 28 -- to echo a narrower air rule issued by California's Air Resources Board (CARB).
In 2010, Congress amended TSCA to require that EPA issue regulations controlling formaldehyde emissions "equivalent to compliance" with CARB's 2008 rule for pressed wood products produced or sold in that state.
Formaldehyde is widely used in the manufacturing of building materials and household products, and exposure can irritate the skin, eyes, nose and throat. High levels of exposure can cause certain cancers.
Some domestic producers of wood products and advocates for reducing harmful chemical exposures in housing have backed Congress' call for an EPA rule, arguing it would reduce health risks from formaldehyde and set a level playing field by requiring foreign producers to comply with the CARB rule, which domestic producers have widely adopted.
But how EPA will regulate laminated products in the forthcoming rule has been a driving question with industry groups, environmentalists and California state regulators all saying that a June 2013 EPA proposed rule would impose unwieldy testing requirements on fabricators of laminated wood products.
The "Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products" that EPA released for public comment in 2013 subjects laminated products, rather than simply their component parts, to emissions requirements and testing, which industry groups argue Congress never intended.
In May, the industry groups Composite Panel Association, Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) and the National Association of Home Builders met separately with EPA and OMB officials reviewing the final rule.
The industry source, who attended one of the recent OMB meetings says, the primary push was for EPA to quickly issue the rule so the standards do not languish into the next administration. The source says the 2010 statute called for EPA to complete the rule by Jan. 1, 2013, though it remains unfinished.
Industry's call to speed issuance of a final rule comes after House and Senate lawmakers, early last year, urged EPA to quickly finalize a rule setting "clear, enforceable standards" for formaldehyde in composite wood products, and pressed the agency for reasons for the delay. The letter followed media reports showing high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring imported from China.
CARB Standard
In addition to pushing for swift issuance of a rule, industry talking points prepared for a May 23 meeting with OMB show that KCMA is continuing its push for EPA to issue a final rule that strictly adheres to the CARB standard, which would exempt certain laminated products that would otherwise be covered under EPA's 2013 proposal.
The final rule "must adhere to the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products," KCMA said, calling for narrower requirements, as well as enforcement procedures to ensure EPA's oversight is consistent with the California standard.
KCMA said the rule should exempt wood veneers that are laminated to a compliant panel using low-formaldehyde resins, as well as products laminated with materials other than veneer, such as paper, foil or decorative laminates. Also, the group argued that EPA should not require testing by fabricators who use certified composite products.
The group also said the final rule should include enforcement procedures to verify and hold accountable third-party certifiers to ensure that cabinet makers can rely on composite wood products manufactured by EPA-certified labs. KCMA says the rule should exclude products containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products.
In addition, the group argued that a final rule that covers facilities that laminate would impose unwieldy costs, noting an April 15 Executive Order 13725 on increasing competition and better informing consumers and workers to support economic growth. "KCMA firmly believes that the economic and operational burdens presented by a final rule that could cause redundant testing would impose a cost without a corresponding benefit and speaks to the intent of the recently signed Executive Order," according to the talking points.
In April 2014, EPA held a public meeting in Washington, D.C., to take comment on how or whether to include laminated products in its forthcoming rule, and also reopened its public comment period that year to accept further input on issues, including how to square its 2013 proposal with the CARB rule.
CARB's existing rule effectively regulates the amount of formaldehyde that manufacturers can use in their products by setting emissions limits for composite wood products in some cases as low as 0.05 ppm, and also requires third-party certification to ensure compliance.
CARB has also considered amending the California regulation to define laminated products as a separate category that must comply with a different emission standard.
Concerns about health risks from formaldehyde exposures from wood products stem in part from exposures in trailers the Federal Emergency Management Agency provided after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that contained imported composite wood panels made using formaldehyde based adhesives, according to comments submitted to EPA.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/wood-products-makers-urge-epa-revise-issue-formaldehyde-air-rule
-
U.S. Could Outpace Climate Rule Through Mid-2020s, Studies Say
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
The U.S. power sector may be able to comply with federal climate regulations through 2025 without changing any plans, according to a new analysis by MJ Bradley & Associates.
The report incorporates extended federal tax incentives for renewable power, lower natural gas price forecasts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and a decline in the expected cost of solar power, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
"Because of the tax credits, renewables play a much bigger role than they did six months ago in our analysis," said Chris Van Atten, senior vice president at MJ Bradley.
The estimated costs of renewables have also been declining rapidly, improving the outlook for compliance with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, he said.
"The prior analysis had the cost of utility-scale solar [photovoltaic] reaching about $1,000 per kilowatt in 2040. Now we're assuming that same level in 2030," said Van Atten, adding that some researchers have said costs may be below that level as early as 2020.
"These things keep moving, and it seems to keep making our assumptions look more conservative in some ways," he said.
The Clean Power Plan would not take effect until 2022, with emissions requirements becoming stricter until 2030.
Growing evidence U.S. could meet CPP goals early
The recent model runs show carbon allowance prices would be lower than previously expected. If all states capped emissions from new and existing sources of power and traded carbon allowances at the national scale, prices would be $0 per ton of carbon in 2025. They would reach $6 per ton in 2030, far less than an earlier analysis that predicted $20-per-ton allowance prices in that year.
Allowances would cost even less if power companies achieved higher energy efficiency gains each year, according to MJ Bradley.
MJ Bradley has been consulting on the analysis with three utilities -- Calpine Corp., Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and Exelon Corp. -- as well as the Natural Resources Defense Council and several outside reviewers.
The estimates are dependent on a number of inputs that are in flux, but they add to a growing body of work suggesting the United States as a whole may outpace the Clean Power Plan through the mid-2020s.
Some power companies that have invested in cleaner energy would be better off. They would be able to sell carbon allowances to utilities that rely more heavily on fossil fuels. Therefore, the impact on consumers could differ significantly from region to region.
Last week, NRDC pointed out in a report that four models -- from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Rhodium Group, MJ Bradley and the National Renewable Energy Lab -- suggest large enough growth in renewables and shifts away from coal power to meet the early goals of the Clean Power Plan.
Resources for the Future, in a paper released this week, agreed that "modeling suggests that because of prevailing market, technological, and policy trends, the Clean Power Plan will result in near-zero costs beyond current trends until 2025."
A national trading system?
John Larsen, a director at Rhodium Group who has been leading similar analysis on the rule, said if distributed power grows substantially and utility-scale renewable power is cheaper, the country could stay below EPA's emissions cap and have $0-per-ton allowances even longer than MJ Bradley suggests -- through 2028.
"The really sort of astounding thing is that they all sort of come to similar conclusions -- renewables can essentially double between 2015 and 2021 on a capacity basis," said Starla Yeh, a senior policy analyst for NRDC.
Yeh said there is "broad agreement" that renewable power growth will be substantial, but when the tax extenders phase out in 2021, "there probably still needs to be a strong policy driver that will continue the progress and continue the sort of emissions decline."
"We think that's where the Clean Power Plan comes in," Yeh said.
MJ Bradley also modeled how much credits would cost in a carbon-trading system if the entire country set an average rate of emissions to achieve, rather than capping the mass emissions of CO2.
In 2030, credits would cost $11.69 per megawatt-hour, which is comparable to the $6 per ton that researchers expect in a mass-based standard.
But if the Clean Power Plan survives legal challenges, a national trading system may not emerge. It's highly likely that not all the states would pick the same compliance strategy.
The EIA expects to release modeling late this month exploring what would happen if some states capped emissions and others aimed for an average rate and the two groups could not participate in the same trading system.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/09/stories/1060038525
-
Texas Energy Regulators Seek To Challenge EPA Methane Rule
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas operations in the state, is urging Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) to challenge EPA's recently finalized rule for regulating methane emissions from new and modified oil and gas facilities, likely marking the first of numerous similar challenges.
“These rules are just another assault from the Obama Administration in its war against fossil fuels and a blatant attempt to forcibly take over the regulation of Texas’ oil and gas industry, a job the Railroad Commission has excelled at for almost a century,” said chairman David Porter in a June 7 press release announcing the move.
“I appreciate the Attorney General’s consideration in this matter and look forward to working together to protect our state from the oppressive ambitions of this Administration.”
EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS), unveiled May 12, established the first national regulation to explicitly curb emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane from new and modified oil and gas facilities. The rule was one of several measures the agency released aimed at limiting emissions from the industry and presages an effort to also target existing facilities.
While the agency did not regulate as broad a universe of sources that environmentalists had sought, advocates nevertheless welcomed the rule, especially its provision regulating low-producing oil and gas wells, which industry officials say will force many wells to shutter.
At the time the rule was released, likely challengers, including the American Petroleum Institute (API), signaled concerns, including the argument that voluntary efforts by the industry render mandatory regulations unnecessary. The group also hinted that the rule's provisions governing wells “sets a precedent” that could apply to all wells domestically and called that “a top level concern for us.”
But together with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey (R), API stopped short of pledging to sue, saying they wanted to closely examine the regulation before litigating.
The Texas railroad commissioners suggested in their statement that challengers will focus at least in part on questioning EPA's analysis in support of the rule. “EPA needs to follow the law, produce better scientific analysis, and properly consider the economic implications of their rules. I’m confident General Paxton will successfully challenge these flawed rules,” Commissioner Ryan Sitton said.
Commissioner Christi Craddick said, “These new rules would have little to no impact on the environment while placing an undue burden on an industry that is succeeding in this area on its own.”
But Environmental Defense Fund in a June 8 press statement attacked the Commission's stance and defended the cost-effectiveness of the methane rules.
“It’s disappointing that the Railroad Commission is working against EPA on putting these important protections in place, especially because the agency’s new methane rule is an extremely cost-effective tool to help reduce the nearly 10 million metric tons of methane pollution the oil and gas industry is emitting each year.”
EDF also said it is “disheartening” that the commission is downplaying benefits of the rule “when data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that methane is responsible for approximately 25 percent of man made global warming.”
The NSPS appeared in the Federal Register June 3, giving challengers 60 days to sue.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Methane Emissions are Extremely Harmful, and the Government Might Not Know How Much There is.
Jun 9, 2016 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Methane is a colorless and odorless. But it is a powerhouse in the way it contributes to global warming. In the atmosphere, it’s more than 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Now, after the growth of a natural gas production operation commonly known as fracking, the United States is producing more methane emissions than any country in the world. And in a complaint submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General on Wednesday, a small North Carolina watchdog group argues persuasively that the government might not know how much is released into the sky as a result of drilling and storage of gas extracted from shale deep under ground.
The 68-page complaint by NC Warn accuses the EPA of allowing untold levels of methane into the atmosphere by allowing oil and gas companies to monitor emissions with a pricey device that’s faulty. The group says in its complaint that the agency knows the $20,000, backpack-sized Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler doesn’t work well because the man who invented the technology that inspired it blew a whistle years ago.
The inventor, Touché Howard, also took his concerns to a respected researcher who used the device as one way of measuring methane emissions for a major study undertaken on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, which hoped to answer the question of how bad it is. In spite of Howard’s objections to David Allen, a professor at the University of Texas, the study found that methane emissions were lower than EPA estimated at completed wells and higher around valves and equipment used to control routine operations at sites.
For that, NC Warn accused Allen of fraud. “It appears that the goal of the [University of Texas] team was not to critically examine the problems but to convince EDF …that no problems existed,” NC Warn claims in the complaint. “We believe Mr. Howard was specifically prevented from providing input because the … team knew that he would be able to show that their counterarguments were faulty and the resulting studies scientifically invalid.
“Meanwhile, the faulty data and measuring equipment are still being used extensively throughout the natural gas industry worldwide.”
For the university, those were fighting words that drew a strong rebuke. “David Allen is a scientist of the highest integrity and his peer-reviewed studies were overseen by scientific advisory panels, published in top-tier journals and have been open to public scrutiny for several years,” a university spokesman shot back in a statement.
Allen stood by his work in his own defense. “The instrument was used for only a subset of the measurements that were made,” he said, explaining that there are other ways to measure methane, and that the readings of the Bacharach device were double-checked. “All of these systems would have had to fail, simultaneously, and only at certain types of sites with the conditions that are claimed to produce the equipment failure, for our measurements to have been impacted.”
And the EDF also backed him in a diplomatic response from Mark Brownstein, vice president of the climate and energy program at EDF, tried a diplomatic approach. “I think that it’s always useful to have yet another set of eyes review scientific work to check to make sure that it’s been done well,” he said. But “even if you believe this device gave you false readings,” he added, “there have been 20 studies looking at this from a variety of different of ways.”
Methane emissions can be measured from the sky with instruments attached to the wings of airplanes, he said. “As to whether this complaint has larger implications for our understanding of methane emissions or steps we should be taking, it doesn’t have much of an impact, given the large body of other studies that have been done to assess these emissions.”
Finally, EPA said its understanding of the volume of methane emissions is evolving, and estimates “are based on the best data available at the time of their development.” The effort to understand methane emissions from oil and natural gas industry, “which is the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the U.S.” is part of the agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program attempt to collect “significant new data on methane emitted in the oil and gas sector.”
But NC Warn isn’t backing down, and neither is Howard. “As long as someone prestigious like Dr. Allen says [underreporting of methane] did not occur in my research, then it’s hard to say how widespread this problem can be,” Howard said.
The watchdog group casually mentioned in its complaint that 90 percent of the $18 million that was paid for several EDF reports came from the natural gas industry, but the large majority of the reports had nothing to do with methane, Brownstein countered.
Here’s what’s at stake, according to Robert Warren Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University who is considered to be one of the nation’s foremost experts on methane gas. “Emissions have been rising, in large part from the development of shale gas and shale oil — a huge contrast to what the EPA has been saying,” he said.
Howarth pointed out that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change said methane emissions have the most virulent effect on climate change. In the Paris climate agreement, which the U.S. joined, the panel said it can’t reached its goal of keeping global temperature increases at or below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 if those emissions aren’t lowered.
It’s time to listen to Howard and revisit the study that found a lower level of methane emissions, given what’s known about the quirks in the device that monitored them. “EDF has made a big effort over the past five years to better characterize what the methane emissions are,” Howarth said. “Touché Howard tells me he was raising concerns going way back and people were ignoring him. It’s embarrassing to have to backtrack on something you’ve done, especially if you’ve said what a great study it is and an important study.”
Howard’s views have weight because he designed the technology used in the monitoring device in the early 1990s. He sold it when he retired in 2003 and eventually Bacharach Inc. bought and modified it. During a test of methane emissions in 2013, Howard noticed that a sensor in the device failed to properly detect methane when other hydrocarbons were present. A cross check confirmed the failure, he said.
He reached out to Allen and claims he was rebuffed. Howard said he sometimes can’t sleep for worrying about a catastrophic result from underreporting methane emissions that has nothing to do with global warming.
“I worry about something catastrophic, like an explosion,” he said. “I think the implications are enormous. If people think emissions are much lower than they actually are, there will be less urgency on addressing reductions.
“All this stuff is pretty basic. If we can’t get the easy stuff right, what does that say about trying to understand the really tough stuff that’s going on, like climate modeling and extrapolations?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/09/this-heated-fight-over-methane-emissions-is-almost-as-hot-as-the-gas/
-
EPA Science Board Hears Testimony on Water Study
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is preparing to decide what it will recommend about the agency's study of hydraulic fracturing.
A subcommittee of the SAB has offered some pointed criticism of that study, which was released a year ago and found no evidence of "widespread, systemic" problems with fracking and drinking water.
But that criticism won't be official until, and unless, the SAB adopts it as its own. The 47-member panel is to meet next week in Alexandria, Va., to go over the subcommittee's draftreport.
In advance of that, the full SAB held a teleconference yesterday to hear testimony from those who wouldn't make it next week.
Industry critics relayed tales of poisoned wells, and industry representatives hailed EPA's research and findings. SAB members did not respond for comment.
"Real people are suffering real damage," said Pennsylvania anti-drilling activist Barbara Arrindell.
But Leslie Beyer of the Petroleum Equipment & Services Association praised the report's conclusion as "sound, valid and supported by EPA's comprehensive review."
Most members said the "widespread, systemic" finding was too vague and requires clarification. Those concerns are laid out in the panel's draft report. Four members of the panel with industry ties drafted a dissent to the majority opinion, saying the EPA finding was accurate (EnergyWire, Feb. 24).
Another dissent was penned by an environmental health researcher on the panel, disagreeing with the subcommittee's finding that EPA's report was "generally comprehensive."
The meeting is to be held at the Westin Alexandria hotel in Alexandria next Tuesday and Wednesday.
The request to study hydraulic fracturing and its effects on drinking water came from Congress, which passed legislation calling for it in October 2009.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/09/stories/1060038520
-
USGS Finds Huge Reserves in Colo.'s Mancos Shale
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Western Colorado is home to the second-largest shale natural gas basin in the United States, according to a new scientific study by the U.S. Geological Survey.
At issue is the Mancos Shale, a massive feature spanning much of Colorado's western slope and into eastern Utah. USGS focused on the western Colorado portions of the geologic feature.
The Mancos holds an estimated 66 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable shale gas, which makes it the country's second biggest in reserves behind the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast. But USGS concludes that Colorado's Mancos Shale holds more shale gas potential than the Barnett Shale of northeastern Texas, once the epicenter of the shale gas boom.
"The Mancos is the 2nd-largest continuous/shale gas assessment we've ever done, behind the Marcellus and ahead of the Barnett," USGS spokesman Alex Demas confirmed in an email.
Aside from being home to the second-largest shale gas reserves, Colorado's Mancos holds about 45 million barrels of natural gas liquids trapped in the tight formations and 74 million barrels of recoverable shale oil, USGS estimates.
USGS scientists credit new drilling undertaken in the Mancos over the past decade and core samples drilled by their teams for the improved understanding of the resource potential there. The overview disseminated yesterday improves on a 2003 assessment.
"Since the last assessment, more than 2,000 wells have been drilled and completed in one or more intervals within the Mancos Shale of the Piceance Basin," researchers explained in their abstract. "In addition, the USGS Energy Resources Program drilled a research core in the southern Piceance Basin that provided significant new geologic and geochemical data that were used to refine the 2003 assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas in the Mancos Shale."
Oil and gas activity has occurred in the Colorado Mancos, but researchers have struggled to make extraction economical in Utah. The extreme thickness of Utah's Mancos, its geographic spread and today's natural gas economics have stymied efforts to find the right formula for shale gas drilling in Utah (EnergyWire, July 24, 2014).
This latest discovery by USGS may drive industry attention to Colorado's side of the formation as gas prices gradually increase. Currently drilling activity is very light given natural gas prices and the continued dominance of the Marcellus. The latest Baker Hughes Inc. rig count map shows just two natural-gas-directed drilling rigs being used in the region of USGS's study.
Click here to see USGS's latest Mancos Shale assessment.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/09/stories/1060038521
-
Five Injured in Wisconsin Factory Chemical Spill
Jun 9, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
Five employees of the Gehl Foods factory were injured after a chemical spill Tuesday at the Germantown, WI facility, according a release from the Germantown [WI] Fire Department.
The Germantown Fire Department responded to a report of a chemical explosion and spill at the Gehl plant at 10:36 am, finding a contractor had accidentally combined Sodium Chlorite 25% with Sulfuric Acid. The mixed chemicals developed into Chlorine and Sulfer Dioxide gasses, which caused a pressure breach in a container and released gas into the facility.
Local media reports said “hundreds” of employees were evacuated from the Gehl Foods factory as a result. Five employees complained of respiratory issues and were transported to an area hospital, the fire department said.
“After an investigation of the extent of the release was accomplished, and after reviewing the Safety Data Sheets, it was determined that flushing the product could [dilute] it to a safe point,” the Germantown Fire Department’s press release on the incident said. “The pH was constantly monitored to assure safety of all responders.”
The affected area was flushed until the pH levels returned to neutral.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/Five-Injured-in-Wisconsin-Factory-Chemical-Spill-06-08-2016
-
House Passes Amended Version of Pipeline Safety Bill
Jun 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. House of Representatives passed by a voice vote Wednesday its version of a pipeline safety bill that includes changes to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
A spokesman in House Speaker Paul Ryan's office told NGI on Thursday that House and Senate lawmakers would have a committee meeting soon to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions.
S 2276, also known as the SAFE PIPES Act of 2016, reauthorizes PHMSA and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund through fiscal year (FY) 2019. The DOT will also be authorized to allocate revenue from collected fees into an Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility Safety account, from FY 2017-2019.
The bill also calls for the U.S. Comptroller General to issue two reports: on integrity management programs for natural gas pipeline facilities and for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. The comptroller is to present the report to three congressional committees: the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Another provision of S 2276 calls for the DOT secretary to convene a workgroup to consider the development of a voluntary system to share information and encourage collaboration on improving safety inspections of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. The workgroup is to include PHMSA, industry stakeholders, safety advocates, and state public utility commissions and inspectors, among others.
S 2276 also calls for the DOT secretary to submit to the three congressional committees a report on the feasibility of creating a national integrated pipeline safety regulatory inspection database, with the purpose of improving communication and cooperation between PHMSA and state pipeline regulators.
Under a House amendment, the DOT secretary will also be given new powers to issue emergency orders in the event a pipeline poses an imminent hazard to public health, safety or the environment.
House lawmakers set aside 40 minutes of debate for S 2276 late Wednesday.
"The vast network of energy pipelines in this country is essentially out of sight, out of mind for most Americans, but when something goes wrong, these facilities can make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ). "The legislation before us, while not the bill that maybe [Democrats] would have written...is a good proposal that moves the ball forward on safety."
Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) said "pipelines are vital for getting energy products to markets and users. It is one of the safest modes of transportation, if not the safest. I believe this bill will build on the safety advances that we have been making."
Don Santa, CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) praised the House for working in a bipartisan fashion to pass the bill.
"Overall, S 2276 meets INGAA's goals for the current reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act," Santa said. "These goals include: reasonable authorization levels for PHMSA; a focus on PHMSA completing the regulatory mandates under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011; and a requirement that PHMSA set minimum federal safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities.
"We hope the Senate can pass this bill, and send it to the president for his signature, as soon as possible."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106704-house-passes-amended-version-of-pipeline-safety-bill
-
Derailed Oil Train in Ore. Met N.D. Standards
Jun 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The oil train that derailed in Oregon last week met North Dakota's gas pressure standards before hitting the rails, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.
The FRA found that the oil in the train had a vapor pressure of 9.2 pounds per square inch. That's well under the state requirement of 13.7 psi, which can be lowered by removing volatile gases.
The train, loaded at the Dakota Plains Holdings Inc. terminal in New Town, N.D., was headed for Tacoma, Wash., when it derailed, spilling an estimated 42,000 gallons of crude oil out of four rail cars.
The spill prompted evacuation and a temporary sewage system closure, but no one was hurt.
Jim Tate, vice president of operations for Dakota Plains, said the terminal does its own vapor testing before loading oil, which is mixed from a variety of sources upon arrival.
The cause of the derailment is still under investigation, but Union Pacific Railroad spokesman Justin Jacobs said early indications point to "an unusual failure with a fastener that connects the railroad tie to the rail."
The area was reopened to rail traffic except oil-moving unit trains near the Columbia River Gorge, Jacobs said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/09/stories/1060038500
-
We Don't Just Need Rail Safety, We Deserve It
Jun 9, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Tommy G. Thompson
It was just over a year ago that America suffered the tragic Amtrak derailment at Philadelphia’s Frankford Junction that resulted in the loss of eight lives and injuries to more than 200.
It was a sad day for our entire country.
I commend the Amtrak employees and the hundreds of first responders, scores of citizens and health care workers that went into overdrive to first treat the injured at the scene as well as protect the health and safety of those who responded and engaged in the clean-up.
As the former Chairman of Amtrak I came to know the hardworking and caring women and men who dedicate their lives to making train travel safe for millions. It’s a tough job. And I also understand the importance of rail transportation and travel to our country’s economy.
In just the last few weeks we’ve come to know the cause of the tragedy. The National Transportation Safety Board recently announced that the derailment was due to human error, an all too common occurrence in accidents, which according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration contributes to 94 percent of the accidents on our highways. So this cause should not come as a surprise.
Now that we know what happened, we must commit to doing better in preventing devastating derailments like this one. But not solely for train safety, though that is reason enough, but also for the men and women who operate America’s trains. We must improve our investment in rail safety technology that can help reduce human error. We are at a critical time in our rail history, ridership is up, more goods are being transported by rail and the potential for technology to enhance safety is at hand.
Last year, 490 million passenger trips were taken on U.S. commuter rail systems. Twenty-nine commuter rail systems around the country provide nearly two million daily trips during the work week. And New York City’s subway, one of the largest rapid transit systems in the world, is experiencing passenger levels not seen since the 1940s.
Amtrak and other rail systems around the country are rolling out systemic improvements called Positive Train Control (PTC) that use technology to help prevent train accidents before they occur. It’s a large and costly commitment required by law.
As PTC is coming online, what is safe today can become even safer tomorrow. Next-generation safety technology needs to be integrated into these systems – technology which sees more than the human eye – can automatically detect splits in railroad track, or a “hot” defective wheel bearing that could fail and lead to a derailment. Other safety technologies being piloted today can scan railcars and locomotives for structural and metallurgical defects that can otherwise go undetected.
The added dividend from all of this technology is more data – data that can help Amtrak, commuter and freight railroads identify trends that can improve maintenance schedules, swap out track subject to excess wear, and preempt the failures of equipment that can compromise safety. In the end, this would mean safer travel for the millions of Americans who ride rail every year, and as importantly, help for those who dedicate their lives to America’s railroads.
While there is a federal commitment to safety technology, it’s not as strong in rail as it could be. For the first time ever, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed to spend nearly one-fourth of its 2017 budget on autonomous vehicle development to enhance road safety. But the government has yet to take a similarly strong leadership position on rail.
A federal commitment to make a similar investment in rail safety technology is needed and overdue. To honor the victims of the Philadelphia derailment we must step up our shared commitment to invest in the technologies that can prevent future tragedies. The country and the thousands of our fellow Americans who work on the rails, or rely on rails to get to work, need it – and they deserve it.
Thompson was the longest serving Governor of Wisconsin, the former Chairman of Amtrak and the former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/transportation/282772-we-dont-just-need-rail-safety-we-deserve-it
-
GOP Chairman: EPA Could ‘Restructure Every Industrial Sector’
Jun 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A high-ranking Republican senator said Thursday that he fears that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate rule could give it power to regulate the entire industrial sector.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said that the arguments the EPA makes for why its Clean Power Plan is legal are so far-reaching that they could give the agency unprecedented power if upheld by the courts.
“If EPA can convince the courts to uphold their approach to regulating the utility industry through the means Congress never authorized, then they will take these same arguments and use them to restructure every industrial sector in this country in a manner that appeases the political obligations of the president,” Inhofe said at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs.
“Neither the Clean Air Act nor the regulatory system was meant to operate this way and the president knows that,” he added.
The Supreme Court put the rule on hold in February while it works its way through the court system. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is currently considering the regulation’s legality, but it is nearly certain that its decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) disagreed with Inhofe’s assessment of the EPA’s power. But he accused his colleagues of being derelict in their duties to pass new environmental laws, and said the EPA is just doing what it can without new legislation to solve new problems like climate change.
“When we complain about regulations, a lot of times it would be better if Congress did its responsibility and did its work. And this is going to be the first Congress which will not have a legacy of passing legislation to help protect our environment,” Cardin said.
“Instead, what we seem to do is always have bills that prevent the administration from moving forward, rather than finding ways that we can help build on the environmental legacy of this country.”
States are also trying to step up and take charge, Cardin said, adding that federal action would be better.
“We need an effective national strategy on this. And that’s what the administration’s regulations are attempting to do,” he said.
Inhofe, an outspoken skeptic of climate change, organized the hearing to criticize the EPA’s rule and to denounce what he sees as efforts to go around the Supreme Court’s stay.
“EPA is attempting to downplay the significance of the stay and argue against clear legal precedence as a last-ditch effort to scare states into spending scarce resources complying with a rule that could very well be overturned,” he said.
The GOP argues that by helping states plan to comply with the rule, and moving forward with an incentive program for early compliance, the EPA is hurting states that have chosen to stop their planning during the litigation, violating the spirit of the stay.
But Cardin and the Democrats said the EPA is well within its rights.
“As I understand it, the Supreme Court decision does not prevent a state from continuing to move forward in its efforts, and the administration can provide that guidance that they can do what they think is right for the health of their citizens, and under federalism, provide some help for our nation developing the right policies for clean air,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/282867-gop-chairman-epa-could-restructure-every-industrial-sector
-
Virginia Permit Adopts Novel Tiered GHG Limits To Address Plant Degradation
Jun 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Virginia officials are poised to decide whether to finalize a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit for a proposed natural gas combined-cycle power plant that includes the first “tiered” greenhouse gas limit that accounts for expected efficiency degradation over time, a step that environmentalists are praising.
One environmentalist hails the tiering as “a great approach” because it results in strict GHG limits at the start of the permit and eases over time. This reverses the normal course of including the degradation factor over the life of the permit, which makes the GHG limit less stringent than it otherwise would be.
Despite the permit's tiered approach, advocates are also embarking on a novel fight to urge regulators to aggregate emissions from the proposed plant -- together with a proposed natural gas pipeline connecting to the facility in an effort to subject the pipeline to the same GHG limits in the plant's permit, consistent with EPA aggregation rules.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Air Pollution Control Board is slated to determine the fate of the revised draft final permit for Virginia Electric & Power Company's Greensville Power Station plant at a June 17 meeting in Richmond.
Environmentalists are planning to press the board to overrule DEQ's rejection of their claim that the power plant and the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) that will bring fuel to the plant are a single source needing a single permit, in part because they are owned by subsidiaries of the same parent company, Dominion, and should be subject to the same best available control technology (BACT) limit for GHGs including methane that leaks from the pipeline.
If the argument is successful, environmentalists hope to be able to regulate GHG emissions from the pipeline even as they struggle to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to estimate GHG emissions from when they approve new pipelines.
“The pipelines won't be regulated for GHG emissions unless it is considered in tandem with the . . . power plants they are being connected to,” a second environmentalist says.
The first source says if the groups are successful in arguing the pipeline and the plant are a single source that would be a huge victory that could require significant methane reductions at compressor stations along the pipeline route. However, the scope of the precedent would be limited because it would only apply in cases where the pipeline and the plant are under the same ownership.
Even as they battle to define the source, environmentalists have already convinced DEQ to revise an earlier version of the draft permit to adopt the tiered approach.
The revised permit sets a carbon dioxide equivalent limit from the combined-cycle gas turbines and associated equipment “providing for incremental degradation of the units” at 812 pounds of CO2e per megawatt hour (lbs CO2e/MWh) for years one through six that gradually rises to 828 lbs CO2e/MWh for years seven through 12, to 843 lbs CO2e/MWh for years 13-18, and up to 890 lbs CO2e/MWh for years 31 and older.
The permit notes that the first year begins on commencement of construction and ends on Dec. 31 of the first full calendar year after that date. It sets a similar phased heat output limit for the turbine generators that provides for incremental degradation that starts at 6,457 British thermal units per kilowatt hour (Btu/kWh) and ends at 7,212 Btu/kWh for year 31 and beyond.
Tiered Approach
DEQ adopted the tiered approach after Sierra Club and Appalachian Voices argued in their March 30 comments on an earlier draft that numeric GHG limits did not reflect BACT. They cited several permits that appeared more stringent than this one.
In its response to comments issued in late May, DEQ said it reviewed a number of operating case scenarios from Dominion and determined that the original draft limit was based on annual operation at a short-term worst case scenario.
“While permit limits may be properly based on wost-case operations, the GHG limit is annual (12-month rolling); some consideration must be given to expected operation over the entire period.”
DEQ reviewed data, including by the turbine maker, to conclude that “the limit of 890 lb/MWh net to be achievable. Degradation of a turbine's efficiency is accepted as a result of normal operation. While degradation is considered for other pollutants in items such as capital recovery and catalyst replacement, GHG emissions are directly related to the mode of operation and the age of the equipment. . . .
“However, degradation does not occur instantly upon commencing operation but occurs slowly over time. Understanding the special GHG dynamics of efficiency degradation, a tiered approach to the degradation of the equipment has been utilized.”
DEQ added that the “essence of the original draft permit conditions remains unchanged” and allows for 36 years of degradation from start up. “While a single limit approach is acceptable and may be appropriate in many circumstances, it is not necessarily the only representation of a GHG BACT determination.”
Here, DEQ included an annual degradation rate of 0.325 percent, based on 11.7 percent degradation of 36 years -- the expected life of the facility.
Sierra Club also argued that the BACT permit required consideration of solar-gas hybrid configurations -- a technology DEQ rejected as an unlawful redefinition of the facility. “The commenter appears to indicate that requiring significantly different equipment to be designed and installed in addition to the proposed equipment is simply supplementing fuel.” However, “Solar generation requires different engineering and equipment than a combustion turbine. The Department considers solar generation to be a redesign of the source.”
The second environmentalist says groups remain disappointed that DEQ rejected this, given that BACT is supposed to be a top-down review and other gas plants have integrated solar in this manner.
Further the groups argued in their comments that the permit does not demonstrate that the facility will comply with EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) for new natural gas power plants, not because of the GHG limit -- the NSPS limit for a new gas plant is 1,000 lbs CO2/MWh -- but largely because of monitoring requirements in the NSPS that are not included in the PSD permit.
DEQ says in response to comments that the applicable NSPS rules will be included in the Title V permit when that is issued before the facility begins operations.
EPA could not be reached for comment but a Virginia DEQ source says, “This would be the first tiered permit limit.” EPA filed March 14 comments that did not address the tiered GHG limit because the limit was not included in the earlier draft. The agency weighed in mostly on criteria emission limits.
A spokesman for Dominion says this is the first time the tiered approach has been used in Virginia and adds the company believes it may be the first time anywhere in the United States. “New generating facilities are more efficient at removing emissions,” the spokesman explains. “That ability decreases some what as the units age. Traditionally CO2 limits were set to account for degradation over the entire life of the permit by setting the limit at a level that would allow a generating unit to meet it in the latter days of the permit.
“The revised permit is considerably more protective than the original draft, but we can and will comply it if is approved,” the Dominion spokesman adds.
'Single PSD Permit'
Environmentalists say that even with the tiered approach, they will urge the board to remand the permit so that it can address emissions from both the plant and the pipeline. The two are a single source of pollution requiring a single PSD permit, advocates say.
In their comments, environmentalists argued the plant and the pipeline are subject to the same permit under the terms of EPA's three-pronged aggregation test -- which applies when facilities are under common control; have the same two-digit industry standard industrial classification code; and are co-located.
They noted that the plant and the pipeline share the same industrial grouping. And because the ACP mainline would connect to the proposed plant via a one-mile lateral connection, “Once connected, the plant, the pipeline and all pipeline facilities would be located on . . . contiguous properties,” their comments said.
The activities “will also be conducted 'under the control of the same person,'” meeting the long-standing test criteria to define the pipeline and plant as a single source.
In their comments, the environmentalists argued that Dominion's application was legally ineligible for a PSD permit in part because it “indefensibly omits any mention of its own Atlantic Coast Pipeline -- a project with the potential to emit enormous amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas and a major driver of climate change.”
The comments added that, “Because the two projects are linked, both literally and functionally, the law is clear that the pipeline and its compressor stations must be considered alongside the Greensville plant. Accordingly, all activities associated with the proposals require the best available controls on greenhouse gases and other emissions. For this reason alone, Dominion must be sent back to the drawing board.”
But DEQ in its response to the comment document rejected this argument, saying the pipeline and the Greensville facility “do not constitute a single stationary source. . . . The Department does not consider the regulation of emissions that do not occur at the major stationary source to be within the purview of BACT.”
The Dominion spokesman notes that the revised draft includes fugitive GHGs from the pipeline where it is located on the Greensvile station property. “We believe that is the proper way to address the issue,” the spokesman says.
The first environmentalist says EPA's recently finalized aggregation regulation that takes effect in August does not apply in this case because the regulation is limited to defining “adjacency,” which is not an issue here since the pipeline and the project are contiguous. Also the rule is limited to extraction and production operations, not transmission at issue here.
The second environmentalist says the argument here is a new strategy for groups seeking to curb explosive natural gas infrastructure development.
While FERC is in the process of reviewing Dominion's ACP application, environmentalists are separately arguing that the commission must consider the upstream and downstream GHGs, including induced natural gas development the pipelines will bring.
“So much of that is really dependent on the scale of the full build out of infrastructure that is being proposed,” the second environmentalist says.
The new strategy is part of the broader effort to force agencies to “look at the bigger picture” when they tend to focused on their own small piece, the source adds. “And what we're looking at now is, there is so much infrastructure it is crucial to look at it in a comprehensive manner, and that's what's coming into play here. Just as it is our interest to get FERC to issue a programmatic” environmental impact statement for the ACP in combination with other proposed pipelines in the region.
The source notes that while natural gas is better for the climate than burning coal, “If you have leakage rates of methane higher than 3.2 percent you lose all of the climate benefits of transitioning” in this manner.
A second DEQ source says the final permit decision will be made by the air quality board in light of the state's recognition that the permit is considered to be controversial, based on the significant number of comments received -- 61 written comments plus a well-attended public hearing.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/virginia-permit-adopts-novel-tiered-ghg-limits-address-plant-degradation
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested