Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/17

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) California Agency Examining Impacts of TSCA-Reform Bill
Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

A California agency is examining potential impacts the newly passed Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill may have on the state's landmark Safer Consumer Products program.
(ACC Mentioned) Is Chlorine Safe For Babies? You May Need To Keep Them From The Pool
Jun 17, 2016 | Romper
By Lindsay Mack

Introducing your baby to new experiences is one of the most rewarding aspects of parenting, and swimming is definitely up there on the list of fun things to try with your little one.
EU Proposes Criteria for Identifying Chemicals that Alter Hormones
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson

The European Commission last week proposed long-awaited criteria to help regulators determine which chemicals in pesticides and biocidal products such as hand disinfectants are—and are not—endocrine disruptors.
ECOS Plans Focus On TSCA Reform's Implementation
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing most state environmental agencies, plans to focus on how EPA will implement the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) overhaul, saying that the potential impacts to states from the various new programs under the law is an issue ECOS needs to closely track.
Udall Fights To Protect Important Conservation And Environment Funding
Jun 17, 2016 | KRWG TV/FM
By U.S. Senator Tom Udall

Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall, lead Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, stood up against poison pill provisions (riders) that would permanently weaken core environmental laws that protect our air, water, health and endangered species.
Chemical Regulation Bill Clears Congress, But Will It Protect the Public?
Jun 16, 2016 | Greenwich Time
By Noah M. Sachs, University of Richmond

In a major overhaul of U.S. regulation of toxic chemicals, Congress last week passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the largest piece of environmental legislation passed in the United States since 1990. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly.
Editorial: Congress Passes a Not-Very-Good Toxic Chemical Bill
Jun 17, 2016 | St. Louis Post-Dispatch
By The Editorial Board

Just when you're fed up with the United States Congress (approval rating: 11 percent) comes word that it has passed and sent to the president an overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Chemicals and Substances Act, generally regarded as the weakest environmental law on the books.
Snuffed Out: De Facto Death for Halogenated Flame Retardants
Jun 16, 2016 | Plastics Technology Magazine
By Tony Deligio

Jesse Dulek started his presentation with a question; How many in the audience liked to burn things growing up?
Seac Agrees 29 Draft Opinions on Uses of Chromium VI
Jun 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch

Echa’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (Seac) has agreed 29 draft opinions on applications for authorisation, for uses of hexavalent chromium compounds.

Energy News

Greens Blast Riders in Interior-EPA Spending Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly, Scott Streater and Tiffany Stecker

A Senate spending bill that won committee approval earlier today could exempt the burning of wood and other biomass in some places from regulation as a carbon source.
Senate Panel Approves Divisive EPA Funding Bill
Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved rider-laden legislation to fund the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department at a June 16 markup.
House Passes Defense Bill with Climate, Energy Riders
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg

The House today killed a "zombie provision" in the defense spending bill requiring the Pentagon to ship coal from Pennsylvania to military bases in Germany.
Dems Skeptical of Interior-EPA Bill Ever Reaching Senate Floor
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly

Against a backdrop of stark partisan division, Senate appropriators yesterday approved a $32.7 billion bill to fund U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service through the next fiscal year.
EPA Proposes Climate Rule Incentives Despite Court Hold
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration is moving ahead with an incentive program for its contentious climate change rule, despite the Supreme Court’s action halting the regulation.
EPA Proposes Clean Energy Incentive Program
Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding new hydropower and geothermal generation to the criteria of projects eligible to receive emissions reductions credits under a voluntary program that would reward states that choose to make early investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy in preparation for the Clean Power Plan.
EPA Proposes ESPS Clean Energy Incentive Program
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA is formally proposing its Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) -- the early action incentive program for its signature power plant greenhouse gas rule -- brushing aside concerns from critics that the agency's work on the measure violates a high court stay on the power plant rule and that the agency lacks authority to develop the rule.
EPA Details Plans to Give States Credit for Early Progress
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly

U.S. EPA released a proposal today for a voluntary program to give states and tribes credit for taking early action under the Clean Power Plan.
Election May be Pivotal for Energy Projects
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey

When presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's senior policy adviser Stephen Miller took the stage in Georgia this week to welcome the billionaire mogul, he quickly pivoted to energy.
House GOP Agenda Seeks More Oversight of Agencies, Spending
Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink

Warning that U.S. EPA is regulating mud puddles and that other agencies are spending money unchecked, congressional Republicans yesterday called for far more legislative oversight.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

Stop Oil by Rail in Our State, Oregon Asks U.S. Regulator
Jun 16, 2016 | Reuters

Oregon has called for federal regulators to ban trains carrying oil in the state, ramping up pressure for more stringent safety checks weeks after an oil train derailed near Portland, the first major oil-by-rail accident in a year.
PHMSA Issues Corrective Order to Plains Pipeline
Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

Plains All American Pipeline LP must provide a long-term plan to address corrosion prevention and take other corrective actions before it can restart a California pipeline that ruptured in 2015 spilling 140,000 gallons of crude oil along the Santa Barbara coast, a federal regulator said.

Environment News

Senate Panel Clears EPA Spending Bill, Blocking Rules
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an Interior Department and environment spending bill on Thursday, but Democrats have already vowed to block it on the floor.
Chaffetz Seeks to Hold Obama Official in Contempt Over Water Rule
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to hold a high-ranking Obama administration official in contempt of Congress over his response to an investigation into a contentious water pollution rule.
WOTUS Document Dump Looms Large for Court Challenge
Jun 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider

Whether or not Congress votes to hold a White House official in contempt over documents related to the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule next week, opponents of the controversial regulation have already scored a victory on one important front: building their legal arsenal against it.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) California Agency Examining Impacts of TSCA-Reform Bill

Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

A California agency is examining potential impacts the newly passed Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill may have on the state's landmark Safer Consumer Products program.
“We are currently reviewing the bill, and plan to have [the analysis] completed in the next two weeks,” Jim Marxen, a spokesman for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), told Bloomberg BNA in a June 14 e-mail.
Of concern is how federal preemption provisions in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576) may affect future rulemakings under the program DTSC is tasked with implementing.
After the president signs H.R. 2576 into law, which the White House has said it will do soon, the updated federal chemicals law could preempt or alter regulations the Safer Consumer Products program would issue, but a lot depends on which chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency and California focus on and how they craft their regulations, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.
Mandated by state legislation enacted in 2008 to eliminate harmful chemicals in consumer products, the program captured national attention, because it aimed to move California away from single chemical ban legislation to a science-based approach that encourages manufacturers to use safer alternatives. The Safer Consumer Products program is the cornerstone of the state's Green Chemistry Initiative.
Slow Implementation of California's Program
The only rules adopted, so far, established the process for identifying priority products, or product-chemical combinations, that pose a substantial threat to public health or the environment; alternative analysis requirements; and possible regulatory responses, such as banning the sale of products.
Individual regulations would be required to officially identify each individual priority product-chemical combination.
While the DTSC has proposed three priority-products, it has yet to launch any official rulemaking.
“Nothing happens fast with chemicals,” Bill Allayaud of the Environmental Working Group told Bloomberg BNA June 14. “You need good science. It's likely that California's program would be a stronger program than what we've seen of the federal program. Therefore the preemption provisions are concerning.
“We hope that the state pushes ahead as fast as it can,” he said.
Attorney Perspectives
Bloomberg BNA spoke with five attorneys about effects the TSCA-reform legislation could have on California's Safer Consumer Products program.
They all agreed that TSCA, as amended, wouldn't preempt California's program on a wholesale basis.
Specific chemical regulations the EPA issues, however, could affect the scope of or preempt future Safer Consumer Products regulations, they said.
“For the most part, TSCA reform is not going to affect the Safer Consumer Products program,” Maureen Gorsen, an attorney at Alston & Bird LLP, told Bloomberg BNA in a June 14 e-mail.
“California will still be able to require sellers of priority products to provide data and disclosures on the lifecycle of its manufacturing process in an exhaustive analysis,” said Gorsen, who served as the DTSC director during the agency's first attempt to develop the program.
Carte Blanche Authority
As long as the EPA hasn't taken any regulatory action on a priority product, “then California has carte blanche,” she said.
“If EPA has taken action, and California, on the basis of that analysis, wants to regulate that product or chemical therein in a stricter or different way, it may if it seeks and obtains a waiver from EPA,” she said. “Given the history of California's success in obtaining waivers from the EPA to regulate more strictly under the Clean Air Act, this should be achievable” under H.R. 2576.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, said federal preemption would apply only to certain actions, such as restrictions.
It wouldn't extend to state laws that require reporting or monitoring.
“That said, TSCA preemption would appear to have its most potentially consequential impact on the Safer Consumer Products regulations,” Bergeson said. “This is not to say that impact will be extensive, but it would be consequential.”
Some Paint Strippers Being Examined
For example, the Safer Consumer Products program is looking at paint strippers containing methylene chloride as part of its “initial priority products” effort, meaning it could regulate them down the road, Bergeson said.
The EPA also is considering rules restricting or banning methylene chloride's use in paint strippers.
If both the DTSC and the EPA ultimately regulate the use of methylene chloride, contingent on the scope of each rule, the EPA's rule would preempt California's, she said.
The DTSC has waiver options, but the preemptive effect would apply, Bergeson said.
Preemption on ‘Chemical by Chemical Basis.'
Judah Prero, an attorney with Sidley Austin LLP who formerly worked with the American Chemistry Council , told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail: “Preemption occurs on a chemical by chemical basis, so for each chemical, one will have to see the regulatory landscape at the time.
“From a government efficiency standpoint, the question California residents should ask is why California would want to spend taxpayer money to establish new regulations for a chemical that EPA is likely to assess and regulate in the immediate future—on a national basis? That question is one that will probably need to be asked more often than in the past,” Prero said.
Peter Hsiao at Morrison & Foerster LLP and Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Daniel Rosenberg told Bloomberg BNA they are still analyzing how the federal preemption provisions would apply to the Safer Consumer Products program.
“It's something we'll be watching closely,” Rosenberg said in a June 15 e-mail.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92041982&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495767000&searchid=27822207&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Is Chlorine Safe For Babies? You May Need To Keep Them From The Pool

Jun 17, 2016 | Romper

By Lindsay Mack

Introducing your baby to new experiences is one of the most rewarding aspects of parenting, and swimming is definitely up there on the list of fun things to try with your little one. After all, most babies love splashing around in the water. But it’s also normal for you to have some reservations about pool safety and have a few questions along the way. For instance, is chlorine safe for babies?
First, it is helpful to understand the role of chlorine in pool sanitization. According to the American Chemistry Council, routinechlorination kills harmful microorganisms that could lead to many health problems, including ear infections, stomach problems, and even athlete’s foot. Just imagine: without proper treatment and circulation, a swimming pool would basically turn into a stagnant pond. So in this light, proper pool sanitization is healthy and necessary.
Although a chlorinated pool may help keep adults and older children safe from sickness, is it safe for your baby? Possibly not. As explained by the Mayo Clinic, infants who are exposed to chlorinated water at a very young age may be at an increased risk of developing lower respiratory tract infections or asthma. Although more research is still required, chlorine byproducts may irritate your baby’s developing lungs, as further noted by the Mayo Clinic. And a 2006 study in Archives of Disease in Childhood found some correlation between infant swimming programs in indoor chlorinated pools and an increase in the babies’ disposition toasthma and recurrent bronchitis. Again, more research is needed to conclusively correlate these findings. But as a parent, it is understandable if you want to err on the side of caution.GIPHY
Fortunately, there are ways to make your baby’s exposure to chlorinated water safer. If you do opt to use an indoor chlorinated pool, try to find a facility that is well-ventilated by the Centers for Disease Control’s standards. A constant inflow of outside air can help dissipate the potentially harmful chlorine byproducts. In addition, you can check in with your doctor or other trusted child care providers to recommend a baby-friendly pool facility in your area. If you would rather avoid chlorinated pools altogether, then you can take a tip from Parenting and try to find a pool that uses an ozone filter, which can sanitize water without producing chlorinated by-products. In general, there are many ways to safely introduce your baby to the joys of swimming.
https://www.romper.com/p/is-chlorine-safe-for-babies-you-may-need-to-keep-them-from-the-pool-12463

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Proposes Criteria for Identifying Chemicals that Alter Hormones

Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Britt E. Erickson

The European Commission last week proposed long-awaited criteria to help regulators determine which chemicals in pesticides and biocidal products such as hand disinfectants are—and are not—endocrine disruptors.
The European Union already has regulations in place to prohibit endocrine-disrupting chemicals in pesticides and biocides. The proposed criteria would be used to determine which chemicals fall under those regulations.
The proposal adopts the World Health Organization’s definition of endocrine disruptors as chemicals that alter hormones in animals and humans. Such chemicals have “a hormonal function, an adverse effect, and a causality between the two,” says the commission, which is the EU’s executive branch.
Neither the chemical industry nor endocrinologists are pleased with the proposed criteria.
“We are disappointed that we still do not have a set of scientific criteria that are suitable for the purposes of regulatory decision-making,” groups representing the European chemical and pesticide industries say. “Many substances which present no risk to human health or the environment will be identified as endocrine disruptors using this definition,” they predict.
In contrast, endocrinologists are calling the criteria too restrictive, saying the proposal would result in few chemicals being identified and regulated as endocrine disruptors.
“The European Commission has set the bar so high that it will be challenging for chemicals to meet the standard, even when there is scientific evidence of harm,” says Henry M. Kronenberg, president of the Endocrine Society.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i25/EU-proposes-criteria-identifying-chemicals.html

Return to headline | Return to top
ECOS Plans Focus On TSCA Reform's Implementation

Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing most state environmental agencies, plans to focus on how EPA will implement the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) overhaul, saying that the potential impacts to states from the various new programs under the law is an issue ECOS needs to closely track.
“Much of the challenge that lies before us now is in the implementation of this law,” ECOS vice president, John Linc Stine, commissioner of Minnseota Pollution Control Agency, said in a June 16 press release on the TSCA deal, which awaits President Obama's signature.
Linc Stine said the group will seek a “collaborative dialogue” with EPA and “all stakeholders to ensure that this legislation reaches its full potential to make a difference.”
ECOS Executive Director Alexandra Dunn said that going forward ECOS plans to share information on the new law with its members and “to document how it works in practice as it is implemented, so that state learning is advanced.”
The group also plans to hold a July briefing for its member states and a plenary session at its fall meeting Sept. 25-27 in West Virginia to discuss the agreement, which Congress approved this month.
“States had many issues of concern to them, which we expressed continually throughout the nearly decade long negotiations,” Martha Rudolph, ECOS president, said in the press release.
She commended lawmakers that “worked hard to ensure that states' rights to protect their citizens while EPA conducts risk assessments remains,” and to preserve existing state chemicals laws.
The bill, which cleared the Senate June 7, would overhaul the 1976 toxics law by giving EPA significant new powers to regulate new and existing chemicals, but would also include precedent-setting preemption provisions barring states from issuing new rules during various points in the EPA risk evaluation process. President Obama is expected to soon sign the measure.

Return to headline | Return to top
Udall Fights To Protect Important Conservation And Environment Funding

Jun 17, 2016 | KRWG TV/FM

By U.S. Senator Tom Udall

Commentary: Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall, lead Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, stood up against poison pill provisions (riders) that would permanently weaken core environmental laws that protect our air, water, health and endangered species. During a markup of the appropriations bill that funds critical Interior and environment programs -- including many New Mexico priorities -- Udall also successfully secured a bipartisan agreement to boost wildland firefighting for fiscal year 2017 by over $600 million.
The Interior and environment funding bill includes a measure Udall has long supported to reform the way the government funds wildfire suppression, allowing the most dangerous fires to be funded as "disasters," like hurricanes. But the reform won’t take effect immediately. Udall's amendment would boost funding to provide additional money this year: $661 million, including $490 million for the U.S. Forest Service and $171 million for the U.S. Department of the Interior, bringing the total for wildfire suppression to $2.304 billion, which is the amount requested by the administration. He offered his amendment as firefighters battle several blazes across New Mexico and the Southwest, including the over 12,000-acre Dog Head Fire in the Manzano Mountains south of Albuquerque. Fueled by dry conditions and high winds, the Dog Head Fire has consumed homes and other structures and forced evacuations in several towns.
Udall's amendment means that the government won't have to "borrow" from other accounts and programs if the cost of fighting fires in FY '17 exceeds historical budget estimates, as has been the case over the last several years.
"In New Mexico right now, we can see the devastating toll wildfires take — they are just as dangerous and damaging as hurricanes are on the East and Gulf coasts, and we should treat them that way. And this bill — with my amendment — finally allows us to do that," Udall said after the markup. "We're finally putting the emphasis in the right place — on protecting people and homes, giving our firefighters the resources they need, and providing certainty for land managers and everyone who depends on our forests."
Unfortunately, Udall said, the bill also inadequately funds other important conservation programs -- and even worse — includes a number of dangerous poison pill riders that weaken clean water and clean air laws, gut protections for threatened and endangered species, and would leave taxpayers on the hook for more contaminated mines like the Gold King Mine, which spilled toxic wastewater into the Animas and San Juan rivers in New Mexico and Colorado.
The riders would make significant policy chances that should be carefully considered by authorizing committees, not sneaked into must-pass funding bills, Udall said before offering an amendment to strike all of the riders. Udall's amendment to pass a "clean" bill failed, however, and as a result, Udall and all of the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee opposed the bill. The bill went on to be approved 16-14 and now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
"This bill funds critically important priorities in New Mexico -- including my amendment to keep our communities safe from wildfires -- so I'm extremely disappointed that I was unable to support the full bill," Udall said. "But no matter how important this funding is for New Mexico and our nation, I can't sit by and accept a bill with riders that would gut bedrock environmental laws that have protected our air, water, and natural environment for decades. I believe we can work out an agreement on this bill before the full Senate. I will continue to work with Democrats and Republicans for a funding bill that is free of dangerous riders and that includes the level of funding our communities need to support our water and other infrastructure needs, uphold our trust responsibilities, maintain our national parks and treasured public lands, and protect our families and communities from dangerous chemicals."
Riders included in the bill would block the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency's (EPA) rule on Waters of the United States and block the Stream Protection Rule, which protects water quality from the impacts of surface mining. Other provisions prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from making determinations about the status of threatened or endangered species, and take aim at the Endangered Species Act and other key protections for species and their habitats. The bill also includes forestry provisions that change long-established environmental review processes and prevent the Forest Service from taking steps to prevent logging in old-growth forests in Alaska, generating tremendous concerns from environmental and conservation groups.
The following are Udall's opening remarks as prepared for delivery at the markup:
Let me begin my remarks this morning on a positive note.
I’d like to thank my chairman, Senator Murkowski, and her excellent staff for working so closely with me on this bill.
As everyone here knows, we regularly have to face significant policy differences on the Interior Subcommittee. In fact, we’re about to talk about some of those differences this morning.
But I do appreciate the subcommittee’s ability to work together where we can, and to disagree in a cordial and constructive manner when we can’t. And I think that is a testament to Senator Murkowski’s leadership.
I also want to give the chairman credit for doing a number of good things with this bill despite a very tight allocation.
The bill honors our commitment to American Indians and Alaska Natives by providing substantial increases for Tribal health care and education.
The bill boosts funding for water infrastructure projects — investments that are badly needed in our communities.
I especially appreciate that the bill includes a more than $150 million increase for drinking water infrastructure.
More needs to be done to improve water quality and prevent tragedies, like lead poisoning in Flint, but this bill takes a step in the right direction.
This bill also provides new funding to help address the maintenance backlog at our national parks.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program is fully funded so that counties have the resources they need to fund schools, public safety and roads.
The bill helps the Environmental Protection Agency begin its historic overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act to protect our families and communities from dangerous chemicals.
And it provides important funding for my home state of New Mexico, including crucial increases to fund our most treasured public lands.
These are very good things, and I want to vote for a bill that includes them.
But, unfortunately, in this case, I can’t.
This bill breaks from the precedent set by all the other subcommittees that have marked up this year and includes damaging poison pill riders.
As I mentioned during our subcommittee markup, the list of provisions included in this bill is like "déjà vu all over again." Riders to roll back Clean Water Act protections, weaken the Endangered Species Act, target the federal Superfund Law and plenty of others.
I’m not sure how many times that we have to go through this process before it sinks in that adding controversial language doesn’t help get spending bills passed into law.
We’re going to talk about many of these controversial policy riders at length when I offer an amendment to strike them, so I won’t go into detail now.
I’ll simply say: we have reported other equally controversial bills on a bipartisan basis.
If Labor-HHS can do it, why can’t we? If Financial Services can do it, why can’t we? Surely we can do better.
I think we should be focusing on passing 12 clean spending bills — not singling out one particular bill and loading it up with policy riders.
We should also be providing more balanced funding and not targeting certain programs or agencies for partisan attacks. I also take issue with the deep cuts this bill makes to programs that address climate change, enforce environmental laws and protect endangered species.
It’s unfortunate that the bill scales back investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is a program with tremendous bipartisan support and it does such good things in our home states.
Finally, we need to do more to do more to address firefighting needs. I’m deeply appreciative that the majority has included legislation to authorize a new disaster cap to pay for wildland firefighting as part of this bill. That’s the long-term solution to this problem. But we can’t access any disaster funding until the cap adjustment becomes law, so we need to find another way to provide more funding — an opportunity that my amendment will present.
That’s why I’m concerned that the bill fails to fully fund firefighting needs for the Forest Service and Interior Department in advance of the fiscal year 2017 fire season.
Last year, this subcommittee recognized that simply funding the 10-year average isn’t enough to cover actual firefighting costs. So we worked on a bipartisan basis to pass an omnibus that gave federal firefighters the funding that they actually need up front to put an end to fire borrowing.
I want to make sure that we take the same approach this year.
We simply must find a way to address these issues in a more bipartisan manner. I stand ready to work with Senator Murkowski, but until these issues are resolved, I must oppose this bill.

Return to headline | Return to top
Chemical Regulation Bill Clears Congress, But Will It Protect the Public?

Jun 16, 2016 | Greenwich Time

By Noah M. Sachs, University of Richmond

In a major overhaul of U.S. regulation of toxic chemicals, Congress last week passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the largest piece of environmental legislation passed in the United States since 1990. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly.
The bill amends the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has been called the “lapdog” of American environmental law because of its weak controls on hazardous chemicals. The new bill, named after the late New Jersey senator who championed the legislation, passed on a bipartisan basis with support from the chemical industry. The bill divided the environmental and public health communities.
While the new bill clearly gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more authority to test and restrict hazardous chemicals, it may not actually protect the public more effectively than current law. Because the legislation contains no new appropriations for EPA, allows chemical testing to proceed very slowly, and in some cases preempts states from enacting their own chemical restrictions, it could perpetuate toxic risks rather than reducing them.
TSCA, passed in the Ford administration, is widely seen as one of the weakest U.S. environmental laws. TSCA gave EPA the power to order testing of chemicals, ban chemicals from the marketplace, restrict certain uses or require labeling. But the law created so many procedural hurdles for regulation that EPA was rarely able to exercise its authority.
More than 80,000 chemicals have been introduced into commerce in the United States, but EPA has issued testing orders for fewer than 300 in the past 40 years, and it has enacted restrictions on only six. When EPA has attempted to regulate chemicals under TSCA, manufacturers have frequently challenged the agency in court.
In 1991 a federal appeals court struck down EPA’s attempt to ban most uses of asbestos after the agency had spent years documenting the link between asbestos exposure and cancer and lung disease. Most experts believe that this court decision dealt a crippling blow to TSCA by making it nearly impossible to remove hazardous chemicals from the market.
Because of TSCA’s weaknesses, Americans are widely exposed to chemicals in the workplace, in food, and in consumer products for which there is little or no toxicity information. Dozens of chemicals that are known or probable carcinogens, as determined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, continue to be sold in the United States. We don’t even know how many chemicals are currently in widespread use in the United States because TSCA does not require comprehensive reporting.
Because of inadequate resources at EPA and TSCA’s hurdles for obtaining toxicity data, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government’s in-house auditor, has included EPA’s chemicals programs on its list of “high risk” government programs since 2009. GAO lists programs as high risk when it considers them to be vulnerable to failure or ineffectiveness.
Despite TSCA’s well-known problems, Congress did not make serious efforts to reform the law until the Obama administration. By 2009, public health surveys had documented that numerous industrial chemicals were found in the blood and urine of Americans, and in 2010, the President’s Cancer Panel concluded that the “the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.”
In response to rising public concern, states began enacting their own chemical regulations. As Senator Lautenberg and other legislators began to consider new federal legislation, the chemical industry quickly got behind the idea of TSCA reform because manufacturers feared having to comply with a patchwork of state chemical laws.
The new legislation makes several improvements to TSCA and gives the EPA much-needed new authority. For example, the law:
But the real test of the bill is not whether it makes incremental improvements to TSCA; it is whether the bill actually protects Americans from chemical risks. Measured by that standard, the new bill does not go far enough and is likely to get bogged down in court just like the existing law.
For example, when EPA conducts safety reviews of chemicals, the bill requires the agency to determine whether a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk” to public health or the environment before it enacts any restrictions. But the legislation does not define this key term, and it is likely to take years of litigation to sort out what risks are “reasonable” and what risks are “unreasonable.”
Moreover, while the bill makes clear that EPA should not consider costs to industry in evaluating the risks of chemicals, it does force EPA to conduct a complicated cost-benefit analysis if it chooses to restrict a chemical. Manufacturers will inevitably challenge each step of this process in court.
Another major source of contention is whether this new federal law will supersede state laws. The chemical industry strongly supported federalizing chemical regulation to achieve uniformity. But many states have spent a decade or more developing their own chemical regulatory systems. California, Washington, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota have been leaders in this field, and their Congressional delegations opposed broad preemption of state law.
The resulting compromise undercuts states' ability to regulate chemicals on their own initiative. Under the bill, if EPA decides that a chemical meets a safety standard of no “unreasonable risk,” states are largely prevented from regulating that chemical. In addition, the new bill forecloses states from regulating a chemical as soon as EPA begins its safety review, even though safety reviews typically take several years.
The slow pace of chemical reviews is the bill’s greatest weakness. We lack safety data for tens of thousands of chemicals that are currently on the market, but the bill requires EPA to review only 20 chemicals in the first five years after it becomes law. At that pace, it will take the rest of this century to assess risks from the most commonly used chemicals in the United States. And the bill provides no new appropriations to speed up the pace of safety reviews.
What will happen once the bill becomes law? Over the next year or so, EPA will begin ordering tests of a series of “Work Plan” chemicals that it has already flagged for attention. Work Plan chemicals that might be subject to testing include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, creosote, ethylene dibromide and nickel compounds. Manufacturers will perform the actual safety tests, and EPA is unlikely to propose restricting any chemicals under the new legislation for several years.
In the long run, the new law could identify severe public health risks from chemicals that are commonly used today. It could lead to changes in the composition of products ranging from cleaning supplies and plastics to furniture and medical devices. It also will require manufacturers to understand toxicity risks better before they bring new chemicals to market and introduce them into products.
But most of the so-called “existing” chemicals that have been in use for decades will be tested at a glacial pace. In a worst-case scenario, chemical manufacturers could hold up sensible protective regulations with years of litigation.
In sum, while the Lautenberg Act has some promising provisions, it simply does not go far enough to overcome the problems that have obstructed toxic chemical regulation in the United States for 40 years.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Chemical-regulation-bill-clears-Congress-but-8275607.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Editorial: Congress Passes a Not-Very-Good Toxic Chemical Bill

Jun 17, 2016 | St. Louis Post-Dispatch

By The Editorial Board

Just when you're fed up with the United States Congress (approval rating: 11 percent) comes word that it has passed and sent to the president an overhaul of the 1976 Toxic Chemicals and Substances Act, generally regarded as the weakest environmental law on the books.
And it only took 10 years. The Environmental Protection Agency is now free to begin testing 64,000 household chemicals to determine how dangerous some of them are. But lest the EPA get carried away with its new powers, the new law restricts the agency to testing only 20 chemicals at a time, with a maximum testing period of seven years.
If each test took only one year, EPA would need 3,200 years to get through the backlog. For purposes of comparison, the Trojan Wars took place 3,200 years ago.
And yet this entirely inadequate bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 403-12 in the House and by a simple voice vote in the Senate. President Barack Obama is expected to sign it.
This is what bipartisanship looks like: Republicans swallowed hard and allowed some new regulations for industry. Democrats swallowed hard and voted for environmental legislation that's only marginally better than the sorry law it replaces.
How bad was the 1976 law? It allowed the use of cancer-causing asbestos long after it was determined that asbestos contributes to 15,000 deaths a year. Civil lawsuits, not the EPA, halted the widespread use of asbestos.
The good parts of the new law will allow EPA to determine whether a new chemical is likely to meet safety standards before it enters the market. The agency can ban those new chemicals found to build up in the human body and those that imperil water supplies.
A bad part — other than the very long timeline for existing chemicals — is that the chemical industry doesn't have to pay for testing. If Congress doesn't boost EPA's budget — not likely under Republican control — the agency will be handcuffed.
Another bad part: Certain states, most notably California, have stricter laws than the feds. The new bill preempts state laws, posing a problem for conservative “Tenthers,” who argue that the 10th Amendment requires the federal government to defer to state governments on any powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Say for example, regulating health care.
Check your kitchen or bathroom. Read the ingredients in, say, toilet bowl cleaners or dishwasher soap. Some ingredients, ammonia for example, you know aren't good for you. Others — 5-demethyldantoin and phenon, for example — you take on faith.
That's a mistake. How bad a mistake it may take the EPA another three millennia to determine. We'd argue that the president should veto this bill except it's better than nothing. This is a lousy standard for consumer protection.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-congress-passes-a-not-very-good-toxic-chemical-bill/article_80e83baf-f99f-5c21-921a-4a581fb9bf5b.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Snuffed Out: De Facto Death for Halogenated Flame Retardants

Jun 16, 2016 | Plastics Technology Magazine

By Tony Deligio

Jesse Dulek started his presentation with a question; How many in the audience liked to burn things growing up? As a product development engineer focused on FR technologies at custom compounder RTP Company, Winona, Minn., Dulek joked that his current job entailed him getting paid for trying to light things on fire, or more accurately, seeing which compounds can keep from igniting, melting or giving off smoke. In addition to running various materials through his own crucible, Dulek’s job also lets him gauge where technology is headed based on the latest promotions from the additive manufacturers he works with.

“I don't have any suppliers pushing new bromine-free products on me,” Dulek said, “it’s always halogen free. It’s really just a matter of time before halogen free takes over.” Speaking in Denver this May at RTP’s Engineered Plastics Workshop, Dulek and his RTP colleagues walked the attendees through various changes in an array of areas including filled plastics, coloring and, for his portion, flame retardants.

Dulek noted that the 2006 European Union passage of the RoHS (restriction of hazardous substances) directive, despite not directly dictating that FRs be halogen free, has had the effect of pushing halogenated products off the market. “The halogen free world is more complicated,” Dulek said. “We are see an evolution of economics and more and more halogen-free products coming out.”

Generally speaking, halogenated FRs work by inhibiting the chemical reaction in the gas or vapor phase as either an additive or a polymeric product. Non-halogen technologies include phosphorous, hydrated minerals or melamine cyanurate, with benefits and challenges to each.

While halogenated products in general offer lower costs, better processing, greater efficiency and higher physical properties, Dulek said halogen-free alternative have their own perks. Halogen-free products are improving in terms of ease of processing and reduced costs, with more developments on the horizon as new FR standards call for low smoke, low toxicity, less corrosiveness and a lower specific gravity—attributes that further promote halogen free.

Dulek said RoHS mostly impacted pigments, with a lessened effect on FR, specifically eliminating heavy metals like lead, mercury, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium from colorants, as well as polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers from FRs.

“There are still no global bans on use of halogens,” Dulek said, noting that RTP sees more self-policing. “If somebody doesn’t want them in there, we’re not in a position to deny them,” Dulek said. “All we can do is lay out the options. The biggest thing we need are new FR standards. In building or transportation, the standards are built around smoke, heat release, and toxicity, which drives towards halogen free.”

Despite no explicit bans, OEMs like HP, Dell and IBM have foresworn halogenated FRs, while labels like Blue Angel, White Swan, and Ecolabel specifically call out their elimination.
http://www.ptonline.com/blog/post/snuffed-out-de-facto-death-for-halogenated-flame-retardants

Return to headline | Return to top
Seac Agrees 29 Draft Opinions on Uses of Chromium VI

Jun 17, 2016 | Chemical Watch

Echa’s Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (Seac) has agreed 29 draft opinions on applications for authorisation, for uses of hexavalent chromium compounds.
This was at its two-week meeting, from 31 May to 9 June. The uses were mainly in the plating and electronics industries.
Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) also agreed 30 draft opinions on uses of chromium VI compounds, during its 23 May to 3 June meeting.
Both committees face a heavy workload with many more applications for authorisation for uses of the compounds.
Seac and Rac each agreed conformity checks on a further 14 applications. These are likely to be considered at the committees’ next meetings in September.
They also each approved one draft opinion on the use of 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC), and another on the use of bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (diglyme).
An increasing number of applications for use of these solvents are also in the wings. Each committee agreed conformity checks on eight EDC and six diglyme applications.
Draft opinions on these may be decided in September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48017/seac-agrees-29-draft-opinions-on-uses-of-chromium-vi

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Greens Blast Riders in Interior-EPA Spending Bill

Jun 16, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly, Scott Streater and Tiffany Stecker

A Senate spending bill that won committee approval earlier today could exempt the burning of wood and other biomass in some places from regulation as a carbon source.
The rider's inclusion in a fiscal 2017 appropriations measure for U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service won immediate praise from the forest products industry and criticism from environmentalists.CONTINUING COVERAGE
The Fiscal 2017 Budget & Appropriations continuing coverage is a one-stop resource for tracking the fiscal 2017 spending process for environmental and energy accounts. Click here to view E&E's continuing coverage.
The provision would bar EPA from regulating a plant that burns "forest biomass" if the Agriculture Department finds that regional timberland carbon stocks "are stable or increasing."
In a statement, Donna Harman, head of the American Forest & Paper Association, credited Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and said the provision would "ensure federal regulations recognize the atmospheric carbon-reducing benefits of biomass-based energy."
But environmental groups, which question whether biomass is carbon-neutral, fear that such provisions could undercut the Obama administration's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants.
The provision "would exempt biomass in certain regions from being regulated under the Clean Power Plan," Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director at Friends of the Earth, said in an interview.
Advertisement
The rider was one of a dozen that Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee unsuccessfully sought to strike today before the bill received committee approval on a 16-14 party-line vote (Greenwire, June 16).
As part of an overall $32.7 billion spending package, the measure would set aside a combined $2.37 billion for EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds, money that funds state loan programs for water infrastructure repairs. This is a 15 percent increase over the House's allocation for the programs and $113 million more than current spending levels. It also tops President Obama's $2 billion request for the programs.
The Clean Water SRF would receive $1.35 billion to upgrade sewage treatment plants and stormwater systems, slightly lower than the $1.39 billion in current spending but a generous 38 percent over the president's request. The House bill set aside $1 billion.
The Drinking Water SRF, which was thrust into the spotlight with the ongoing drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., would get $1.02 billion in the Senate spending plan, slightly less than in the House appropriation. This is an 18 percent jump from current spending amounts and level with the president's budget request.
The bill also would provide $30 million for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program to leverage Treasury bonds for large, expensive water infrastructure projects. This is $10 million over the president's request but $20 million below the House's allocation. This would be the first time the program would be fully funded since its 2014 enactment.
The bill would also reinstate $98.5 million for water quality testing at the nation's beaches. The last five federal budget requests have proposed to eliminate the program.
On a voice vote, the committee also approved an amendment by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would extend the "continuous operations requirement" for offshore oil and gas operators to one year, or twice the current maximum of 180 days.
In a news release, Cassidy said the Interior Department currently requires companies to conduct drilling and other operations within 180 days or the lease term expires. But as the time needed to drill wells has increased, Cassidy said that his amendment "allows operators adequate time to safely bring offshore wells into production."Sage grouse
Another rider unsuccessfully challenged by Democrats takes aim at greater sage grouse regulations.
The rider would forbid the Interior secretary from using any funds appropriated to the agency in fiscal 2017 to "write or issue" under the Endangered Species Act "a proposed rule for greater sage-grouse."
It would also forbid "a proposed rule for the Columbia Basin distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse." The Fish and Wildlife Service last year determined the birds in Washington state's Columbia River Basin were not a separate species listable for federal protection.
Specifically, it would block Fish and Wildlife from altering its determination last September that the greater sage grouse and Columbia Basin grouse do not warrant being listed for protection under ESA.
The rider is the latest effort by GOP leaders to undermine federal plans to protect grouse that Western congressional leaders and some governors say impose unnecessary restrictions that inhibit energy development and other uses on federal lands.
The service cited as a key reason not to list the grouse the strong federal plans that amend 98 Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land-use plans in 10 Western states to incorporate strong grouse protections. The federal plans also propose withdrawing 10 million acres of the most critical grouse habitat from new mining claims.
FWS officials said today that the language in the Senate rider, if enacted, would not impede the service's ability to implement the federal plans, which are the focus of numerous lawsuits from several states, local governments, the oil and gas and mining industries, and conservation groups.
But it would prevent the service from taking action if ongoing analysis of the grouse's condition were to change and FWS were to determine that the grouse should be listed for ESA protection.
The provision was not an issue of debate during the nearly two-hour markup, though Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee's ranking member, mentioned it as one of the 12 "poison pill riders" in the bill that he tried unsuccessfully to remove and that he said prevent him from supporting the bill.
And it was blasted today by environmental groups that warned that if approved, the rider would push the greater sage grouse closer to extinction.
Ingrid Seggerman, the government relations legislative analyst with Defenders of Wildlife, said "any legislative attempts to meddle with scientific listing decisions made by experts" at Fish and Wildlife "undermine the integrity" of the Endangered Species Act.
"A few in Congress are now considering throwing out all of the work accomplished by Westerners to create a collaborative and common-sense solution on this issue," added Nada Culver, senior director for agency policy and planning at the Wilderness Society. "Congress should give the sage grouse plans sufficient time to work, rather than try to dismantle them."
The Senate rider follows an amendment approved yesterday by the House Appropriations Committee, and included in its Interior funding bill, that would forbid the agency during fiscal 2017 from implementing the federal sage grouse management plans in states that already have a management plan approved by the governor.
The amendment, proposed by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), also would forbid withdrawing the 10 million acres from new mining claims.
And, like the Senate rider, it would prevent Fish and Wildlife in fiscal 2017 from altering its decision last fall not to list the bird for federal protection.
Amodei's amendment is similar to language in the House defense authorization bill approved last month that would prevent Interior from listing the grouse as endangered for 10 years. The bill would also empower states to block the federal management plans for the bird.
"The Senate rider seeks to block Endangered Species Act protections from being adopted, while the House rider gets rid of federal sage grouse plans entirely," said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist with WildEarth Guardians. "If these riders pass, the imperiled sage grouse will be left with no protections at all."Other directives
The committee sent more directives to agencies in an accompanying bill report. The report's provisions are not legally binding, but they are nonetheless meant to send a message about congressional concerns.
Unlike its House counterpart, for example, the Senate bill does not seek to delay implementation of EPA's ambient air quality standard for ozone adopted in October.
But in the report, the Senate panel voices concerns that some states could have to pursue the new 70-parts-per-billion standard while still working on attainment of the previous 75 ppb benchmark, which dates back to 2008.
Once the spending bill is signed into law, the report says, EPA would have 90 days to draft a report exploring options to let states enter into cooperative agreements "that provide regulatory relief and meaningfully clean up the air."
The report also expressed concern about Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement efforts to make sure companies reclaim mines to their approximate original contour. It asked for more information about OSMRE activities.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/16/stories/1060038962

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Panel Approves Divisive EPA Funding Bill

Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved rider-laden legislation to fund the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department at a June 16 markup.
Democrats criticized the set of controversial riders in the legislation, echoing aggressive criticisms made during a subcommittee markup June 14.
The legislation would prohibit funding for Superfund financial assurance rulemaking and delay implementation of the currently stayed Clean Water Rule for one year, among other policy riders.
“Unfortunately, the bill includes poison pill riders and significant funding cuts,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) ranking Democrat on the committee, said. “Therefore, I will not be able to support the bill.”
The $32 billion Interior, Environment and Related Agencies legislation, which may surface publicly the night of June 16, would fund the EPA at $8.1 billion, $31.2 million below enacted levels.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the Republican point-person for the bill, said the measure cuts back on EPA funding for programs that administer rules currently blocked by the courts, an implicit reference to the Clean Water Rule and the Clean Power Plan,
Floor Time
Following committee approval, the legislation is eligible for Senate floor action, but Sen. Dick Durbin(D-Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said that prospect is doubtful.
The riders mark a “tipping point,” Durbin said at the markup.
“It's quite likely this bill will never be considered on the floor because of these riders,” Durbin told colleagues. “It's unlikely that you'll have cloture on a motion to proceed on this bill because of [the riders], and it's sad because there are many parts of the bill which are very good.”
A spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg BNA that Republican leadership hasn't yet scheduled the legislation for floor consideration.
Senate appropriators have largely avoided controversial riders so far this appropriations process, in contrast to House counterparts.
The Interior-EPA funding bill was the 10th of 12 appropriations bills to move through committee, and the 11th bill, the financial services measure, sailed through committee with Democratic support following the Interior-EPA funding bill markup.
Mikulski called the Interior-EPA bill the “most contentious” of the 12.
Amendments Approved
The committee approved a manager's amendment package with bipartisan support, modifying the legislation to require a Fish and Wildlife Service report on wildlife trafficking and an EPA report on lead-contaminated dust and soil, among other changes.
Democrats and Republicans also rallied together to approve a measure, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), to boost funding for wildfire suppression.
The amendment would increase firefighting funds for the U.S. Forest Service by $490 million and the Interior Department by $171 million.
That brings total wildfire funding to $2.3 billion, the amount the Obama administration requested in its budget, Udall's office said after the markup.
Murkowski said the funding is a valuable stopgap but added a permanent solution for increased wildfire funding is needed.
“Fire borrowing, the practice that we have been engaged in, just doesn't work because in our effort to cover the costs of suppression, which can be considerable and can be uncertain from year to year, we raid the other accounts,” Murkowski said, referring to wildlife prevention funds and Forest Service recreational funds. “I think we're going to get to that place where we have a permanent fix that allows for the fire cap adjustment.”
Climate Change Link: Tester
Prior to the adoption of the amendment, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) criticized the committee for falling short on wildfire funding, saying that the rise in wildfires is linked to climate change.
“We will continue to spend more and more money on fire and other natural disasters because the season is getting longer, it's getting more severe, and we're not doing one thing, as a body, to help solve this problem,” Tester said. “The impacts of this long term are not good for humanity, and that is not an overstatement.”
The committee approved another amendment, authored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), to require the Interior Department to extend lease expiration dates for oil, gas and sulfur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf from six months to one year.
Lawmakers also approved an amendment, authored by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), to force the Interior Department to reestablish the Royalty Policy Committee, a body that advises the department on management of federal and Indian mineral revenues and leases.
Effort Fails on Stripping Out Riders
Udall failed to advance a measure to strip from the bill 12 controversial riders, including bans on threatened or endangered labeling for the lesser prairie chicken and the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.
That amendment failed 14-16 strictly along partisan lines. The full funding measure failed with the same vote tally.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92041989&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92041989&jd=92041989

Return to headline | Return to top
House Passes Defense Bill with Climate, Energy Riders

Jun 17, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Ariel Wittenberg

The House today killed a "zombie provision" in the defense spending bill requiring the Pentagon to ship coal from Pennsylvania to military bases in Germany.
The provision was removed from the bill due to the efforts of California Reps. Tom McClintock (R) and Jared Huffman (D), who offered an amendment on the floor yesterday to strike the language. That amendment passed in a vote of 268-153 today. The overall defense appropriations package passed shortly after in a vote of 282-138.
The shipments date back to the 1970s, a period Huffman described as "the deepest days of the Cold War and the golden era of congressional earmarks."
McClintock and Huffman were able to halt the practice in December with an amendment to the omnibus spending package, but the language on the coal shipments reappeared in the fiscal 2017 defense appropriations bill this spring (E&E Daily, May 12).
"I have to say this is a déjà vu moment," Huffman said on the House floor yesterday. "It just won't die."
The Pennsylvania delegation defended the shipments, saying they are now necessary to avoid relying on Russian energy to fuel American military bases.
"The amendment will place the energy needs of our military installations -- and, by the way, all the dependents of those families living there -- clearly in the hands of Russia," Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) said.
Advertisement
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin "has used Russian energy as a weapon in international politics before."
"We should not give him that power over our military assets," he said.
McClintock accused the Pennsylvania lawmakers of being hypocritical, noting that the fiscal 2017 defense authorization allows the Pentagon to use Russian rockets.
He also noted that American military bases could buy coal from Germany or Poland, and argued that the amendment was not meant to be a statement against coal as a fuel.
"I do not support the war on coal," he said. "But I do support the war on waste."
While lawmakers removed that energy rider from the bill, they voted to add two other provisions that would prevent the Pentagon from using any funding from the $517 billion spending bill to pay for renewable energy or climate resiliency programs.
One of those provisions, sponsored by McClintock, restricts the use of Pentagon funding for two Obama administration executive orders on renewable energy. It passed 221-197.
He said that defense dollars are too "scarce" to be wasted on renewable energy projects that are part of an "ideological agenda."
"We are told these programs are necessary to maintain flexibility," he said. "Well, shouldn't flexibility free us to get cheaper fuels than more expensive green ones?"
The second amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), prohibits the Department of Defense from spending funds on climate resilience. It passed 216-205.
Buck said current Pentagon policies make climate change into "one of our nation's greatest enemies," forcing generals and commanders to waste time and resources fighting climate change instead of more pressing threats like the Islamic State group and North Korea.
"With ISIS and its ideology attacking our homeland, now is the time to focus on our imminent defense requirements, because climate change is not an enemy of the United States," he said. "ISIS and its anti-American ideology is our enemy. China and Russia are our enemies. North Korea and Iran are our enemies."
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) tried unsuccessfully to fight both amendments, arguing that climate change presents a true national security risk and that renewable energy is necessary for the Pentagon.
"It is imperative that we do not hamstring our military, who is defending our interests in a changing global environment," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/16/stories/1060038951

Return to headline | Return to top
Dems Skeptical of Interior-EPA Bill Ever Reaching Senate Floor

Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Sean Reilly

Against a backdrop of stark partisan division, Senate appropriators yesterday approved a $32.7 billion bill to fund U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service through the next fiscal year.
The question now is whether the measure has a prayer of going any further.
No, predicted Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. It has been years since an Interior-Environment appropriations bill has made it to the full Senate. This round will probably be no different, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said during yesterday's markup (Greenwire, June 16).SPECIAL SERIES
The Fiscal 2017 Budget & Appropriations Report is a one-stop resource for tracking the fiscal 2017 spending process for environmental and energy accounts. Click hereto view the report.
"It's quite likely that this bill will never be considered on the floor because of the riders," Durbin said in reference to provisions that would block key Obama administration environmental regulations, give special treatment to biomass as a carbon source and allow construction of a contested gravel road through a national wildlife refuge in Alaska.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee, staunchly defended the policy add-ons, saying that some had bipartisan support and that the labeling of others as "poison-pill" was "probably in the eye of the beholder."
In an interview afterward, Murkowski said leaders had not given an indication of when they may want to bring the bill up for consideration. How Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "is going to queue them up has always been his call," she said.
But Murkowski acknowledged that the partisan vibe surrounding the bill -- which cleared the committee on a 16-14 vote -- isn't a plus. "It doesn't make it impossible, but it does make it more difficult," she said.
Advertisement
The Senate measure is notably more restrained that its House counterpart in its use of riders. It does not attempt, for example, to block or delay the administration's Clean Power Plan, newly issued methane regulations on the oil and industry, or a recently adopted air quality standard for ozone.
But its recommended spending levels reflect lawmakers' continuing struggle to live within budget caps that remain tight by historical standards.
While Murkowski touted a proposed 18 percent increase in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -- which helps pay for water projects -- she noted that increases in some programs have to be offset with cuts in others.
One such area is the core of EPA's budget. Under the bill, spending on clean air and climate programs would drop 10 percent from $273.1 million to $245.8 million, according the report accompanying the measure. The agency's enforcement budget would face a similar percentage reduction to $216.6 million.
By way of explanation, Murkowski said the bill targeted EPA initiatives that are responsible for generating regulations like the Clean Power Plan that are now tied up in court.
"What we did is we provided funding that focuses the agency specifically to clean up the environment," she said.
Not persuaded was Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, the Appropriation Committee's top Democrat, who cited the proposed cuts and the riders in explaining her decision to oppose the bill.
Bottom-line pressures show up in other areas. The bill would fund the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at $300 million, or $50 million above the White House's request. The program is a priority for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who is running for re-election this year and is widely considered the Senate's most endangered incumbent.
Like its House counterpart, the Senate version zeros out a "multipurpose" grant program kick-started last year with a $21 million infusion to help states implement environmental programs they deem a priority. Because EPA opted to implement the program "in a manner that was not flexible," the report says, the appropriations committee chose not to keep the money flowing.
There was one major exception to the bill's parsimonious approach: the committee's bipartisan decision yesterday to add $661 million to federal wildfire management programs. But that extra money is designated as "emergency" funding, meaning that the budget caps don't apply (see related story).
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/17/stories/1060038977

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Proposes Climate Rule Incentives Despite Court Hold

Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration is moving ahead with an incentive program for its contentious climate change rule, despite the Supreme Court’s action halting the regulation.
Under the program, known as the Clean Energy Incentive Program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would give states compliance credits for renewable energy and efficiency projects that are undertaken earlier than the Clean Power Plan would require them.
It’s meant to be a carrot to the stick of the Clean Power Plan and to try to get some significant deployment of renewables and efficiency projects before the regulation kicks in in 2022.
“Taking these steps will help cut carbon pollution by encouraging investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will help give our kids and grandkids a healthier and safer future,” Janet McCabe, head of the EPA’s air pollution office, said in a Thursday statement.
The basic details of the incentive program were outlined when the climate rule was made final last August, but Thursday’s announcement formally proposes more details about it.
The climate rule itself, which seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions, is under a judicial stay from the Supreme Court’s February 2016 order.
But the EPA believes that actions like the incentive program and helping states voluntarily comply with the regulation are permissible under the court stay — an opinion Republicans and the rule’s opponents disagree with.
“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,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a hearing last week about the issue.
Following formal publication of the Thursday proposal in the Federal Register, the EPA will take comments from the public for 60 days before considering them and making the program final.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283776-epa-proposes-climate-rule-incentives-despite-court-hold

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Proposes Clean Energy Incentive Program

Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding new hydropower and geothermal generation to the criteria of projects eligible to receive emissions reductions credits under a voluntary program that would reward states that choose to make early investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy in preparation for the Clean Power Plan.
The EPA June 16 released its proposed design details for states that want to implement the voluntary Clean Energy Incentive Program (RIN:2060-AS84), which provides additional emissions allowances or emission rate credits to states for eligible projects before the Clean Power Plan would take effect in 2022.
The program is intended to reward states that take early action to prepare for the EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), which sets limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector in each state.
The Clean Energy Incentive Program would reward projects with two emissions credits for every megawatt-hour of electricity demand reduced through energy efficiency in low-income communities beginning Sept. 6, 2018, and one credit for each megawatt-hour of zero emissions generation for projects that begin commercial operation after Jan. 1, 2010.
Additionally, the EPA would provide additional matching credits up to the equivalent of 300 million short tons of carbon dioxide emissions reductions to be distributed to states on a prorated basis.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the Clean Power Plan until it can be litigated, the EPA said it believes it still has the authority to propose the Clean Energy Incentive Program because it is a voluntary effort and acknowledged the dates in the proposed rule may need to be adjusted depending on how the litigation fares.
EPA ‘Skirting' Stay
Republicans have repeatedly accused the EPA of circumventing the stay by continuing its work on activities related to the Clean Power Plan, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program.
“By choosing to advance the president's climate agenda despite its pending legal status, EPA is not only skirting the law, it is wasting significant taxpayer dollars while putting American jobs at risk,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said in a statement.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also called on states to ignore the EPA's incentive program.
However, at least 14 states have asked the EPA for assistance in their voluntary preparations should the Clean Power Plan be upheld. That request included assistance on the Clean Energy Incentive Program.
‘Prudent' to Propose Action Now
“It is prudent to propose this action now in order to assist those states that have decided to move forward and who are contemplating participation in the CEIP, so that they have the requisite tools and information for doing so,” the EPA said.
“While this proposal generally will be helpful to those who are interested in participating in the CEIP, because the CEIP is an optional program, relies on voluntary measures, and will not become available to the states until the stay is lifted, this proposal will not disadvantage any party (including those who have decided to await the resolution of the litigation prior to acting to develop their state plans).”
Though states said they are still reviewing the details of the EPA's proposal, clean energy advocates proposed the incentive program as a necessary tool to drive additional investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. However, some advocates said even more could be done.
“We are hoping that EPA will extend the program period, expand the resources that are eligible for use, and otherwise provide more encouragement for states to take advantage of the program and enjoy the economic benefits,” Matt Stanberry, vice president of market development for Advanced Energy Economy, said in a statement.
Comments on Proposal
The EPA will accept comments on the proposed incentive program for 60 days after it's published in the Federal Register. Comment can be made at http://www.regulations.gov and should reference Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0033.
The EPA also will hold a public hearing on the proposal Aug. 3 in Chicago at the Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building at 77 West Jackson Boulevard.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92041984&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92041984&jd=92041984

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Proposes ESPS Clean Energy Incentive Program

Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA is formally proposing its Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) -- the early action incentive program for its signature power plant greenhouse gas rule -- brushing aside concerns from critics that the agency's work on the measure violates a high court stay on the power plant rule and that the agency lacks authority to develop the rule.
The agency June 16 unveiled the proposal, providing additional design elements for a measure intended “to help states meet their goals under the plan by encouraging early investments in zero-emitting renewable energy generation, and by removing barriers to investment in energy efficiency and solar measures in low-income communities.”
Officials are hosting webinars on the measure June 16 for environmental justice stakeholders, with additional webinars June 28 for states and another July 19 for community groups, the agency announced. The agency will hold a public hearing on the proposal Aug. 3 in Chicago.
The CEIP is a voluntary incentive program for EPA's power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS) under which states would receive compliance credits during the two years prior to the rule's compliance period for solar and wind projects and for energy efficiency projects in low-income areas.
But opponents to the ESPS have taken aim at EPA's work on the CEIP, charging that it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court stay of the rule pending resolution of legal challenges.
Speaking to Inside EPA after a Senate hearing last week, industry attorney Allison Wood, with Hunton & Williams, noted that once the proposed CEIP is published, it triggers a notice and comment -- effectively requiring action for states and utilities.
“If this were only something that were being given to states that wanted to work and didn’t affect the states that didn’t, that would be OK,” Wood said. But because the proposed CEIP will trigger a comment period, “if you’re a state that didn’t want to be working during the stay, you have to pick up your pen and write comments and evaluate this rule, otherwise if at the end of the day the rule comes back, you’re going to be in a position where you didn’t have any opportunity to have any input on this part of the program,” she said.
Others, like Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, have charged that the agency lacks legal authority to develop such a rule.
According to EPA's release, the new CEIP proposal offers stakeholders opportunity to comment on a number of the program's design elements -- including project eligibility, flexibility around how to define a “low-income community” and the manner in which CEIP allowances should be made available.
“For nearly a year we have collaborated with communities and other stakeholders, listening closely to ideas about how to design a range of elements of the CEIP. Today's proposal keeps that conversation moving forward,” EPA's acting air chief Janet McCabe said in a statement.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-proposes-esps-clean-energy-incentive-program

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Details Plans to Give States Credit for Early Progress

Jun 17, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Reilly

U.S. EPA released a proposal today for a voluntary program to give states and tribes credit for taking early action under the Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) proposal would award states for "zero-emitting" renewable energy projects in all communities, and solar and energy efficiency measures in low-income communities.
States would need the projects in place before 2022. That's when they are supposed to start reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the final Clean Power Plan.
"Today's proposal will help guide states and tribes that choose to participate in the program when the Clean Power Plan becomes effective," EPA acting air chief Janet McCabe said today.
The proposal outlines criteria for types of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that would be eligible, expanding the list of projects for which states could receive credit. It would also allow states and tribes to define "low-income" for efforts to help those communities.
EPA today laid out how the agency would dole out a pool of allowances and emissions rate credits equal to 300 million short tons of carbon dioxide to participating jurisdictions. The agency proposed making half of the pool available for low-income projects.
The CEIP was designed as "a clear way to get infrastructure investment into low-income communities," McCabe said.
Advertisement
States would then provide those allowances and credits, which are the compliance instruments for the Clean Power Plan, to providers of renewable energy and low-income projects.
Included in today's proposal is example text on the CEIP that states can incorporate into plans they submit to EPA.
The agency will accept comments on the proposal for 60 days after it's published in the Federal Register. EPA also intends to hold a public hearing in Chicago on Aug. 3 -- exactly one year after it announced the final Clean Power Plan.Rule 'will be upheld'
EPA first released some details of the CEIP in the final Clean Power Plan. But, in a 5-4 decision in February, the Supreme Court froze the rule until complex litigation is resolved.
Agency officials, however, have said they would continue to roll out the CEIP and model rules to guide states on emissions trading programs.
Congressional Republicans, state officials who are challenging the Clean Power Plan and industry critics have accused EPA of trying to work around the high court stay by continuing to work on the related programs.
"EPA's blatant disregard for the rule of law and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the harmful Clean Power Plan is its latest assault against energy-producing states like West Virginia," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said today in a statement.
"By choosing to advance the president's climate agenda despite its pending legal status, EPA is not only skirting the law, it is wasting significant taxpayer dollars while putting American jobs at risk."
Capito floated an amendment to appropriations legislation this morning to block spending on programs like the CEIP. She ended up withdrawing it.
EPA defended today's proposal as "consistent" with the Supreme Court's order.
While McCabe noted that states do not have to comply with the program while the stay is in place, she said that "EPA firmly believes that the Clean Power Plan will be upheld when the merits are considered by the courts."
The Supreme Court, she added, "did not tell EPA to halt all work related to the Clean Power Plan."
Fourteen states earlier this spring requested that the agency provide more information about the CEIP.
Today's proposal contains some changes from details EPA released last year. McCabe said the changes reflected conversations with stakeholders and informal comments that EPA received.
EPA received more than 5,000 comments in a nonregulatory docket, held four listening sessions and had dozens of meetings on the CEIP.Timelines unclear
Among the changes in today's release: EPA proposed expanding the types of projects that are eligible for early-action credit.
The new list of eligible projects includes community and residential solar projects in low-income communities, along with energy efficiency projects.
EPA also expanded its list of zero-emitting renewable energy technologies to include geothermal and hydropower along with solar and wind energy.
Renewable energy projects would be eligible for credit if they begin commercial operation in 2020 and 2021, in contrast to the final Clean Power Plan, which said that projects can get credit when they "commence construction."
Low-income energy efficiency projects would be eligible after Sept. 6, 2018, when they begin "delivering quantifiable and verifiable electricity savings."
EPA said it could adjust time frames in the CEIP depending on progress and the ruling surrounding Clean Power Plan litigation.
But EPA also maintained that, at this point, "it's not clear whether and to what extent" the Clean Power Plan's deadlines may be tolled if the rule is eventually upheld.
Advanced Energy Economy, a business association that promotes renewable energy and energy efficiency, applauded the release of the proposal.
"The CEIP is an important program that promises to accelerate investment in the electric power system and reduce the cost of compliance with the Clean Power Plan for states and customers," Matt Stanberry, the association's vice president of market development, said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/16/stories/1060038961

Return to headline | Return to top
Election May be Pivotal for Energy Projects

Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Hannah Northey

When presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's senior policy adviser Stephen Miller took the stage in Georgia this week to welcome the billionaire mogul, he quickly pivoted to energy.
"[Hillary Clinton] will put our unions out of work," Miller said to a shouting sea of supporters at the Fox Theatre in downtown Atlanta. "She wants to shut down the coal mines, she wants to shut down fossil fuels, she wants to put millions of union workers out of work."
As the fight over energy policy in the upcoming presidential election heats up, one issue has emerged as a lightning rod among conservatives, liberals, industry and environmentalists: pipelines.
Developers of oil and gas projects have complained in recent months of growing opposition in the environmental community, triggering longer environmental reviews. That slowdown is also affecting union workers seeking to capitalize on the country's newfound shale plays.
But activists energized by the demise of the Keystone XL pipeline and the administration's increasingly public skepticism of fossil fuels, say their fight is just beginning.
Advertisement
"I cannot imagine in an industry who is more at risk than the pipeline guys," said Mike McKenna, a Republican political strategist on energy issues. "I think it's probably the most unwritten story of this election cycle. I think energy in general but really specifically pipelines."
Activists opposed to the proliferation of gas and oil infrastructure agree. Many of them are backing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has shifted to the left on energy issues in recent months in an effort to defeat Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.
"We are at a fork in the road, and if Secretary Clinton is elected, I think you'll see a major shift to massive clean energy build out," said Jane Kleeb, founder of Bold Nebraska and a prominent voice opposed to the KXL pipeline.
"If Donald Trump is elected," she said, "our communities will continue to be sacrifice zones and our farmland will continue to be taken away for fossil fuel corporations."
KXL has for years been a favorite election year talking point, particularly for Republicans. But this time around, the debate involves a whole range of projects. And the candidates' comments on the issue stand in stark contrast.
Clinton has criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for failing to fully weigh concerns about climate change and the impacts of energy development on communities, a move environmentalists praised (Greenwire, Oct. 21, 2015).
At a stop in New Hampshire earlier this year, greens applauded the way Clinton was "echoing" their concerns when she criticized federal pipeline reviews for failing to give enough weight to public opinion in areas along the route of proposed gas pipelines.
But, an industry source pointed out, Clinton continues to support natural gas as a bridge fuel cleaner than coal and a way for the country to meet its 2025 international climate commitment. She may also move a tad more to the center during the general election.
What's more, Clinton faces a delicate balance in attempting to appease both environmental groups and unions. In the latest skirmish of a long simmering disagreement, a number of building trade unions blasted the AFL-CIO for partnering with billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer (Greenwire, June 8).
The building unions -- including the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) and the International Union of Operating Engineers -- accuse Steyer of threatening union jobs through his staunch opposition to fossil fuels and projects like KXL (E&E Daily, May 17).
LIUNA was particularly vocal in supporting the pipeline from Canada, which Steyer opposed. But the group is supporting Clinton, even though she also spoke out against the project.
"It's a difficult issue for Democrats, there's no doubt," said Brian Obach, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York. "The instances are rare and in the vast majority of cases, there's clear, common ground between unions and environmentalists in terms of generating jobs and protecting the environment."
Democrats, Obach said, can stave off some of that potential contradiction by staying on the message of job creation through environmental initiatives and clean energy, something that Clinton has focused on.Focus on eminent domain
When it comes to pro-development Republicans, McKenna said Trump "scrambles the egg in many different ways."
The Republican standard-bearer supports the use of eminent domain for projects and has publicly said he leans toward approving a surge of proposed oil and gas pipelines that are cropping up across the United States.
"My basic bias would be to approve" pipelines, Trump said during a rally in North Dakota last month before unveiling his energy policy menu (E&E Daily, May 27). And even though union leaders have denied it, the mogul says his point of view will lead workers to defect to his camp.
Some analysts say the next president will have little sway over the existing pipeline permitting regime. At the same time industry sources, many of whom are hesitant to talk about Trump in public, pointed out the White House can influence regulation by appointing a new chairman at FERC or pushing legislative changes.
Kleeb said activists are taking the fight to both the state and national stage. On the local level, her group is mobilizing a national network of pipeline fighters with directors in Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana and Oklahoma.
Nationally, Kleeb and other activists are using the issue of eminent domain as a weapon to turn people against fossil fuel infrastructure and attract conservative landowners.
Ultimately, Kleeb said she'd like to see legislation to end the use of eminent domain, especially in states like Virginia, West Virginia and North Dakota where landowner fights are taking root. Industry sources, however, said that's not likely to happen.
"It's obviously my goal that eminent domain become a issue in the presidential campaign and I definitely think it can," Kleeb said. "There's real potential of making this a big campaign issue, expressly in a swing state like Virginia, especially if Clinton picks [Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine] as her [vice president]."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/17/stories/1060038980

Return to headline | Return to top
House GOP Agenda Seeks More Oversight of Agencies, Spending

Jun 17, 2016 | E&E Daily

By George Cahlink

Warning that U.S. EPA is regulating mud puddles and that other agencies are spending money unchecked, congressional Republicans yesterday called for far more legislative oversight.
The GOP push is part of a choreographed, political effort by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to outline a conservative platform GOP lawmakers can run on this fall. Already, Ryan has outlined plans for combating poverty and rolling back regulatory rules (E&E Daily, June 15); an outline for a tax code overhaul is due in the coming weeks.
"This agenda represents a very clear choice that we are offering to the American people," Ryan said yesterday in announcing the latest effort. He said Congress has "forfeited the game" by yielding far too much clout to the executive branch and called for renewed legislative oversight of federal agencies, rules and spending.
Several GOP lawmakers singled out EPA for criticism.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the chairwoman of the House GOP conference, said EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule amounts to regulating "mud puddles." Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) warned the proposed Clean Power Plan would sharply increase utility rates in his state. And Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) warned EPA is funding anti-farm advocacy efforts.
"If we don't insist that rules and regulations had to be reviewed with us before they are implemented, not after, people are going to be harmed, and if we do, [then] citizens are going to be empowered," said House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Bishop said congressional oversight committees need to regularly authorize all agencies and the programs they oversee. He said authorization language must be tightly written to prevent giving them "carte blanche" authority in writing federal rules.
Several lawmakers said having the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," orREINS Act, signed into law is a priority.
Under the bill, Congress would need to approve major rules costing $100 million or more within 70 days after receiving them from federal agencies. If Congress didn't act to approve rules, they wouldn't take effect.
The House has passed the measure repeatedly in recent years with the Senate yet to take it up. The White House has said it would veto the bill, which it says marks a "radical departure from the long-standing separation of powers."
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said Congress can exercise its greatest authority over agencies through the "power of the purse." He said when Congress fails to pass all 12 spending bills, it is ceding authority to the executive branch.
Rogers also called for other changes in the appropriations process, including giving Congress a greater say in mandatory spending and eliminating a 60-vote threshold in the Senate for overcoming filibusters on spending bills. He also said agencies that spend money not appropriated by Congress should be held accountable for violating the law.
Democrats fired back by denouncing the GOP's "better way" agenda as the "wrong way."
"Our Constitution is not under assault from some kind of executive overreach. Rather, our system of government is under threat from a majority in the House and Senate that seems bent on shutting down our government, holding nominees in monthslong limbo ... and ignoring action on the most pressing issues facing our country," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/17/stories/1060038982

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation News

Stop Oil by Rail in Our State, Oregon Asks U.S. Regulator

Jun 16, 2016 | Reuters

Oregon has called for federal regulators to ban trains carrying oil in the state, ramping up pressure for more stringent safety checks weeks after an oil train derailed near Portland, the first major oil-by-rail accident in a year.
In a letter to the Federal Railroad Administration dated June 8, the Oregon Department of Transportation said preliminary findings of an investigation suggested inspectors might not be able to determine the cause.
In the accident, a Union Pacific train carrying crude oil derailed, burst into flames and spilled crude along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge. Nobody was injured.
A preliminary investigation suggested a failure with a bolt that fastened the rail to the railroad ties.
A spokesman for the FRA said the agency will respond to the letter.
Oregon is the first U.S. state to request such a move, although environmental lobbyists have called for years for a moratorium on oil trains after a series of explosive accidents.
Lac Megantic, in Canada's Quebec province, issued a moratorium on crude-by-rail in the town after a disastrous accident killed 47 people in 2013.
Washington State Governor Jay Inslee on Thursday renewed calls in a letter to the Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx for the government to lower speed limits for oil trains, speed up the switch to newer tank cars and introduce electronic brakes.
Experts said it was unlikely federal authorities would enforce ban such as Oregon requested.
"The states could do it on their own. I don't know that the FRA necessarily would," said Tom Williamson, who owns Transportation Consultants.
"We move a lot of products in this country that are a lot more hazardous than crude oil."
Washington State does not believe it has the authority to call a moratorium on oil trains, a spokeswoman for Inslee said. The state passed a law last year requiring operators to notify first responders when a train was entering the state.
QUEBEC TO OREGON
Oregon does not have any refineries, but its railroads carry crude from major U.S. producing hubs like North Dakota to feed refineries in Washington to the north. Five refineries with combined capacity 800,000 barrels per day operate there.
"If there's a successful ban on crude-by-rail, it's going to be displaced, and we will get crude over the water," Marcia Nielsen, a spokeswoman for U.S. Oil & Refining Co, which operates a refinery in Tacoma, Washington.
Rail shipments have dipped from more than 1 million barrels per day in 2014 as a result of the lengthy slump in oil prices, but this month's crash reignited calls for tighter safety regulations even as train operators prepare for new laws, which come into effect in 2018.
TRAIN CAUTION
BNSF railroad urged caution against a blanket ban that would impede interstate commerce.
"It is important to remember that hazardous materials are an essential part of providing for public safety and health, and for driving our economy," a spokeswoman for the company, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, said in a statement.
"Preventing these trains from getting to their destinations could have a negative impact on Washington's ability to provide reliable fuel that drives the state's economy."
The company said it has also been developing predictive analytics to discover potential issues before they arise.
Justin Jacobs, a spokesman for Union Pacific, said the company would continue to transport crude oil safely and according to federal law.
"We absolutely understand the concerns out there. We take them very seriously. Safety is a top priority," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-oregon-oil-rail-idUSL1N1982KH

Return to headline | Return to top
PHMSA Issues Corrective Order to Plains Pipeline

Jun 17, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

Plains All American Pipeline LP must provide a long-term plan to address corrosion prevention and take other corrective actions before it can restart a California pipeline that ruptured in 2015 spilling 140,000 gallons of crude oil along the Santa Barbara coast, a federal regulator said.
“I find that continued operation of Line 901 and Line 903 without additional corrective measures is or would be hazardous to life, property or the environment,” the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in a corrective order issued June 16.
Other requirements before the Houston-based company can restart the pipeline include a remedial work plan and a restart plan, the agency said.
The agency previously said corrosion that thinned the walls of the pipeline was among the factors that caused its failure and subsequently led a California grand jury to indict the company on criminal charges.

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Senate Panel Clears EPA Spending Bill, Blocking Rules

Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an Interior Department and environment spending bill on Thursday, but Democrats have already vowed to block it on the floor.
The bill would provide $32 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department programs, about $1 billion less than President Obama requested in his budget and slightly below House Republicans' target.
Democrats oppose the lower spending levels, but particularly the policy changes within the measure.
“These poison pill riders and some of these deep cuts to the environment mean I cannot support" the bill, ranking member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), said.
The legislation blocks the EPA’s Clean Water Rule — previously called the "waters of the United States" rule — and some mining and endangered species regulations.
The committee voted down a Democratic amendment to get rid of those riders, with Republican members saying the measures are necessary to stop Obama administration policies they oppose.
“This bill cuts areas of the EPA’s regulatory budget where the EPA has overstepped its boundaries,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Thursday.
“What constitutes a ‘poison pill rider’ is probably in the eyes of the beholder,” she added.
Democrats vowed to work on the measure with Republicans as the bill makes its way to the floor. But senior Democrats said the riders mean the bill likely won’t make it that far.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of his party's leadership, said Democrats won’t put up the votes necessary to bring the legislation to the floor without changes.
“I believe you have reached a tipping point with these riders,” he said to Murkowski. “I believe it is quite likely this bill will never be considered on the floor.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283755-senate-panel-clears-epa-spending-bill-blocking-rules

Return to headline | Return to top
Chaffetz Seeks to Hold Obama Official in Contempt Over Water Rule

Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) wants to hold a high-ranking Obama administration official in contempt of Congress over his response to an investigation into a contentious water pollution rule.
He is accusing Howard Shelanski, head of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), of withholding documents related to OIRA’s involvement in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Rule.
Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, subpoenaed Shelanski in July 2015 for a wide range of documents regarding the rule, four months after Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) first formally requested the information at a subcommittee hearing.
While Shelanski has produced thousands of pages of requested documents, he still hasn’t handed over everything Chaffetz has sought.
A video the committee released Wednesday charges that “eleven months later, OIRA has failed to produce all of the requested documents.”
In a resolution introduced Wednesday night, Chaffetz said Shelanski’s “unwillingness and inability to work in good faith to comply with the subpoena interfered with the committee’s investigation” into the regulation issued last year, and he and his staff “are withholding key documents from the committee — the volume of which is unknown except to OIRA, because Mr. Shelanski and his staff refused to provide basic information about the universe of responsive documents.”
The contempt motion is the latest in a string of attempts by Republicans to punish executive branch officials for not cooperating.
The GOP-led House voted to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012, and did the same for former IRS official Lois Lerner in 2014. Chaffetz’ committee voted Wednesday to censure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
If the House approves the Shelanski resolution, it would trigger a request to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Channing Phillips, that Shelanski be prosecuted. Neither Holder nor Lerner was punished as a result of their contempt votes.
The Oversight Committee has long been investigating the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) development of the water rule, also known as “waters of the United States.” It was finalized last year, asserting federal control over small waterways like wetlands and headwaters for pollution control purposes.
Republicans charge that the rule is overly broad and gives the federal government power over too much state and private property. The EPA and Democrats have pushed back, saying it is necessary to protect important waterways that provide drinking water, recreation and other major uses.
The regulation is currently on hold and the EPA cannot enforce it while the federal courts consider a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn it.
The committee will vote on the contempt proposal June 23 and vote on whether to send it to the full House.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283723-gop-chairman-seeks-to-hold-obama-official-in-contempt-over-water

Return to headline | Return to top
WOTUS Document Dump Looms Large for Court Challenge

Jun 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro

By Annie Snider

Whether or not Congress votes to hold a White House official in contempt over documents related to the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule next week, opponents of the controversial regulation have already scored a victory on one important front: building their legal arsenal against it.
The courtroom fight over WOTUS is set to heat up in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals this summer, and EPA's critics now have a lot more administration documents at their disposal after the Office of Management and Budget turned over 13,000 pages of subpoenaed communications relating to the rulemaking to House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) yesterday. Including previously released documents, that brings Chaffetz's trove to about 33,000 pages, and the OMB has promised to fork over the entirety of its record within a week.
Congress' ability to obtain documents is a big help to the state and industry groups that are challenging WOTUS in court, since they can't compel the government to make anything that's considered deliberative public. But Congress' subpoena powers reach more broadly, and once a government agency hands documents over to Congress, the committee chairman can make them public.
Dozens of states, farm groups and industries have challenged the rule defining which streams and wetlands are subject to Clean Water Act protections, with the appellate cases consolidated in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last October, that court stayed the EPA rule and judges there are now preparing to dive into the main arguments.
Chaffetz has already released internal memos from the Army Corps of Engineers that detail experts' concerns with the rule and the process around it, and EPA's opponents are fighting to include them in their lawsuit.
"We stand for openness and transparency. I think the American people have a right to see these documents," Chaffetz said in an interview Wednesday.
It's not uncommon for critics of a regulation to piggyback on their congressional allies' oversight authority, according to Stanley Brand, who served as general counsel to the House of Representatives under Speaker Tip O'Neill and now teaches at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law.
"It’s what I call the phenomenon of parallelism: You have litigation going and you have people going to Congress and stimulating Congress to do oversight," he said. "Now those are two separate, independent processes, but they can get tangled up and they can complicate each process."
Notably, the White House Office of Management and Budget has so far not moved to hold back any documents related to the WOTUS rule, also called the Clean Water Rule.
Often agencies claim executive privilege or classify documents as "deliberative" in order to avoid handing them over to opponents in Congress. But in a letter to Chaffetz Wednesday, a top agency staffer said OMB "does not expect to withhold documents from the Committee," although she left the door open to doing so at the behest of other agencies.
Brand said political considerations are always at play in such a decisions.
"Executive privilege is a dirty word and they don’t want to utter it. It sounds Nixonian, so they try to avoid using the word executive privilege at all costs," he said.
It's not clear what the mountain of documents OMB has handed over to the committee may hold — Chaffetz said his staff is only beginning to dig in to the latest batch. But Paul Beard, an attorney at Alston & Bird, LLP, said that anything pointing to confusion between the agencies or dissension in the ranks could be useful in the court case to kill the rule.
"I think the overarching theme will be that there was confusion, even among the agencies — that there was lack of coordination and that that confusion and lack of coordination didn't result in any kind of reasoned rule that could be upheld under the [Administrative Procedures Act]," he said.
But even if opponents find smoking-gun documents to that effect, they won't automatically be introduced into the legal fight. The courtroom battle is limited to the administrative record, which typically consists of formal agency research and reports, as well as the public comments and agency responses to them from the notice and comment period. Plaintiffs would have to convince the judge to admit additional documents like internal emails or memos.
Jamison Colburn, a former EPA litigator who now teaches at Penn State Law, said the bar for adding informal communications to the administrative record is high, based on an influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision.
The judge in that case "went out of her way to say, when it comes right down to It, notice and comment rulemaking does have two records: There’s the record that’s the paper record that the public gets to see, and then there are all the off-the-record conversations that go on, and when those conversations are between the president and his subordinates, the judiciary doesn’t have any sort of demand for those conversations," he said.
There have been exceptions. For instance, environmental groups convinced a judge to enter communications between a George W. Bush Interior Department official and FIsh and Wildlife Service biologists into the administrative record in a case arguing undue political influence in Endangered Species Act decisions. But Colburn noted that the ESA has unusually rigorous standards for its listing decisions, which are quite different from the standards under the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedures Act that will be at play in the WOTUS case.
The document fight will hit fever pitch soon. The 6th Circuit aims to have all briefs on the issue filed by the end of July, and it anticipates a decision by the court on what to include in the administrative record within 30 days of receiving all the briefs.
For his part, Chaffetz says that timeline isn't driving his efforts.
"We’ve been pursuing this since early 2015, this isn’t a sudden newfound interest. This is something that’s been lingering for more than a year," he said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/court-battle-looms-large-in-wotus-document-battle-120563

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested