Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/27

Congressional Hearings

Hearing on EPA Enforcement Oversight
Jun 29, 2016 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight

Location: 406 Dirksen / 2:30 PM

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 'Uncertainty' Surrounds Louisiana’s Ninth-Llargest Trade Partner, Major In-State Investor Following Brexit
Jun 24, 2016 | The New Orleans Advocate
By Ted Griggs and Timothy Boone

The only thing certain about Britain’s exit from the European Union is “uncertainty” for a country that is Louisiana’s ninth-largest trading partner and a major investor in the state.
(ACC Mentioned) US Stock Indices Fall Over 3% After UK Exit Vote
Jun 24, 2016 | ICIS

US stock indices fell by more than 3% on Friday in one of their steepest losses in months, with shares for many chemical companies falling by over 6%.
After Brexit, Chemical Companies Urged to Review Contracts
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers located outside the European Economic Area, but exporting to it, should review contractual relationships in their supply chain to determine whether they have any U.K. operations responsible for complying with European Union regulations, a Steptoe & Johnson LLP attorney said June 24.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Update of Law on Toxic Chemicals, Years in the Making, A Victory
Jun 24, 2016 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Carolyn Lochhead

Four years ago, retired San Francisco firefighter Tony Stefani, stricken with a rare form of pelvic cancer tied to flame retardants, sat before a Senate committee as a living example of how the federal government allowed tens of thousands of potentially toxic chemicals to be used in household products that Americans assumed were safe.
Toxics Law May Give Some Regulatory Relief
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Car, engine and printed circuit board manufacturers are among the companies that may get some regulatory relief from the newly amended chemicals law, according to industry officials.
Reformed Bill Gives EPA Teeth to Tackle Toxic Chemicals
Jun 24, 2016 | Ag Web

Back in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was first enacted. But it’s never had the power it truly needed until President Obama signed a bipartisan bill into law that reforms TSCA so it requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear, enforceable deadlines.

Energy News

Week Ahead: Wait Drags on for Energy Talks
Jun 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry

The Senate is the only show in town in the coming week, meaning the energy world's eyes will be trained on the chamber, looking for signs of movement on an energy reform package.
Senators Look to Make Progress on Energy, Spending
Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and George Cahlink

Senate negotiators will continue talks on a possible conference with the House on energy legislation this week, along with pressing forward on spending legislation and Puerto Rico relief.
Briefing Halted in Power Plant Carbon Rule Lawsuit
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

A federal court halted briefing in challenges to carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants over the objections of the Environmental Protection Agency to allow consolidation of additional lawsuits expected to be filed (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 6/24/16).
Court Delays Fight Over New Power Plant Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender

Federal judges sided with U.S. EPA's critics today as they agreed to push back court action in a case challenging the agency's greenhouse gas rules for new power plants.
Rejecting EPA, Appellate Court Suspends Briefing In Climate NSPS Suit
Jun 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

Rejecting requests from EPA and its supporters, a federal appellate court has suspended briefing in litigation challenging EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for new power plants, giving state and industry petitioners time to consolidate their existing facial challenges with any new challenges they may seek to bring over the agency's recent denials of administrative reconsideration petitions.
Democratic Senator Warns of Anti-Clean Power Plan 'Propaganda Machine'
Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Power Plan Hub
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is charging that opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are running a well-oiled "propaganda machine," supported by some of the biggest polluters in the country.
Fifteen States Sue Over EPA's Power Plant Mercury Rule
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

Fifteen states, led by Michigan, sued the Environmental Protection Agency June 24 over its affirmation that it is appropriate to regulate toxic pollutants from power plants under its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule (Michigan v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1204, 6/24/16).
States Sue Over EPA's New Arguments for MATS Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) and 14 states have filed a legal challenge to U.S. EPA's "supplemental finding" intended to buttress the agency's decision to regulate power plant releases of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
Obama Lawyers May Appeal Ruling Overturning Fracking Rule
Jun 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

Obama administration lawyers filed notice that they may appeal a court decision from earlier this week that overturned the Interior Department’s regulation on hydraulic fracturing.
Obama Admin Appeals Fracking Smackdown
Jun 24, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender

The Obama administration is hoping a federal appeals court will revive its efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
Pennsylvania Fracking Rules Become Law
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

Pennsylvania will impose new rules on hydraulic fracturing, delay plans to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and postpone regulatory updates for conventional oil and gas drillers, under bills the governor signed into law June 23.
A New Fracking Fight is Brewing in Maryland
Jun 24, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Josh Hicks

Maryland regulators are paving the way for energy companies to begin fracking in the state once its moratorium on the controversial gas-extraction process ends in the fall of 2017.
New Push to Extend California Greenhouse Gas Law Past 2020
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

California state Sen. Fran Pavley (D) has renewed an effort to extend the state's landmark greenhouse gas emissions law beyond 2020.

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

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) Letter By Cal Dooley: Time to Let the Rail Carrier Competition Roll
Jun 24, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Cal Dooley

In “Freight Railroads Are Braking for Regulatory Creep” (op-ed, June 15) about regulation of freight railroads, Edward R. Hamberger presents a misleading critique of a proposal that would actually reduce regulatory burdens and promote free-market competition.
Rail Is Still the Safest, Cleanest Way to Move Hazardous Materials
Jun 26, 2016 | The Spokesman-Review
By Kris Johnson

The recent train derailment in Mosier, Oregon, drives home the importance of transportation safety and emergency response preparations. It also puts a spotlight on the hazardous materials that are essential to supporting jobs and maintaining public health.
Washington Governor Calls for Oil Train Moratorium on Union Pacific
Jun 24, 2016 | The Columbian
By Lauren Dake

Gov. Jay Inslee called for a halt on Union Pacific Railroad oil trains traveling through Washington on Friday until stricter safety standards are enacted.

Environment News

Senate to Reveal Climate Spending Plan
Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly

Senate appropriators are set to unveil their fiscal 2017 spending plan for the State Department tomorrow, and it could give GOP critics another opportunity to chip away at the Obama administration's climate agenda.
Senators Look into Agency Enforcement
Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee lawmakers are set to scrutinize U.S. EPA's programs for making sure people and companies follow environmental rules.
Brexit Could Complicate Europe's Action on Climate Change
Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman

The U.K.'s historic vote to leave the European Union will almost surely weaken Europe's pro-climate action forces and is likely to have a negative impact on investments in clean energy, experts said June 24.
Brexit Means Problems for EU Climate and Emissions Targets
Jun 24, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Anca Gurzu and Kalina Oroschakoff

The U.K.’s decision to quit the European Union spells trouble for the bloc’s climate and energy targets, leaving the European Commission scrambling to figure out what the Brexit vote means for emissions reduction plans for the next decade.
Study Links 6.5 Million Deaths Each Year to Air Pollution
Jun 26, 2016 | The New York Times
By Stanley Reed

A sobering report released on Monday by the International Energy Agencysays air pollution has become a major public health crisis leading to around 6.5 million deaths each year, with “many of its root causes and cures” found in the energy industry.
EPA Finalizes Revisions To Incinerator Air Rule
Jun 24, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA has issued a final rule revising parts of its new source performance standards (NSPS) and emissions guidelines for existing sources for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (CISWI), including weakening some emissions limits and adjusting the rule to take into account the variability of toxics content in fuel.

Congressional Hearings

Hearing on EPA Enforcement Oversight

Jun 29, 2016 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight

Witness: Cynthia Giles, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Return to headline | Return to top

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 'Uncertainty' Surrounds Louisiana’s Ninth-Llargest Trade Partner, Major In-State Investor Following Brexit

Jun 24, 2016 | The New Orleans Advocate

By Ted Griggs and Timothy Boone

The only thing certain about Britain’s exit from the European Union is “uncertainty” for a country that is Louisiana’s ninth-largest trading partner and a major investor in the state.
The U.K. also is a substantial source of tourists. New Orleans is the second-most popular entry point for English visitors to the United States behind only New York.
“It’s very difficult to say what will happen,” said Dominik Knoll, CEO of the World Trade Center of New Orleans.
The potential spillover is something the World Trade Center is keeping a close eye on now that Britain, the world’s fifth-largest economy, has voted to exit the 28-member European Union in a process that will take at least two years and involve negotiating new trade deals around the world.
Exports through Louisiana topped $1.4 billion in 2015 to the U.K. — the state’s third-largest European trading partner.
“Louisiana’s largest export destinations in Europe are France and the Netherlands and not the U.K.,” said LSU Department of Economics associate professor Areendam Chanda.
By comparison, China is the state’s top trading partner at $6.6 billion.
Petroleum and coal products account for 60 percent of the U.K. activity, Knoll said.
David Dismukes, executive director of the LSU Center for Energy Studies, said there will be no big direct effects on Louisiana. “But this is going to have an indirect impact, and we’ll just have to see how this plays out and how the markets react to this over the next couple of weeks,” he said.
A recent report from the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed the outlook for European growth wasn’t all that strong without Britain’s exit, Dismukes said. The “Brexit” — Britain’s secession — forecast basically showed no growth for Europe.
“If you’re in a commodities business or producing commodity chemicals like the facilities are here, it’s going to be challenging — not just for Britain but for all of Europe and probably the rest of the world because of the hangover effects to everybody else,” Dismukes said.
“It’s history in the making. It’s the first time, other than Greenland, somebody is leaving the EU. So we’re kind of in uncharted territory,” said Kevin Smith, the American Chemistry Council’s chief economist.
“The short-term prospects, a lot of people feel it will shave some economic growth off of the U.K. this year and maybe next year,” Smith said. “To some extent, it may lower exports from the United States.”
The U.S. runs a fairly large chemistry trade deficit with the U.K., much of it in pharmaceuticals, he said.
Britain still must complete the EU exiting process. The move may involve waiting for a new prime minister to be elected, and that could begin the two-year period for negotiating a host of trade deals, Smith said.
One of the consequences of exiting the EU is an end to Britain’s tariff-free access to other EU members. Britain will have to negotiate fresh trade pacts in Europe and with the U.S., until then trading under the rules of the World Trade Organization. That means Britain could be subject to a long period of tariffs and other barriers that slow commerce, according to published reports.
British companies have invested more than $1.4 billion in Louisiana since 2003, according to Louisiana Economic Development.
Drax Group, for example, spent $350 million building a wood pellet storage facility at the Port of Greater Baton Rouge and two wood pellet-producing plants in Bastrop and Gloster, Mississippi. Hunting PLC spent nearly $20 million in 2013 to expand its Houma oilfield supply manufacturing facility and announced last year it was considering a $62 million expansion.
The main thing is that U.K. businesses have a large investment in Louisiana, and they know the state is an excellent place to do business with a great workforce, the World Trade Center’s Knoll said.
“They have a deep history with us,” he said. “We have an advantage with the relationships we’ve developed over many, many years.”
Chanda, the associate professor, noted that some of the European companies with the largest employers in Louisiana are based out of Scotland, adding, “It will be interesting to see how things develop given that they overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU.”
Some have speculated Britain’s EU exit could inspire Scotland to secede from the U.K.. Others fear more EU members will follow Britain’s lead.
As for British tourism, New Orleans was the entry point for 19.6 percent of English visitors to the United States, according to a 2013 study the University of New Orleans did for the state Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Only New York was a more popular gateway, at 29.3 percent.
On average, English visitors to Louisiana spent nearly $342 per person per day. More than 64 percent of U.K. visitors to the state stopped in New Orleans.
The Brexit could hit Britons’ wallets.
In published reports, the International Monetary Fund has said the British economy could shrink 5 percent because of its EU secession. The London School of Economics estimated that middle-class families face the loss of 4 percent of their income.
Another consequence of the EU secession: It makes it harder for million of Britons to travel freely and work on the European continent.
Others predict the loss of Britain’s status as a financial center. Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase & Co. officials have warned they may move operations and tens of thousands of jobs out of Britain.
http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/16207405-172/uncertainty-surrounds-louisianas-ninth-largest-trade-partner-major-investor-in-the-state-as-britain-

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) US Stock Indices Fall Over 3% After UK Exit Vote

Jun 24, 2016 | ICIS

US stock indices fell by more than 3% on Friday in one of their steepest losses in months, with shares for many chemical companies falling by over 6%.
Every US-listed stock followed by ICIS fell. The decline followed the so-called Brexit referendum, in which UK voters decided to leave the EU.
The UK is a major trade partner with the US, according to statistics compiled by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
In 2015, US chemical exports to the UK totalled $7.46bn, making it the seventh largest destination behind Brazil. Chemical imports from the UK totalled $13.3bn, the fifth largest provider for the US, behind China.
The British pound weakened against the US dollar, reaching levels on Friday not seen since the recession of 2008-2009. A stronger dollar makes US exports less competitive and UK imports more attractive.
This could threaten the profitability of the INEOS cracker in Grangemouth, UK, since the plant would rely on US ethane. The cracker's capacity is 700,000 tonnes/year, according to ICIS plants and projects.
These currency fluctuations extend beyond the British pound.
The Mexican peso also fell sharply against the US dollar, reaching the multi-year lows seen earlier in 2016.
Mexico is the second largest chemical export market for the US, behind only Canada, according to ACC data. US chemical exports to Mexico reached $21.7m in 2015.
A plastics seller from Mexico said on Friday that it did not expect to conduct any large operations during the day due to the magnitude of the market reaction to the UK vote.
In addition to currency fluctuations, the UK's decision to exit the EU will throw the country's trade agreements with the US up in the air, said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
The EU had negotiated the trade deals for all of its member countries – both in regards to agreements with other nations and with the World Trade Organization (WTO), Hufbauer said. "All of these are now question marks."
In a statement, the US Chamber of Commerce urged policymakers to avoid precipitous action in the upcoming negotiations with the EU.
"American companies’ investments in Britain are worth more than half a trillion dollars, and many of those investments were made to reach not just British consumers but those in the European mainland as well," according to a statement by Thomas Donohue, the chamber's CEO. "We are committed to working with the UK government to ensure that the priorities of these stakeholders are taken into account in the debates that lie ahead."
Trade agreements are not the only items that will be disrupted by the UK leaving the EU. The union's Reach (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals) regulations could be another challenge.
Upon leaving, Reach would no longer apply in the UK, according to David Gordon, partner in the environmental and chemical industry group at law firm Squire Patton Boggs. The only UK legislation that currently applies to Reach is for enforcement of the regulation.
Upon exiting, UK companies exporting to Europe could face substantial extra costs, as they would have to go through the registration process all over again. The regulation for chemicals is probably the one piece of legislation most heavily impacting UK chemical producers.
Jonathon Wright, a partner with the consultancy Roland Berger, warned that the UK vote and subsequent exit could weaken the European economy. "There is a distinct possibility of a recession, which will directly impact the European chemical companies."
On the other hand, the UK has a chemical trade deficit with the rest of the EU, so more favourable trade agreements could be negotiated in the upcoming years, said Paul Bjacek, a principal director who leads Accenture's chemicals and natural resources strategic research.
Overall, small businesses in the UK seemed to favour leaving the EU more than larger firms – due to stricter regulations, Bjacek said. As a result, there could be more investment from smaller firms in the medium and long term.
This trend could even lead to more innovation, since smaller businesses are the font of such developments, he said.
Regardless of the long-term prospects, the immediate fall-out of Thursday's vote was pessimistic.
In the US stock markets, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 17,400, down more than 611 points or 3.39%. The S&P 500 closed at 2,037, down 76 points or 3.60%. The Nasdaq Composite fell to 4,708, down 202 points or 4.12%. The Dow Jones US Chemicals Index fell by nearly 5%.
Polyurethanes producer Huntsman fell by the most, declining by 11%. Paints and coatings producer Valspar and vinyls producer Axiall fell by the least, less than 1%. Both are being acquired.
Among the majors, Dow Chemical fell by 4% and DuPont declined by 5%.
Refiner Valero fell by 2%. Fertilizer producer PotashCorp dropped by 3% while industrial gases producer Praxair declined by 4%. Paints and coatings producer PPG Industries fell by 8%.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/06/24/10011032/us-stock-indices-fall-over-3-after-uk-exit-vote/

Return to headline | Return to top
After Brexit, Chemical Companies Urged to Review Contracts

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers located outside the European Economic Area, but exporting to it, should review contractual relationships in their supply chain to determine whether they have any U.K. operations responsible for complying with European Union regulations, a Steptoe & Johnson LLP attorney said June 24.
Chemical and pesticide manufacturers should determine wherever a U.K. entity discharges its EU regulatory obligations, Darren Abrahams, a partner in Steptoe & Johnson's Brussels’ office, told Bloomberg BNA. He discussed near term actions chemical manufacturers may want to undertake in light of the U.K.’s June 23 vote to leave the European Union.
If the worst case scenario happens and the U.K. not only exits the European Union but also doesn't join the European Economic Area (EEA), which consists of the 28 EU member states along with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, companies with U.K. operations that discharge regulatory obligations for REACH and the Biocidal Products Regulation may have to end contracts, arrange new ones and take other actions, Abrahams said.
No chemical or pesticide can be sold in the European Economic Area unless it complies with the EU's REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals) regulation or its biocides regulation.
Chemical and pesticide manufacturers that are based outside the European Economic Area but export their products to the EEA comply with both chemical laws by designating EEA-based entities, Abrahams said. Those EEA-based companies discharge the regulatory obligations, he said.
Will U.K. Join EEA?
One uncertainty is whether the U.K. will exit the European Union and join the European Economic Area or, as Abrahams said seems likely at present, remain outside both legal structures.
If the U.K. remains outside both legal structures, U.K.-based companies could no longer discharge the regulatory obligations they currently carry out for REACH or the BPR, Abrahams said.
The full impact of the U.K. vote won't be known for two or more years, because it depends on exit negotiations that can't yet begin, Abrahams said.
The U.K.'s vote has no immediate impact, he said.
The negotiating process triggered by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which addresses a member state's decision to withdraw from the union, begins after the state formally notifies the European Council of its intention.
Former Prime Minister Punts on Responsibility
Newly resigned Prime Minister David Cameron has said he will leave it to his successor to issue that notification and formally begin the withdrawal process.
That means, Abrahams said, the formal exiting process may not begin for months.
Once the negotiations begin, it will take the full two years allowed under Article 50—a timeline that can be extended—to complete the enormous amount of work needed to legally separate the U.K.'s and EU's integrated legal and regulatory systems, he said.
That gives businesses time to prepare for divergent possible outcomes, he said.
Capital, Tax Implications
Herb Estreicher, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP, agreed companies have time to make preparations but said getting ready for possible Brexit scenarios will take time.
U.S. companies that have set up an affiliate in the U.K. that serves as their only representative, meaning it discharges their REACH obligations, may need to soon start looking at options to establish an only representative in the EEA, he told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail.
Companies will have to consider capital requirements as well as income and value added tax implications, he said.
Challenges for U.K. Chemical Manufacturers
Abrahams said U.K. chemical manufacturers face different and trickier challenges.
Under REACH, chemical companies that make more than one metric ton but less than 100 metric tons of a chemical must register that substance by 2018.
Non-European chemical manufacturers can appoint an only representative in the EEA to discharge their regulatory compliance, Abrahams said.
The REACH regulation, however, doesn't allow a company located in the EU—as the U.K. will be until the exit process is complete—to appoint an only representative, he said.
The U.K. exit negotiations are unlikely to be completed by 2018, but U.K. chemical manufacturers may want to consider contingency plans, such as having an arrangement with an EU-based company to take over registration and other compliance obligations, Abrahams said.
Considering this contingency plan should be only a paper exercise, he said.
Transitional Period Said Likely
Most likely the U.K. and EU will negotiate some kind of transitional period, he said.
Estreicher said: “U.K. chemical companies need to continue their registration efforts.
“If worst comes to worst, and the U.K. does not become a member of the European Economic Area, then the U.K. companies will need to appoint EU-based only representatives and transfer the registrations to them.”
Groups of chemical manufacturers that have formed consortia or Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs) and appointed a U.K.-based company to be the lead registrant as they jointly register the same chemical should think about contingency plans, Estreicher said.
Similar to the U.K. chemical manufacturers, these consortia and SIEFs should ensure that an EU-based company is willing to take on the lead registrant role if worst comes to worst, he said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548074&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548074&jd=92548074

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Update of Law on Toxic Chemicals, Years in the Making, A Victory

Jun 24, 2016 | San Francisco Chronicle

By Carolyn Lochhead

Four years ago, retired San Francisco firefighter Tony Stefani, stricken with a rare form of pelvic cancer tied to flame retardants, sat before a Senate committee as a living example of how the federal government allowed tens of thousands of potentially toxic chemicals to be used in household products that Americans assumed were safe.
Last week, in a White House auditorium dotted with cancer survivors and widows and chemical industry lobbyists, President Obama signed into law the first update of the Toxic Substances Control Act, first signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976. The rare bipartisan achievement marks the first strengthening of a major federal environmental statute in two decades.
Under the new version of the act, the government will slowly begin to require federal testing of industrial chemicals and could lead to a ban on asbestos, a known lethal carcinogen still in public commerce.
At Obama’s shoulder during Wednesday’s signing was Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who called Stefani to testify before the Environment and Public Works Committee she chaired in 2012. For years, Boxer stubbornly blocked proposed reforms of the toxic substances law to protect California’s stricter chemical standards, at one point battling her personal friend, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, after whom the reform is named.
“This bill started out a disaster,” Boxer said as she stood in the celebratory chaos after the signing ceremony. “It was a a very tough slog. Years in the making.”
The bipartisanship on the issue grew out of industry frustration with the proliferation of state chemical regulations that filled the vacuum resulting from the weak federal law, which was further hamstrung by court rulings that limited the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the law.
Maintaining momentum
Democrats were eager to toughen federal law, but Boxer sought to preserve state authority because California had moved aggressively on its own, both legislatively and at the ballot box. Three decades ago, voters approved Proposition 65, a law that requires the state to update and publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
But Boxer also wanted to get new legislation passed before she leaves the Senate this year. Her seniority as the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, her knowledge of the bill’s details and political history, and her deep relationships with Republicans on the panel, particularly its chairman and her friend, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., gave her leverage that no successor could hope to have.
“I knew how bad it could be if we lost momentum,” Boxer said. If the bill had not passed under her watch, “then when I was gone they’d start all over, and who would really be there to be the pain in the neck fighting? I was worried.”
Boxer said she is confident in the new bill now, having held out until the end on its most controversial part — allowing states an 18-month window to regulate chemicals on their own before the EPA acts. The law also allows California to keep Prop. 65. If the EPA fails to regulate a hazardous chemical within 3½ years, states can move on their own to regulate the chemical. The bill also assigns a priority for the EPA to review toxic chemicals that are known to persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain, including in the human body.
Finding common ground
After the signing ceremony, Boxer jostled with well-wishers, including 26-year-old Trevor Schaefer of Boise, Idaho, who survived a diagnosis of brain cancer at age 13. Near him stood Sen. Mike Crapo, the Idaho Republican Boxer worked with to make “Trevor’s Law” part of the legislation, requiring the government to identify and track “cancer clusters” such as the one found in Schaefer’s logging community.
“We have very different political positions,” Crapo said, referring to Boxer. “But we can find areas where we can work together and make it happen.”
Linda Reinstein of Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), who co-founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in 2004 after her husband, Alan, died of mesothelioma, broke down in tears as she described a six-year fight against the chemical industry to pass the new law.
“I have never seen a harder battle,” Reinstein said. “The American Chemistry Council was hugely funded, so they were able to lobby the Hill with propaganda.
“Asbestos hasn’t been banned. and we still import it,” she said, but under the new law, it is expected to be among the first 10 substances the EPA reviews.
For firefighter Stefani, the new law is but “a start in the right direction.”
Even if the EPA, whose budget is under constant assault from conservative lawmakers, receives full funding, it will take decades for the agency to examine the tens of thousands of chemicals in current use that have not been regulated.
Most people have no idea how lax the current regulatory regimen is and simply assume chemicals used in household products are safe, Stefani said. In the meantime, when buildings and their contents burn, firefighters breath in the gases released from everything inside them.
Decades of exposure
“We are still faced with these toxic exposures, and that’s going to continue for decades and decades,” Stefani said in a phone interview from San Francisco, where he now lives cancer-free and heads the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation.
“There are so many toxins out there, it’s hard to visualize that we’re going to be at a place someday where everything that we pick up and put in our hands, and the air that we breath, is considered safe.”
http://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Update-of-law-on-toxic-chemicals-years-in-the-8324534.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Toxics Law May Give Some Regulatory Relief

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Car, engine and printed circuit board manufacturers are among the companies that may get some regulatory relief from the newly amended chemicals law, according to industry officials.
The newly signed overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which President Obama signed into law June 22, would require the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether TSCA's reporting requirements should be reduced or altered for companies that recycle, reuse or reprocess inorganic byproducts.
The changes the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576) made to TSCA guarantee a regulatory process—not a regulatory outcome, Fern Abrams, director of regulatory affairs and government relations for IPC—Association Connecting Electronics Industries, told Bloomberg BNA in a June 16 interview. IPC represents companies throughout the electronics industry supply chain, including those that design and make printed circuit boards for machinery and computers.
The outcome of the mandated regulatory process, Abrams said, could be to make it easier for companies that make finished goods to recycle wastes with copper and other metals.
Focus on Recycling
Honda North America Inc., is hopeful that the EPA will alter the inorganic byproducts reporting requirements to allow its facilities to more easily meet the corporate objective of sending zero waste to landfills, a Honda official told Bloomberg BNA.
The complex process of determining which byproducts would be sent for recycling would be subject to toxics law reporting and which would not is a hurdle to achieving that goal, the Honda official said.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who worked with sponsors of the Lautenberg Act to insert the byproducts provision, told Bloomberg BNA: “We must make certain that TSCA reporting requirements are encouraging industries to recycle byproducts when possible, not incentivizing them to be discarded in landfills.”
In an e-mail, Rep. Johnson said he learned from electronics industry representatives during the toxics law reform negotiations that the agency's reporting requirements, which did not exist for the first 30 years of the law's implementation, created a disincentive to recycling.
What's in the Amended Law?
The newly amended law only has a small provision that addresses byproducts.
Under that provision, the administrator must conduct a negotiated rulemaking and propose a rule not later than three years after enactment. Negotiated rulemaking is a process in which federal agency representatives and affected parties work together to reach consensus on what can ultimately become a proposed rule, the Congressional Research Service said in a 2006 report.
The Lautenberg Act amended TSCA to say the proposed rule would limit reporting requirements of the Chemical Data Reporting rule, which the EPA issues under Section 8 of the toxics law. EPA's rule will address manufacturers of inorganic byproducts “when such byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused or reprocessed,” according to the amended section of the toxics law.
The rule would not alter a recycler's obligations to report to the EPA saleable material it generates from byproducts; that obligation remains, Abrams said.
Why Are Inorganic Byproducts an Issue?
Abrams said inorganic byproducts' reporting requirements became an issue in 2002 when the EPA lifted the previous exemption it had provided for inorganic chemicals.
Metals, a form of inorganic chemicals that can be recycled, are the critical issue, she said. Copper is a common metal found in byproducts generated when printed circuit boards are made.
The problem, Abrams said, is that the EPA's byproducts reporting requirements mean circuit board manufacturers have to know how the recycler is transforming the manufacturers' rinse waters, spent etchants (which “etch” designs onto materials) or other manufacturing leftovers into something the recycler will sell.

If the recycler uses heat or a physical process to separate metals from the byproducts to generate a saleable product, the manufacturer does not have to report byproduct production under the Chemical Data Reporting rule, she said.
If, however, the recycler uses a chemical reaction to recover metals from the electronic manufacturer's byproducts, then the manufacturer is responsible for filing reporting information for the chemicals in its rinse waters and other byproducts, she said.
“A recycler's processes are often proprietary and are in constant flux based on market conditions,” IPC said in background materials it provided Bloomberg BNA. Making manufacturers' byproducts reporting obligations contingent on recyclers' processes compromises data quality, IPC's materials said.
Data quality is compromised, Abrams said, because manufacturers have to guess about the recycler's operations.
The rulemaking process required under the amended TSCA should allow many aspects of the byproducts issue to be raised for public discussion and resolved, Abrams said.
One important issue is whether public health or environmental protection benefits by the byproducts' data the agency gets from the reporting rule, she said.
The agency receives much of that information already through EPA reporting requirements mandated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Abrams said.
Separate Challenge Remains
The changes made to TSCA will not address a separate challenge IPC members face, Abrams said.
The newly amended law addresses the byproducts provisions of Chemical Data Reporting rule obligations.
Companies with manufacturing processes that generate byproducts also may be subject to Section 5 of the toxics law, which addresses new chemicals.
If a recycler uses a chemical reaction, the byproduct that is fed into the recycler's reaction is—according to EPA's definition—a new chemical that must be listed on the TSCA inventory of chemicals in commerce, Abrams said.
The amended law does not require the EPA to address that obligation.
“If the byproducts are not listed on the inventory, recycling cannot lawfully occur,” IPC's background materials said.
If, however, a manufacturers’ byproducts are not recycled but sent to a landfill, the byproducts are not subject to either the toxics law's new chemicals or Chemical Data Reporting rule requirements, Abrams said.
The EPA's interpretation of the new toxics law for byproducts discourages recycling, she said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548053&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548053&jd=92548053

Return to headline | Return to top
Reformed Bill Gives EPA Teeth to Tackle Toxic Chemicals

Jun 24, 2016 | Ag Web

Back in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was first enacted. But it’s never had the power it truly needed until President Obama signed a bipartisan bill into law that reforms TSCA so it requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear, enforceable deadlines.
“Forty years after TSCA was enacted, there are still tens of thousands of chemicals on the market that have never been evaluated for safety because TSCA didn’t require it,” says EPA administrator Gina McCarthy. “And the original law set analytical requirements that were nearly impossible to meet, leaving EPA’s hands tied, even when the science demanded action on certain chemicals.”
McCarthy points to asbestos as a prime example – this chemical was easily determined unsafe but proved difficult to ban - it is, in fact, still being used today in things like automatic transmission components and vinyl floor tiles. During the 40 years since TSCA was enacted, McCarthy says only five chemicals have ever been banned.
But with this newest reform, that all could change.
“Within a few years, EPA’s chemicals program will have to assess at least 20 chemicals at a time, beginning another chemical review as soon as one is completed,” McCarthy says.
Also, McCarthy notes that under the old law, EPA was unable to take action to protect public health and the environment, even if the agency could prove that a chemical posed a known health threat.
“Under the new law, EPA will evaluate chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks they pose, and then take steps to eliminate any unreasonable risks we find,” she says.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund, says what comes next is just as important as getting the bill signed into law in the first place.
“It’s vital that its implementation lead to improved public health protection as well as a restoration of public confidence, after decades of erosion of that confidence under a badly broken chemical safety system,” he says. “That means the EPA needs to be given some breathing room, to get a new system up and running, and to get some points on the board early that demonstrate its ability to make decisions and take needed actions.”
EPA has conservatively estimated there are more than 12,000 agricultural chemicals used in the U.S. each year, with more than 80,000 total chemicals used in the U.S. annually.
http://www.agweb.com/article/reformed-bill-gives-epa-teeth-to-tackle-toxic-chemicals-naa-ben-potter/

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Week Ahead: Wait Drags on for Energy Talks

Jun 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Devin Henry

The Senate is the only show in town in the coming week, meaning the energy world's eyes will be trained on the chamber, looking for signs of movement on an energy reform package.
After a climactic two-day confrontation regarding gun legislation on the floor last week, the House left Washington for the Independence Day recess, leaving senators alone to go about their work. In this case: trying to find a path forward on the energy bill.
The House has sent the Senate an energy reform bill chock full of conservative proposals that have turned Democrats against the legislation, and in some cases, against the idea of even going to a conference committee to try writing a compromise package.
There was some movement on the matter last week. First, two top House Republicans --Energy Chairman Fred Upton (Mich.) and Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (Utah), both would-be conferees for the bill -- put out a Monday statement saying they want to "get something to the President that he will sign into law" this year. The two indicated a willingness to cut out some of the GOP energy measures that have upset Democrats.
Then, on Wednesday, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of Democratic leadership,told Bloomberg News, "we'd like to have a conference. The Energy Committee pushed the two developments to reporters on Thursday, claiming "continued progress" toward a Senate vote on going to conference with the House.
Even so, the legislative calendar is dwindling, making it tougher for an energy bill to come together before electoral politics consumes Washington.
The Senate breaks for a short weekend Fourth of July recess on Friday, and when it and the House return after the holiday, they will have only about nine legislative days before an extended August recess -- and the beginning of campaign season.
Sensing the need to hold the line just a little bit longer, 23 green groups wrote the Senate to file their objections to going to a conference committee, saying the House bill "undermines the progress our nation needs."
As it stands, rank and file Democrats will be pressed between their leadership -- including top Energy Committee Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) -- and a major constituency next week as they consider what steps to take, if any, on energy reform.
Other legislative work next week includes a Tuesday hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on sage grouse conservation work, a hot topic for members and western states. And an Environment and Public Works Committee panel will hold a Wednesday hearing on "Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement and Compliance Programs."
Off Capitol Hill, Interior Secretary and National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis will attend a Monday dedication ceremony in New York for a new national monument near the Stonewall Inn. It's the first national monument marking the LGBT movement.
On Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration will hold a forum on its 2016 Annual Energy Outlook.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/284850-week-ahead-wait-drags-on-for-energy-talks

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Look to Make Progress on Energy, Spending

Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss and George Cahlink

Senate negotiators will continue talks on a possible conference with the House on energy legislation this week, along with pressing forward on spending legislation and Puerto Rico relief.
Senate Republican leaders are still hoping to complete as many spending bills as possible before the long summer recess. And energy bill boosters see the measure as a potential win during an election year. But gun control debates and passing legislation to shore up Puerto Rico's finances are stressing an already stretched calendar.
Last week, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said key lawmakers on energy and natural resources issues had made "good progress" after their Tuesday talk.
Cantwell outlined a number of outstanding issues the group was wrestling with (Greenwire, June 22). Non-energy issues are generating the most disagreement.
Much of Tuesday's discussion stemmed from issues within the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee, including drought, wildfire and riders related to the National Environmental Policy Act, Cantwell said.
The drought provisions are "very problematic," she told reporters. "And I think what we're all trying to say is ... we would like to solve these problems, but if we can't ... we don't want to see good energy policy held up just because of the complexity of those issues."
The group also spent a few minutes at the end of the meeting discussing some differences related to energy efficiency between the competing House and Senate bills.
"We just had barely a conversation about the fact that the bills are going in different directions, so we don't know really what the issue is," Cantwell said. "We don't know if it's the building code aspect of it or the authorization aspect of some of these provisions. We don't know what their problems are."
House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), meanwhile, struck a pessimistic tone about the prospects for a conference.
He slammed the House Republican-backed bill as "totally partisan and counterproductive" because it "encourages fossil fuels" and not renewables.
"And you've got a bipartisan Senate bill, which is certainly an improvement, but still doesn't really move us forward in a significant way toward our energy future," he said Thursday.
"The only way I can support a conference is if it goes beyond both of these bills and actually provides some resources for energy infrastructure, moves toward renewables and away from fossil fuels -- it would be very hard to reconcile these bills unless you just cut all the bad items and just boil it down to some small items that we can agree on," said Pallone.
"So I'm not very optimistic at all that we're going to be able to come to an agreement on these two bills."
Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) last week said the principals were trying to be "constructive" in sorting out the legislative differences.
"From our perspective, we're anxious to see the Senate actually name conferees," he said. "So I'm hoping that can happen. I don't know if it will or not."Appropriations outlook
Senate leaders have said repeatedly their top legislative priority this year is moving spending legislation, but that push is growing more complicated.
The fiscal 2017 Commerce, Justice and Science bill, S. 2837, which has been on the floor for two weeks, slowed to a crawl by Democratic attempts to attach gun control provisions.
"We hope to able to work through the CJS appropriations," a Senate Appropriations spokesman said Friday.
Republican leaders, however, have yet to file for cloture on the bill, a sign that they might not see an easy route to passage.
Moreover, the Senate last week rejected a procedural attempt to kill a revised amendment to prohibit people on the no-fly list from buying a gun. GOP leaders, who oppose the provision, could opt to block it by simply deciding to halt work on the CJS legislation altogether.
Beyond the Justice Department, the $56.6 billion bill funds NASA, the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation.
Dozens of other amendments remain pending, including provisions to prevent NOAA from prohibiting commercial cargo vessels in national marine sanctuaries and to require the agency's National Marine Fisheries Service to pay for at-sea monitors.
Georgia Republican Sens. Johnny Isakson and David Perdue have also filed amendments to address a provision related to controversial water allocations in the Southeast.
Cantwell introduced an amendment that would provide $4.1 million in emergency funding for any commercial fishery that has failed since 2014 after a resource disaster.
The Senate also could take up the House-passed $1.1 billion Zika spending bill conference report, H.R. 2577, this week. It contains a rider providing an up-to-six-month waiver of U.S. EPA permitting requirements for spraying mosquito pesticides.
"The House did its part, now the Senate needs to do its part -- and this agreement represents our only chance to put Zika control money to work now," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
GOP leaders have filed for cloture on the conference report, and a vote could come as early as today. It would require 60 votes to move ahead.
Democrats, however, have said they will oppose calling up the legislation over proposed spending offsets and add-on policy riders. The White House has also said it would reject the legislation.
"This is a conference report that doesn't look like it can even pass the United States Senate. But if it did, and the president was presented with the bill, he would veto it," Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman, said last week. He noted the pesticide waiver "guts some provisions of the Clean Water Act."
McConnell said last week his chamber would "be dealing" with Puerto Rico before July 1, when the island's government is due to make a $2 billion debt payment. A Puerto Rico debt bill passed the House earlier this month after several weeks of negotiations.
But senators from both parties said they would like to see changes to the House bill. If they amend it, the measure would have to return to the House, which is not in session again until after July 4.
The bill would create a seven-person federal oversight board to promote economic growth and help the territory pay its $72 billion in debt. The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority is responsible for about $9 billion of that debt.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/06/27/stories/1060039429

Return to headline | Return to top
Briefing Halted in Power Plant Carbon Rule Lawsuit

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

A federal court halted briefing in challenges to carbon dioxide standards for new and modified power plants over the objections of the Environmental Protection Agency to allow consolidation of additional lawsuits expected to be filed (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 6/24/16).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 24granted a request by states and industry groups to halt the briefing schedule, which will be amended later, to allow additional lawsuits over the EPA's denial of administrative reconsideration petitions for the carbon dioxide new source performance standards (RIN:2060-AQ91) to be consolidated with the current litigation. The EPA had argued the court could simply amend the briefing schedule now to avoid further delaying litigation over the rule.
Motions to amend the briefing schedule going forward are due Aug. 4.
The EPA in May denied petitions from the Utility Air Regulatory Group, American Electric Power, Ameren Corp., the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and Wisconsin seeking administrative reconsideration of the carbon dioxide performance standards. The agency in its denial had defended its decision to set a carbon dioxide performance standard for new coal-fired power plants that effectively requires some form of carbon capture even though the petitioners had argued the technology is not yet feasible, demonstrated and cost-effective.
Many of the groups that petitioned the EPA to reconsider the carbon dioxide standards are already participating in the current lawsuit, but petitioners had asked the court to postpone briefing so that any new petitioners could participate fully in the process.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548063&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548063&jd=92548063

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Delays Fight Over New Power Plant Rule

Jun 24, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Robin Bravender

Federal judges sided with U.S. EPA's critics today as they agreed to push back court action in a case challenging the agency's greenhouse gas rules for new power plants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today granted a request by states, industries and other opponents of EPA's climate rule to delay the schedule for filing briefs in the case.
They said the delay was in order because several of the groups already suing the agency over the regulations also planned to challenge EPA on another front over its rejection of petitions to reconsider the rules (E&ENews PM, May 24).
The court had already set a schedule that would have required initial briefs in July and final briefs in November.
EPA and its allies, however, opposed suspending the schedule, which they argued would cause "needless delay." Delaying the resolution of this case should be avoided, they argued, to prevent "lingering uncertainty" about the fate of both this rule and the agency's related regulation to limit greenhouse gases from existing power plants.
EPA instead suggested that the court set a modified schedule with final briefs still due in November.
But the court refused to adopt EPA's proposal in its order today. Instead, the judges asked the parties to submit motions to consolidate challenges against EPA by July 12 and suggestions for a new briefing schedule by Aug. 4.
The order was issued by Judge Thomas Griffith, a Republican appointee, and Democratic-appointed Judges Sri Srinivasan and Patricia Millett.
Click here for the court's order.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/24/stories/1060039403

Return to headline | Return to top
Rejecting EPA, Appellate Court Suspends Briefing In Climate NSPS Suit

Jun 24, 2016 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

Rejecting requests from EPA and its supporters, a federal appellate court has suspended briefing in litigation challenging EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for new power plants, giving state and industry petitioners time to consolidate their existing facial challenges with any new challenges they may seek to bring over the agency's recent denials of administrative reconsideration petitions.
“The briefing schedule is hereby suspended,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in aJune 24 per curium order in the case, North Dakota v. EPA.
Parties have until July 6 to file suits with the court over petition denials. The order sets a July 12 deadline for any motions to consolidate. It then establishes an Aug. 4 deadline for new briefing schedule proposal, strongly urging the parties to file jointly.
At issue is EPA's recent decision to reject several administration petitions that has asked the agency to reconsider portions of its new source performance standards (NSPS), which was developed under Clean Air Act section 111(b). The rule is a legal prerequisite for the agency's existing source performance standards (ESPS) because it establishes source categories.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on April 29 denied five of six petitions that industry and states had filed asking the agency to reconsider portions of its NSPS. The denial was published in the May 2 Federal Register, along with a separate document that explains the agency's reasoning.
In the denials, EPA doubles down on its determination that new coal plants can install partial carbon capture and sequestration technology to limit GHGs .
Industry groups have questioned the speed of EPA's denials, noting that the agency usually “takes years” to address such petitions or “ignores them altogether.”
After McCarthy's decision, state and industry opponents filed a May 24 motion asking the court to suspend the briefing schedule entirely to incorporate challenges to petition denials, including three that were filed by petitioners inNorth Dakota.
But EPA and its supporters had argued to the court in a June 7 filing that it did “not agree that a suspension of briefing is necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of consolidation.”
Briefing Schedule
The original briefing schedule required opening briefs to be filed June 15. EPA had suggested that petitioners' opening briefs be due Aug. 12.
Petitioner sources are pleased with the court action, noting the judges agreed with what they had asked while environmentalists are seeking to downplay the significance.
One petitioner source says the order “is exactly what industry asked for, that the parties be given a chance to get the cases consolidated once the filing period for reconsideration denial has ended, and then in an orderly fashion submit a proposal for sensible consolidated briefing. . . . I view this as nothing more than a common-sense order.”
The source adds, however, that what EPA and its backers wanted was to “jam” the briefing schedule in the NSPS case while many of the same parties are prepping for oral argument in the related case over EPA's ESPS in West Virginia v. EPA, slated to be heard by the full circuit Sept. 22.
EPA's preference would “not really allow any new parties in the case” based on the petition denials “to have a say” in the briefing and that is “not typically the way the D.C. Circuit does business,” the source says.
The way the court resolved it means that both cases will be heard in the same time frame as originally scheduled, with arguments over the ESPS coming before arguments over the NSPS, each delayed a few months, after the court had earlier punted previously scheduled June 2 arguments in West Virginia before a three-judge panel to the full court in the fall.
Environmentalists are calling the rejection a “procedural order” in the litigation, seeking to downplay the loss.
One source says it is “a minor change to the [original] litigation schedule to let new cases being field over the denial of reconsideration to be consolidated with the original cases and briefed in one go.”
A second says the difference between the asks by the two sides was based on differing opinions over whether the revised briefing schedule should be set now, or wait until additional petitions for review were filed. “Our side doesn't want things to be unduly delayed. But as long as the court moves expeditiously to set a new schedule after the parties submit their proposals on Aug. 4, this isn't a big deal.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/rejecting-epa-appellate-court-suspends-briefing-climate-nsps-suit

Return to headline | Return to top
Democratic Senator Warns of Anti-Clean Power Plan 'Propaganda Machine'

Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Power Plan Hub

By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is charging that opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are running a well-oiled "propaganda machine," supported by some of the biggest polluters in the country.
Whitehouse on a call with the Center for American Progress called for supporters of the rule to "go on offense" and raise awareness of the "powerful" and "sophisticated" opposition campaign.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
"It's important for people to understand that one side of this debate has a very powerful piece of machinery that cranks out the kind of material that they want to get out. It doesn't matter if it's true. It doesn't matter if it accurately states the law," Whitehouse said. "These are not a group of citizens coming in and making theoretical legal points. These are people who have a massive conflict of interest -- billions of tons of carbon that they'd have to account for."
As evidence of the opposition movement, Whitehouse pointed to a flood of anti-EPA opinion pieces that appeared after he penned his own piece in The Washington Post comparing the fossil fuel industry to tobacco companies that withheld information about the health dangers of smoking.
Whitehouse claimed the columns included the same formulaic language and were likely from the same source.
He, along with other Democrats in the Senate, have also lashed out against a major opponent of the rule, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They recently released a report arguing that the group is out of step with its members in lobbying against efforts to curb climate change. Half of the companies on the U.S. Chamber's board of directors have taken pro-climate stances, according to the report (ClimateWire, June 15).
CAP on Friday released an issue brief claiming that companies and trade groups fueling lawsuits against the greenhouse gas regulation produce 20 percent of the United States' total carbon emissions.
That's 1.2 billion tons per year, which would make the group the sixth-highest emitting in the world when ranked among countries, CAP said.
As some companies fight tooth and nail over the Clean Power Plan, many are still moving ahead with planning.
Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. Inc. CEO Nick Akins said his companies that operate in parts of 11 states are "not slowing down because the Clean Power Plan has a stay or not. As a matter of fact, we can't really live within that kind of vacillating back and forth," he said in a recent interview.
While "the discussion directly about that subject is probably tempered somewhat, the emphasis placed on it is still there," he said, noting that AEP companies are filing integrated resource plans "in all of our jurisdictions that comport with what we think a clean energy economy future ought to look like." Check back for more from that interview by reporter Rod Kuckro in EnergyWire this week.
On Monday, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency meets to discuss ongoing considerations for the Clean Power Plan.
On Tuesday:Sustainability advocate Ceres will release a report ranking 30 of the largest investor-owned electric utilities on renewable energy and energy efficiency and looking at how the industry is transitioning toward lower carbon fuel sources in anticipation of the Clean Power Plan.The Energy Information Administration releases its annual outlook and will discuss the case studies it already published on various ways to implement the Clean Power Plan.The Global America Business Institute hosts an invitation-only roundtable on market threats to nuclear power -- which could affect Clean Power Plan compliance.CSIS holds an event to discuss the outlook for natural gas.
On Thursday, Travis Kavulla, president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, speaks at the Natural Gas Roundtable lunch.
In case you missed it:
U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy chided critics for "making that old, tired argument that what's good for the environment is bad for the economy" (E&ENews PM, June 23).
An analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center outlines the potential downsides of states pursuing a patchwork of strategies to meet federal climate change regulations, warning that carbon levels might be higher than if they all settled on similar strategies (ClimateWire, June 22).
PNM Resources Inc. Chairman, President and CEO Pat Vincent-Collawn said her state and industry are "moving on" to decarbonize the electricity generation fleet "no matter what" happens to the Clean Power Plan because customers "want a lot cleaner generation" (EnergyWire, June 21).
Carbon emissions from the power sector could stop declining or rise after 2030 if caps are not tightened past the end of the Clean Power Plan, according to new analysis from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (ClimateWire, June 21).
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) says his pursuit of policies "to protect the quality of air that our citizens breathe" will not be undone by a recent federal court ruling that struck down key elements of the state's landmark clean energy law (ClimateWire, June 20).
In Illinois, sides debate to what extent do saving Exelon Corp.'s embattled nuclear reactors matter to the state's potential compliance with EPA's carbon rule (EnergyWire, June 20).
To read more about the Clean Power Plan, click here.
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060039419

Return to headline | Return to top
Fifteen States Sue Over EPA's Power Plant Mercury Rule

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

Fifteen states, led by Michigan, sued the Environmental Protection Agency June 24 over its affirmation that it is appropriate to regulate toxic pollutants from power plants under its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule (Michigan v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1204, 6/24/16).
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenges the EPA's April 25 supplemental finding (RIN:2060-AS76) that regulating power plants' toxic pollutants is “appropriate and necessary” under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The EPA's finding comes in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the agency had failed to properly consider compliance costs for utilities as part of that determination for its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 26992015 BL 207163, 80 ERC 1577, 2015).
Most of the 15 states challenging the EPA's affirmation of its appropriate and necessary finding—Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming—participated in the prior challenge to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
Additional lawsuits were filed June 24 by Oak Grove Management Company LLC and five utilities (Oak Grove Management Co. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1206, 6/24/16;Southern Co. Services, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1208, 6/24/16).
The states' lawsuit follows similar litigation brought by coal giant Murray Energy Corp., which filed the first lawsuit over the rule, and ARIPPA, a trade association representing coal refuse power plants (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1127, 4/25/16).

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548066&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548066&jd=92548066

Return to headline | Return to top
States Sue Over EPA's New Arguments for MATS Rule

Jun 24, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) and 14 states have filed a legal challenge to U.S. EPA's "supplemental finding" intended to buttress the agency's decision to regulate power plant releases of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
Schuette and the other plaintiffs filed the petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday, according to a spokeswoman who provided a copy this afternoon to E&ENews PM.
The petition does not spell out the grounds for the appeal; the court will likely require the plaintiffs to later provide a statement of the issues they plan to raise.
EPA had released the supplemental finding in April in response to last year's Supreme Court decision that the agency had not properly considered compliance costs before making the decision to craft the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that were formally released in 2012 (Greenwire, April 15). In the finding, EPA reaffirmed its original decision, saying it was "particularly well-founded in light of the significant health risks toxic air pollution pose to the American public."
The states now challenging the supplemental finding are among those that previously sued to overturn the mercury standards. Earlier this month, the high court declined to take a related appeal arguing that the 2012 regulations had improperly been kept in place after last year's decision (Greenwire, June 13).
In the petition filed this week, Schuette is listed as the lead plaintiff "on behalf of the people of Michigan." The other states joining in the lawsuit are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Also listed as plaintiffs are the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Public Utility Commission of Texas and Railroad Commission of Texas.
EPA had published the finding in the Federal Register on April 25, starting a 60-day clock for any lawsuits to be filed under the Clean Air Act.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/24/stories/1060039407

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama Lawyers May Appeal Ruling Overturning Fracking Rule

Jun 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

Obama administration lawyers filed notice that they may appeal a court decision from earlier this week that overturned the Interior Department’s regulation on hydraulic fracturing.
The Justice Department’s notice, filed Friday in federal court in Wyoming, said it is asking the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reconsider the case.
An Interior spokeswoman said that the attorneys filed the notice only to protect their right to appeal within the time frame allowed, but that the department has not actually decided whether to move forward with the appeal.
Judge Scott Skavdahl, a President Obama appointee, ruled late Tuesday that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which wrote the rule, does not have the authority to regulate fracking on federal land because Congress specifically denied it that authority.
“Congress has not delegated to the Department of Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing,” Skavdahl wrote. “The BLM’s effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.”
The ruling was a major loss for Obama, his environmental agenda and his first attempt at national fracking standards.
The oil industry and congressional Republicans applauded the ruling and held it up as an example of Obama trying to blatantly ignore Congress’s instructions.
In briefs in the Wyoming court, lawyers argued that the conservative states and oil companies challenging the regulation relied on misreadings of the law, and the ability to regulate fracking is inherent in the laws giving the federal government control over its own lands.
“The Rule properly implements BLM’s long-standing authority under the Mineral Leasing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to regulate oil and gas development on federal lands,” the government wrote in an April filing.
“BLM’s authority has not been curtailed by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Rule does not improperly intrude on any authority reserved to the states.”
The regulation has three main provisions. It sets standards for construction of well casings, safe storage of wastewater fluids and disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/284815-obama-lawyers-may-appeal-court-decision-overturning-fracking-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama Admin Appeals Fracking Smackdown

Jun 24, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Robin Bravender

The Obama administration is hoping a federal appeals court will revive its efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
The Justice Department filed a notice today alerting a federal court in Wyoming to its appeal with the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Tuesday, Obama-appointed Judge Scott Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming struck down a Bureau of Land Management fracking regulation in a sharply worded opinion declaring that the agency had no authority to issue that rule (EnergyWire, June 22).
The Obama administration framed the decision as a delay and was widely expected to appeal the ruling.
John Cruden, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement yesterday that his office would continue to "vigorously defend" the fracking rule and other key environmental regulations that have "exceptional and significant environmental benefits."
Meanwhile, states and industry groups today urged the 10th Circuit to dismiss the Interior Department's bid for that court to overturn an injunction issued last year by the Wyoming district court.
Skavdahl last year stalled the regulation while the legal challenges played out in court (EnergyWire, Oct. 1, 2015).
Interior appealed that decision to the 10th Circuit, arguing in a brief earlier this week that drawing a conclusion that BLM lacks authority to regulate fracking "ignores a century of precedent and decades-old federal regulations."
The administration's opponents told the 10th Circuit today that the case challenging the injunction "should be dismissed as moot" in light of the lower court's decision to kill the rule.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/24/stories/1060039400

Return to headline | Return to top
Pennsylvania Fracking Rules Become Law

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

Pennsylvania will impose new rules on hydraulic fracturing, delay plans to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and postpone regulatory updates for conventional oil and gas drillers, under bills the governor signed into law June 23.
Gov. Tom Wolf (D) signed Senate Bill 279, now Act 52, approving new standards for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, finalizing a rule that took five years to finish. Known as the Chapter 78a regulations, the new rules will better protect public resources, specifically around water, land and community areas such as parks and schools. Act 52 also postpones the implementation of similar revisions to regulations governing traditional oil and gas wells, resolving complaints from the industry that the needs of conventional oil and gas drillers had not been fully considered during the rulemaking process.
Wolf also signed Senate Bill 1195, now Act 57, which extends the amount of time the state has to finalize its implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.
Both measures are compromises that Wolf, a Democrat, has made with Republican lawmakers over the past few weeks as a way to smooth budget negotiations.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548060&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548060&jd=92548060

Return to headline | Return to top
A New Fracking Fight is Brewing in Maryland

Jun 24, 2016 | The Washington Post

By Josh Hicks

Maryland regulators are paving the way for energy companies to begin fracking in the state once its moratorium on the controversial gas-extraction process ends in the fall of 2017.
Meanwhile, state lawmakers opposed to the drilling method, technically called hydraulic fracturing, have begun making plans to permanently ban it during the next legislative session.
Maryland’s Department of the Environment this month outlined proposals that closely align with rules the administration of former Democratic governor Martin O’Malley pitched several years ago, but with faster permitting and looser requirements for buffers to protect areas near the sites.
The department briefed the public on its proposals this week in Allegany County, and it has scheduled meetings in Baltimore on Monday and Garrett County on Wednesday.
Environmental watchdogs plan to protest at the Baltimore event with former gas-industry workers and Pennsylvania residents who say they were harmed by hydraulic fracturing. Some are taking a zero-tolerance approach to the drilling method, which has raised concerns about groundwater contamination, air pollution and earthquakes.
“There’s no evidence that regulations of any kind can protect the environment from fracking,” said Thomas Meyer, a senior organizer with the advocacy group Food and Water Watch. “This underscores the need for the legislature to pass a ban.”
Several Maryland lawmakers plan to propose prohibitions during the 2017 legislative session.
Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County), who sponsored a bill to ban fracking in 2014, said he will introduce a similar measure next year, which he sees as the last chance to block drilling before the state’s moratorium expires in October 2017.
“We have one shot to prevent this,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to stop this.”
Del. A. Shane Robinson (D-Montgomery), who sponsored bills to ban fracking in 2013 and 2014, said he might introduce such legislation in the House next year. “If somebody else doesn’t do it, I will plan on cross-filing Zirkin’s legislation,” he said.
Fracking supporters say the extraction method, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into deep wells to break up rock and release natural gas, could provide economic benefits for Western Maryland.
A 2014 study by Towson University’s Regional Economic Studies Institute found hydraulic fracturing in that area of the state could generate more than 3,000 jobs and at least $5 million in tax revenue each year during peak drilling.
“It could help our economy considerably,” said Sen. George C. Edwards (R-Garrett). “This is one of the poorest parts of Maryland. The key is to monitor it and make sure people are doing what the department says they should do.”
The state’s new plans are a slightly revised version of regulations released during the final weeks of O’Malley’s second term.
Instead of requiring setbacks of 1,000 feet between the overall fracking operations and places where people live and work, the buffer would extend from the gas wells themselves.
The permit-review process also would be simplified to shorten it from the expected seven months the O’Malley plans would have required. Regulators also have proposed moving air-quality testing from the fracking sites to a monitoring station in Frostburg.
Maryland Environment Secretary Benjamin H. Grumbles defended the state’s proposals, saying his department must be doing something right if both sides of the debate are unsatisfied.
“We’re working toward the middle, trying to find a sweet spot between stringent regulations and workable, achievable requirements,” he said. “We want to protect public health and the environment, and recognize that the market is going to determine whether we get applicants for fracking down the road.”
Industry groups say opponents have little to complain about with the proposed rules.
“They’ll still be the toughest, strongest hydraulic-fracturing regulations in the country,” said Drew Cobbs, executive director of the Maryland Petroleum Council.
But opponents say the state will suffer in the long term if it allows fracking to take place.
“The type of damage done by the fracking industry is hard to undo,” Zirkin said. “It’s an inherently dangerous industry.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/a-new-fracking-fight-is-brewing-in-maryland/2016/06/24/d561aece-3a1f-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

Return to headline | Return to top
New Push to Extend California Greenhouse Gas Law Past 2020

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

California state Sen. Fran Pavley (D) has renewed an effort to extend the state's landmark greenhouse gas emissions law beyond 2020.
At a June 27 hearing, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources will consider an updated version of S.B. 32, introduced in last year's session by Pavley that stalled but survived as a two-year measure.
S.B. 32 would amend the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or A.B. 32, to include a 2030 emissions limit and authorize the state to develop a plan to achieve the goal.
The legislation would build some certainty into the future of California's climate policies, Pavley and other Democrats have said.
Pending litigation challenging the state's greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program's auction and lackluster demand for emissions allowances in the latest auction have injected some uncertainty into the program's future.
A letter the state legislative counsel forwarded to Republican leaders earlier this year suggested Gov. Jerry Brown (D) lacked authority under the Global Warming Solutions Act to continue the program past 2020.
Tied to Another Bill
Pavley's updated bill aims to codify into the law the emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 that Brown established in Executive Order No. B-30-15 and signed in April 2015.
Pavley's bill is tied to passage of A.B. 197, which she has said would provide the legislative oversight of the California Air Resources Board several members of the Assembly have sought.
A.B. 197, which the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality will consider June 29, would add two members of the Legislature to the CARB's governing body. Both would be non-voting members of the board. The bill would create a new joint legislative committee to “ascertain facts and make recommendations” on climate policies to the Legislature.
Authored by Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia (D), A.B. 197 also seeks to establish priorities for how CARB would adopt greenhouse gas emission reduction measures and how they are ranked based on their air pollution co-benefits and cost-effectiveness.
The accountability provisions in A.B. 197 would ensure greenhouse gas emissions are achieved equitably, fairly and economically, Pavley said in a June 14 statement urging fellow lawmakers to support the two bills.
“It is critically important, sooner rather than later, to extend our climate targets and to put them into statute,” Pavley said. “Businesses have told me time and again they need market certainty and predictability in order to plan and innovate and succeed. That's what S.B. 32 brings—certainty and predictability that California will build the clean energy economy that finally moves us away from our dependence on dangerous resources like fossil fuels.”
Clean energy businesses and environmental groups support the two bills.
Whether the measures have sufficient support to pass is unclear.
Last year, several moderate Democrats backed away from supporting S.B. 32, some of which received campaign support from groups funded by the oil industry, and forced the Senate leader to the remove provisions in a measure, S.B. 350, that called for a 50 percent reduction in the use of transportation fuels by 2030.
In May, Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin De Leon (D) said there would be “a concerted push to establish targets post-2020.”
“The question is: “What do you give up?” De Leon said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548061&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548061&jd=92548061

Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation News

(ACC Mentioned) Letter By Cal Dooley: Time to Let the Rail Carrier Competition Roll

Jun 24, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal

By Cal Dooley

In “Freight Railroads Are Braking for Regulatory Creep” (op-ed, June 15) about regulation of freight railroads, Edward R. Hamberger presents a misleading critique of a proposal that would actually reduce regulatory burdens and promote free-market competition. The proposal is called competitive switching, and it would simply allow rail customers to request that their freight be moved to another major railroad if it is reasonably accessible. It isn’t really a radical idea since it’s a process that has worked well for more than a century in Canada, which has a similar freight rail network.
As it stands now, federal regulators prevent rail customers with access to only one railroad from requesting a quote from a nearby rail carrier, even when customers are willing to pay to have their cargo switched to another railroad. This situation has left U.S. manufacturers, farmers and energy producers footing the bill to protect railroads from competing for each other’s business. Congress has long envisioned switching as a way to promote rail competition. But due to antiquated rules that effectively block competitive switching, no shipper has been able to obtain it. Eliminating these regulatory barriers would help reduce the need for government intervention and foster a healthy and competitive freight rail system.
The Surface Transportation Board is expected to act on a petition to allow for competitive switching this summer. We, along with the Rail Customer Coalition, strongly urge the board to adopt the proposal and put the marketplace back in the driver’s seat.
Cal Dooley
President and CEO
The American Chemistry Council
Washington
http://www.wsj.com/articles/time-to-let-the-rail-carrier-competition-roll-1466794859?mg=id-wsj

Return to headline | Return to top
Rail Is Still the Safest, Cleanest Way to Move Hazardous Materials

Jun 26, 2016 | The Spokesman-Review

By Kris Johnson

The recent train derailment in Mosier, Oregon, drives home the importance of transportation safety and emergency response preparations. It also puts a spotlight on the hazardous materials that are essential to supporting jobs and maintaining public health.
Slamming the brakes on shipments of hazardous materials by rail could have unintended consequences, such as damaging the economy, threatening public health, harming the environment, and increasing the risk of accidents.
All modes of transportation – trucks, trains, ships and aircraft – involve the risk of an accident. Rail transportation is recognized as the safest method of moving large quantities of hazardous materials over long distances. Of all deliveries of hazardous materials by rail, 99.99 percent are completed without incident.
Our daily lives rely on the transport of hazardous materials. There are the obvious examples like the fuel we put in our cars, trucks, tractors and airplanes. Almost all of the motor fuel used in Washington state comes from one of the four refineries in northwest Washington. And that means transporting crude oil by ship, pipeline and rail to the refineries and then transporting the fuel to where it is needed.
Chlorine is another hazardous materials example. Rail is responsible for hauling 22 percent, or 35,000 carloads of chlorine every year. Chlorine is essential to keeping our drinking water supply safe. Additionally, 85 percent of all pharmaceuticals contain chlorine.
Then there’s ammonia – a common ingredient in many of our household cleaners. But nearly 80 percent of ammonia is used in agriculture as fertilizer. Though considered a hazardous material, over 37,000 Washington farms need ammonia to maintain our $49 billion agriculture industry.
Are there inherent risks with transporting hazardous materials? Yes, of course, but no mode of transport is better than rail in terms of providing safety and environmental performance.
The railroad companies, which are required by federal law to transport hazardous materials, have invested billions of dollars to reduce risk and improve emergency response capabilities. For example, BNSF Railway has completely replaced hundreds of bridges, inspects its network more frequently than required by federal regulations, operates some of the most sophisticated, proprietary technology in the industry, and has trained thousands of emergency responders.
Train derailments attract a lot of attention – as they should. But, in fact, derailments are rare. Over the past 16 years, the train accident rate is down 45 percent – the lowest rate ever, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. Track-caused accidents are down even more – 54 percent – reflecting maintenance and capital investment by the railroads.
In addition to being safer, rail is also a much more environment-friendly mode of transportation. Rail accounts for only 2.3 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. By comparison, emissions from passenger vehicles and trucks add up to 84.6 percent.
A single train can haul the same amount of cargo as up to 280 trucks. Rail frees up capacity on highways and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by double digit percentages.
Hazardous materials are a fact of our everyday life and are vital to maintaining jobs, the economy and public health. Rail is the safest, cleanest mode of transporting hazardous materials.
Let’s learn from the accident at Mosier and continue to make investments and enhancements to improve transportation safety. But, at the same time, avoid arbitrary actions or policies that could have unintended consequences.
Kris Johnson is the president of the Association of Washington Business.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/jun/26/rail-is-still-the-safest-cleanest-way-to-move-haza/

Return to headline | Return to top
Washington Governor Calls for Oil Train Moratorium on Union Pacific

Jun 24, 2016 | The Columbian

By Lauren Dake

Gov. Jay Inslee called for a halt on Union Pacific Railroad oil trains traveling through Washington on Friday until stricter safety standards are enacted.
Inslee’s call comes after an oil train headed to Tacoma derailed in the Columbia River Gorge, in the town of Mosier, Ore., earlier this month. Oregon’s Gov. Kate Brown and other political leaders called for a moratorium on oil transport in response to the fiery crash. Inslee’s call for curtailing Bakken oil traveling through the state focuses solely on Union Pacific.
Jamie Smith, Inslee’s spokeswoman, said Inslee’s call for a “moratorium would essentially apply to UP (Union Pacific) since they aren’t doing adequate inspections,” but added, “the ask is to halt any Bakken oil trains that haven’t been cleared by a walking inspection by the railroad.”
BNSF Railway has inspectors who walk the tracks, Smith said. BNSF is the primary carrier of oil in Washington, according to state data.
“Ideally, FRA (the Federal Rail Authority) could halt all oil trains that don’t have all the safety improvements, electronic brakes, newer cars, but that doesn’t appear to be within their authority,” Smith wrote in an email, adding that’s why Inslee is focused on stopping all oil trains until walking inspections are mandatory.
Inslee said in the statement, he’s not “interested in symbolic measures.”
“It is unclear at this point whether the FRA (Federal Rail Authority) has the authority to order a stop to unsafe oil train transport, but they committed to looking into what they can do and will revisit what can be done to halt UP’s (Union Pacific) Bakken oil train transport until necessary safety improvements are made,” Inslee said.
In the past couple of years, the number of oil “unit trains” traveling through both states has increased dramatically. Many more trains would be likely to travel through the Columbia River Gorge if Vancouver Energy’s plans to build the nation’s largest oil terminal here are approved. The governor has the final say in whether the Tesoro-Savage project will be approved.
The state kicks off its public review of the proposal on Monday.
The Union Pacific tracks near Mosier had been inspected shortly before the derailment and no problems were identified. However, accident investigators believe a track problem caused the derailment.
Oregon’s Gov. Kate Brown repeated her call for a moratorium on oil transport on Thursday.
“The Federal Railroad Administration’s preliminary Mosier derailment report calls attention to serious safety concerns and the need for improved track inspections,” Brown said in a statement. “I expect the final investigation report to be completed quickly and again call on rail operators to halt oil trains in Oregon until the strongest safety measures are put in place by federal authorities to protect Oregonians.”
http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/jun/24/washington-governor-calls-for-oil-train-moratorium/

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Senate to Reveal Climate Spending Plan

Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Amanda Reilly

Senate appropriators are set to unveil their fiscal 2017 spending plan for the State Department tomorrow, and it could give GOP critics another opportunity to chip away at the Obama administration's climate agenda.
The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee will mark up the legislation tomorrow before the full panel takes it up Thursday. A key question is whether the GOP majority will propose to bar funding for U.S. international climate efforts.
A House spending plan for State released last week would not provide any funding for U.N. climate initiatives and would prohibit federal dollars from going into a global fund for helping poor countries mitigate and adapt to climate change (Greenwire, June 22).
The Obama administration had requested that congressional appropriators provide $750 million for the Green Climate Fund in fiscal 2017. Of that money, $500 million would come from the State Department.
In 2014, President Obama pledged that the United States would provide $3 billion for the fund over four years. Earlier this year, the administration made a $500 million down payment on that amount.
But GOP critics of international climate efforts have argued that the administration doesn't have the authority to provide funding without specific congressional appropriations.
In recent months, critics in the Senate have said that Palestine's membership in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change means that the United States can't provide any more funding for either the GCF or the UNFCCC. The United States does not recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
The GCF, however, has some bipartisan support in the Senate. Moderate Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine earlier this year wrote a letter to appropriators in favor of the fund.
The two Republican senators opposed attempts to block U.S. dollars for the fund in prior appropriations bills (ClimateWire, March 24).
Schedule: The subcommittee markup is Tuesday, June 28, at 2:30 p.m. in 124 Dirksen.
Schedule: The full committee markup is Thursday, June 30, at 10:30 a.m. in 106 Dirksen.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060039424

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Look into Agency Enforcement

Jun 27, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Kevin Bogardus

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee lawmakers are set to scrutinize U.S. EPA's programs for making sure people and companies follow environmental rules.
On Wednesday, the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight will hold a hearing on the agency's enforcement actions and compliance programs. Cynthia Giles, EPA's top enforcement official, is planning to testify.
This year, Giles has put an emphasis on several enforcement initiatives, including cutting toxic air emissions from industrial and chemical plants, and keeping industrial waste out of the nation's waterways.
In a statement in February, Giles said the enforcement plan was designed "to focus time and resources on national pollution problems that impact Americans locally" (Greenwire, Feb. 19).
Republican lawmakers have attacked EPA for being aggressive in punishing people and companies the agency catches violating environmental laws. For others, however, Giles has not been tough enough with her "Next Generation Compliance" initiative.
She has defended the plan, which focuses agency resources on the biggest polluters and relies on industry self-reporting and public scrutiny.
Giles has said in the past that EPA going after the most high-profile pollution cases would "provide the biggest bang for our buck" (Greenwire, June 6, 2014).
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, June 29, at 2:30 p.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witness: Cynthia Giles, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060039423

Return to headline | Return to top
Brexit Could Complicate Europe's Action on Climate Change

Jun 27, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Eric J. Lyman

The U.K.'s historic vote to leave the European Union will almost surely weaken Europe's pro-climate action forces and is likely to have a negative impact on investments in clean energy, experts said June 24.
But the overall, long-term impact the move will have on efforts to combat climate change, including the Paris Agreement reached last year, remains far from clear, they said.
Surveys showed those in the U.K. who voted to leave the EU were about twice as likely to be skeptical about the science behind climate change, and many “Brexit” leaders were similarly skeptical of either climate science or international treaties.
Observers said that probably means the U.K., which has generally been a progressive voice in international climate negotiations, would be less likely to continue that role.
“There is a very real fear that [Prime Minister David] Cameron's successor will come from the school that supports a bonfire of anti-pollution protections,” John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK, said in a statement. “The climate change-denying wing of the Conservative Party will be strengthened by this vote for Brexit.”
Stanley Johnson, co-chair of Environmentalists for Europe, agreed.
“Don't tell me a new Brexit-led British government is going to put climate change and environmental regulation on top of its pile of priorities starting June 24,” Johnson said before the vote.
News of the vote sent worldwide financial markets reeling, lopping hundreds of billions of dollars off the market capitalizations of corporations. Financial analysts said they do not expect a rapid recovery.
“When financial markets take such a big hit, it's safe to wonder about the impacts that will have on investments,” Marco Livorno, an energy market analyst with Hildebrandt and Ferrar in Milan, told Bloomberg BNA. “Low oil prices already made investments in most green energy projects difficult, and with less money available we could see a major dropoff.”
Many Questions
But beyond those points, the June 23 referendum left more questions than answers.
The EU, for example, last year submitted to the United Nations an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, or INDC, on behalf of all 28 member nations, promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030. A total of 162 INDCs covering 189 countries were written into last year's Paris Agreement, the world's first global climate pact.
It is not yet clear how the EU's INDC target will be adjusted with the U.K. out of the picture. Without the U.K. included, the 40-percent, EU-wide reduction target will be more difficult, since the U.K. was expected to have a more ambitious internal target, with the Committee on Climate Change, an autonomous U.K. government advisory body, recommending a 57-percent domestic reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2030.
From 28 to 27 Members
Earlier this week, Christiana Figueres, the outgoing head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, speculated that a U.K. departure would require a “recalibration” of the EU's vow.
But David Waskow, director of the World Resources Institute's International Climate Initiative, told Bloomberg BNA a change in the overall EU target was unlikely.
“There are questions, possibly, a question of effort-sharing within the EU bubble, shifting from 28 to 27 members,” Waskow said. “Now the focus would be on that effort sharing within the 27. So the EU target of 40 percent reduction won't change, but that effort sharing will have to be addressed.”
Risk to Paris ‘Momentum.'
News of the U.K. vote also pushed prices for EU carbon credits down almost 20 percent to a two-year low of 4.60 euro ($5.06), amid uncertainty whether the U.K. would continue to participate in the carbon markets that also include some non-EU states, such as Switzerland and Norway. Analysts said prices were unlikely to stabilize until the U.K.’s role was clarified.
“Brexit clearly poses some risks to the strong momentum coming out of Paris,” Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, told Bloomberg BNA. “It's much too early to know how things will play out.”
The situation could worsen if the U.K. vote emboldens other anti-EU parties in other countries. If the EU begins to fracture, it would have even bigger impacts on financial markets and international priority making, and it would clearly diminish the influence of the EU's progressive voice in climate negotiations. But political analysts said that kind of development remains a long shot.
Unintended Consequences
It's possible that the Brexit vote could result in the Paris Agreement entering into force earlier than expected. Entry into force requires at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of worldwide emissions to ratify the document.
Most prognostications see the 55-55 threshold being reached in the second half of next year. That would take place without EU ratification, which requires individual ratification from all member states and the European Parliament, something expected only in late 2017 or in 2018.
If it is no longer required to wait for the EU as a whole, the U.K.—which represents 1.1 percent of global emissions—could vote to ratify the Paris Agreement before the EU, perhaps as early as this year, said Alden Meyer, who tracks the UN climate negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92548075&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92548075&jd=92548075

Return to headline | Return to top
Brexit Means Problems for EU Climate and Emissions Targets

Jun 24, 2016 | PoliticoPro

By Anca Gurzu and Kalina Oroschakoff

The U.K.’s decision to quit the European Union spells trouble for the bloc’s climate and energy targets, leaving the European Commission scrambling to figure out what the Brexit vote means for emissions reduction plans for the next decade.
While experts say the EU is unlikely to change its 2014 commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030, a Brexit is set to trigger fraught political discussions among the remaining 27 EU members.
The reason is that the U.K. has been doing better than many other EU countries in cutting its greenhouse gas output.U.K. emissions were 35 percent below 1990 levels in 2014, while the EU average was 24.4 percent for the same year.
With the U.K.’s reductions removed from the mix, the remaining EU countries will have to make deeper cuts.
“It will mean now chaos for the Commission, to be honest,” Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green MEP, told POLITICO. “It’s going to be messy.”
As part of its 40 percent emission reduction pledge, the EU also agreed to cut emissions by 30 percent (from 2005 levels) from sectors not covered by the Emissions Trading System, such as transport, agriculture and buildings.
The Brexit referendum results come just as the Commission prepares to unveil its proposals on how to divide up those non-ETS emission cuts among EU countries, originally expected on July 20. Each country is supposed to receive a target, based on its domestic conditions and emission reduction potential.
Thursday’s vote, however, puts that timeline into question.
“Can we put something meaningful on the table before the summer? I am not so sure about that,” a Commission official told POLITICO, adding that the Commission’s work has been based on a “EU 28 scenario.”
“It will be very difficult to continue business as usual,” he said.
What is clear, experts say, is that Brussels and EU capitals will have tough negotiations in the wake of Thursday’s decision.
“I expect some countries would have to take a higher share. It is a statistical logic,” said Arno Behrens, head of the energy section at the CEPS think tank. “Politically it’s going to be very difficult to convince all member states to increase their efforts.”
Splitting that burden is no easy task. Over the past months, the EU’s energy chiefs travelled across the bloc to try to reach agreement with governments on how those cuts should be apportioned.
“The effort-sharing decision is unbelievably difficult, because everybody agrees the target, but only if the neighbor fulfils the target,” Miguel Arias Cañete, the climate and energy commissioner, said earlier this year.
Despite the referendum results, the U.K. government still has to officially notify the EU of its intention to leave. That means over the short term nothing has changed in terms of how EU energy laws apply in Britain.
“If [the notification] doesn’t come soon, I guess [the effort sharing proposals] would still include the U.K., which would be a bit awkward,” said Jonathan Gaventa, director at the London-based environmental think tank E3G.
More problems
The future of EU climate targets in general “will be one item on a very long list of issues to resolve as part of any U.K. exit negotiation,” Gaventa said. The process “is bound to be complex and difficult.”
“If such a frontrunner leaves it will be harder to achieve the 40 percent target,” he said.
While the U.K. has been an over-performer on emissions cuts, its record on renewables is more mixed.
The Commission has previously questioned whether Britain will be able to meet its 2020 renewable energy targets. Prime Minister David Cameron’s government cut subsidies for onshore wind and photovoltaic power generation.
The EU agreed in 2014 to get 27 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030. That goal is to be met collectively, with no specific national targets — something the U.K. pushed for during negotiations over the bloc’s energy and climate package.
With the U.K. out, that issue might become “a bit more open,” Eickhout said.
The U.K.’s departure will also have an impact on financing climate-related measures. About 20 percent of the EU’s current budget, or about €180 million by 2020, is earmarked for climate, and the U.K. is a net contributor to the budget, Behrens said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/brexit-means-problems-for-eu-climate-and-emissions-targets-122216

Return to headline | Return to top
Study Links 6.5 Million Deaths Each Year to Air Pollution

Jun 26, 2016 | The New York Times

By Stanley Reed

A sobering report released on Monday by the International Energy Agencysays air pollution has become a major public health crisis leading to around 6.5 million deaths each year, with “many of its root causes and cures” found in the energy industry.
The air pollution study is the first for the agency, an energy security group based in Paris, which is expanding its mission under its executive director, Fatih Birol.
The agency, whose 29 members are wealthy, industrialized countries, was founded in response to the Arab oil embargo in 1973 to coordinate international responses to energy issues. It is perhaps best known for its monthly oil market reports that are eagerly awaited by traders.
Mr. Birol, an economist, argues that pressing concerns about climate change and the emergence of countries like China and India as major energy consumers and polluters mean that the agency needs to shift its strategy.
“To stay relevant,” he said in an interview on Friday, we “need to work much closer with new emerging energy economies.”
Mr. Birol has been working to build bridges with China in particular, which energy experts say is crucial to the success of global efforts to reduce emissions.
“To solve today’s biggest energy problems, the I.E.A. needs to have the world’s most important energy players as part of it,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
Environmental issues, Mr. Birol said, are very important to emerging economies like India and China, whose cities are often plagued by choking smog.
Helping these countries solve problems through increasing energy efficiency or filtering out pollutants can make progress on climate change goals. We need to make these countries “understand that their problems are our problems,” Mr. Birol said.
Mr. Birol appears to be well-suited to this approach. Born in Turkey, he obtained his doctorate in energy economics in Vienna and began his career as an analyst at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the oil producers’ group, often seen as having an agenda rivaling the agency’s.
Mr. Birol appears to be pushing to make the agency crucial in coordinating a global approach to energy-related efforts. This includes carrying out theglobal emissions reduction agreement reached in Paris last year. “The world needs a global energy body,” said Neil Hirst, a senior policy fellow at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College in London.
Mr. Birol said that through relatively low-cost actions, like adopting more ambitious clean air standards and more effective policies for monitoring and enforcement, countries could make major strides in reducing pollution over the next quarter-century.
China, for instance, needs to retire polluting coal-fired power plants and to establish stricter standards for motor vehicles.
Such changes could produce big benefits. In India, the proportion of the population exposed to a high concentration of fine particles, a type of pollution, would fall to below 20 percent in 2040, from 60 percent today. In China, it would drop to below one quarter, from well over one half.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/business/energy-environment/study-links-6-5-million-deaths-each-year-to-air-pollution.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Finalizes Revisions To Incinerator Air Rule

Jun 24, 2016 | Inside EPA

EPA has issued a final rule revising parts of its new source performance standards (NSPS) and emissions guidelines for existing sources for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (CISWI), including weakening some emissions limits and adjusting the rule to take into account the variability of toxics content in fuel.
The final rule, published in the June 23 Federal Register, revises the CISWI NSPS and emissions guideline rule first issued in 2011 and modified in 2013. The rule is part of a broader package of air rules targeting CISWI, as well as emissions standards for boilers and a regulation defining whether incinerated waste is subject to the CISWI rules or the more-stringent boiler standards.
EPA in December 2014 issued a proposed reconsideration of some aspects of the CISWI rules, including changes sought by industry groups to various provisions of the regulation.
In the final rule, EPA finalizes changes to the definition of continuous emissions monitoring system data during startup and shutdown periods to make the term specific to different subcategories of incinerators.
EPA also revises the emissions limit for particulate matter emitted by the “waste-burning kiln” subcategory. “EPA has determined that the test averages, instead of the individual test runs, should be used to establish the standards for new and existing waste burning kilns. Based on that approach, the final PM emission limits for existing kilns is 13.5 mg/dscm and the final PM emission limit for new kilns is 4.9 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/ dscm),” the agency says. This compares to limits of 4.6 mg/dscm for existing units and 2.2 mg/dscm in the 2013 rule.
Also, EPA is incorporating a fuel variability factor for coal-burning energy recovery units, which adjusts emissions limits according to the pollutant content of coal. The move comes in response to industry criticism that the prior limits in the 2013 rule did not realistically reflect the emissions of coal-burning units. The result is altered emissions limits, making limits tougher for coal-burning units for cadmium, mercury, lead and particulate matter, but weaker for hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-finalizes-revisions-incinerator-air-rule

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested