Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/13/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) I-1464’s Would Put Campaign Cash in Voters’ Hands
Jul 13, 2016 | Herald Net
By John Burbank
State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Sumner, made it into the political news recently. The FBI has been looking into her campaign fundraising. -
More Than 300 New Chemicals Snagged as EPA Implements Law
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The criteria the Environmental Protection Agency is using to decide whether more than 300 new chemicals can enter commerce changed June 22 when the primary U.S. chemicals law was amended, according to information the agency provided Bloomberg BNA July 11. -
TSCA Supporters Say Lawsuits Will Likely Hinge On EPA's Implementation
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Supporters of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law say that chemical sector groups, advocates and others will likely hold off filing any legal challenges under the new law until EPA starts to formally implement the new authorities under the law, although they say several major provisions appear likely to draw lawsuits. -
(ACC Mentioned) Amicus Brief Filed in Appeal of $1.6 Million C-8 Verdict, Says DuPont Should Have been Permitted to Contest Plaintiff’s Exposure Level
Jul 12, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
An amicus brief has been filed in the pending appeal of a $1.6 million verdict entered in favor of a plaintiff who contended that she developed kidney cancer as a result of exposure to C-8 in her drinking water. -
Overregulation Doesn’t Even Spare HIV Patients: Guest Commentary
Jul 12, 2016 | Los Angeles Daily News
By Gregory T. Angelo
This month, the list of substances subject to California’s Proposition 65 was expanded to include Bisphenol-A (BPA), a trace ingredient in many plastics that the scientific community has deemed safe in small amounts. -
San Francisco Set to Ban Foam Food Packaging, Beach Toys
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
San Francisco approved a landmark law that would ban nearly all foam in food ware and limits its use in packaging. -
NTP Releases Fragrance Ingredient Toxicology Report
Jul 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released a technical report on its toxicity studies of the fragrance ingredient, octahydro-tetramethyl-naphthalenyl-ethanone (OTNE). -
Senate Votes for Energy Bill Conference With House
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate voted July 12 to go to conference with the House on broad energy legislation after weeks of behind the scenes negotiations. -
Energy Bill Creeps Closer With Conference Committee, But Fights Loom
Jul 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Nick Juliano
Congress is closer to passing an energy bill than at any point in nearly a decade — but anything can happen in crunch time. -
Senate Votes To Kick Off Conference Talks
Jul 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
After weeks of back and forth between the two parties, the Senate this afternoon voted overwhelmingly to launch the first formal energy reform conference in more than a decade. -
'A Lot of Talking' Ahead for Conferees -- Cantwell
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The top two senators who will lead energy negotiations with the House signaled yesterday they plan to make up for lost time after overcoming weeks of hesitation that delayed the formal conference process. -
Consolidation Sought in Power Plant Lawsuits
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide standards for power plants asked an appellate court July 12 to consolidate new lawsuits challenging the agency's denial of petitions to reconsider the rule with ongoing litigation over the standards themselves (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, motion to consolidate 7/12/16). -
EPA Hedges On Whether To Finalize Climate ESPS Model Trading Rules
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA is hedging on whether to finalize its proposed model trading rules for its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule while the Supreme Court's stay of the rule is in place, with one top official saying the agency could take a “less formal” step to provide further detail on the regulation though noting that “no decisions have been made” yet. -
Pa. Senate OKs Bill Trimming New Fracking Regulations
Jul 12, 2016 | Law 360
By Alex Wolf
The Pennsylvania Senate on Monday approved through bill amendments an assortment of measures that would essentially counteract pending environmental oversight rules for hydraulic fracturing at oil and gas wells, sending the legislation back to the House. -
Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Source of Methane Contamination
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wellbore failure, not high-volume hydraulic fracturing using horizontal drilling, was the main cause of industry-related methane gas contamination found in water wells in a major oil and gas producing region northeast of Denver, the National Academy of Sciences said. -
Why Obama’s Top Scientist Just Called Keeping Fossil Fuels In The Ground ‘Unrealistic’
Jul 12, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin
White House science adviser John Holdren’s comment Monday that it was “unrealistic” to halt fossil fuel extraction altogether in the U.S. may have seemed like stating the obvious. But it has further highlighted the tensions that exist even among top American policy makers and environmental advocates concerned about curbing the rate of climate change. -
EPA, OSHA Rules ‘Simplify' Safety Process: Official
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A planned emergency services regulation in development before an OSHA subpanel lines up well with the Environmental Protection Agency's emphasis on boosting first-responders as a way to mitigate chemical safety incidents, an agency official said July 12. -
(ACC Blog) FAST Action By Congress Helps Keep Chemical Transportation On Track
Jul 12, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
During the final legislative business days of last year, Congress passed a major and much-needed piece of legislation called the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or “FAST Act,” which addressed many critical transportation issues. -
Slow Progress Seen On Faulty Rail Cars
Jul 12, 2016 | AP (In Salon)
By Matthew Brown
Slow progress has been made on efforts to upgrade or replace tens of thousands of rupture-prone rail cars used to transport oil and ethanol, despite numerous fiery derailments that prompted new rules for the industry, U.S. safety officials said Tuesday. -
House Backs Bill to Curb Executive Power
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
The House yesterday passed legislation that would have a sweeping impact on environmental law. -
House Launches Marathon Environment Funding Debate
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Top House appropriators rehashed polarized positions July 12 onlegislation (H.R. 5538) to fund the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department as the chamber kicked off a potentially marathon floor debate. -
House Appropriators Bar Spending on Climate Fund
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Barack Obama's Green Climate Fund was in the crosshairs once again July 12 as House appropriators moved to prohibit any U.S. contribution to an effort to help developing nations address climate change impacts. -
House Lawmakers Deepen EPA Cuts, Add Policy Riders
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly, Tiffany Stecker and Amanda Reilly
The House yesterday approved a fresh round of cuts to U.S. EPA's operating budget for next year along with another crop of anti-regulatory policy riders during a marathon floor debate for the fiscal 2017 Interior and environment spending bill. -
White House Threatens To Veto House's FY17 EPA Bill
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Obama administration is threatening to veto the House's fiscal year 2017 spending legislation for EPA and other environment agencies ahead of an expected floor vote on the measure this week, calling its $164 million funding cut for EPA “unacceptable” and attacking policy riders blocking EPA rules as needlessly obstructive. -
Refiners Get Extra Time to Comply With Some Air Standards
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Refineries will get an additional 18 months to comply with some aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 hazardous air pollution standards covering the sector. -
Del. Sues EPA To Crack Down On Out-Of-State Emissions
Jul 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Delaware environmental regulators are suing to prod U.S. EPA to crack down on out-of-state air pollution. -
EPA Finalizes Compliance Deadline Extension For Refinery Air Toxics Rule
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is finalizing an 18-month deadline extension for the oil refining industry to comply with certain provisions of the agency's air toxics rule for the sector, while rejecting environmentalists' objections that the delay will compromise public health by allowing more time for refineries to exceed Clean Air Act emissions limits. -
Why The Next Frontier For Green Building Is Manufacturing
Jul 12, 2016 | Crain's Chicago Business
By Mahesh Ramanujam
Conjure an image of a factory and smokestacks come to mind. “Green” building isn't in the picture. But in fact, factories around the world are going green at a remarkable pace. Today, there are 500 million square feet of green factory space, including pace-setting construction, here in Chicago.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) I-1464’s Would Put Campaign Cash in Voters’ Hands
Jul 13, 2016 | Herald Net
By John Burbank
State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Sumner, made it into the political news recently. The FBI has been looking into her campaign fundraising.
What is strange is that Sen. Roach has said out loud what everyone walking the halls of the state Capitol knows: There is an intimate connection between campaign contributions, lobbying and legislators’ decisions on bills to support and to oppose. But our elected legislators are not supposed to publicly acknowledge these connections.
In 2014, Sen. Roach was campaigning for re-election. She was opposed by a fellow Republican, then-state Rep. Cathy Dahlquist of Enumclaw. Roach was trying to raise money for her campaign. By email, she reminded the Spokane private utility company, Avista, that she’d just been appointed to a legislative energy-policy advisory committee. Sleazy? Absolutely! Stupid? Yes. But, when these sentiments remain unspoken, absolutely commonplace.
What are we to expect when campaigns cost more than $200,000? If candidates don’t succeed raising money, they aren’t considered legitimate. So they spend a lot of time on the phone, organizing fundraisers, meeting lobbyists and the heads of political action committees, all in pursuit of campaign dollars. Who wouldn’t be surprised by legislative votes; just follow the money.
In the 44th District there is a real race between John Lovick, Democrat, who is the former Snohomish County executive and Janice Huxford, a Republican from Lake Stevens. Lovick has raised $47,000 and Huxford has raised $57,000. Whose on Huxford’s side? Premera, Regence, Ace Hardware, the Washington Food Industry Association, and the Trucking Action Committee. How about Lovick? The grocery store workers union, the Snohomish FireFighters, the teachers’ union, the state troopers and service employees. Who as a legislator will consider the public good?
How about unopposed candidates? Take for example Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe. He doesn’t have an opponent. Why would he need any campaign funds? But they have piled in, with Altria (Phillip Morris tobacco), 7-Eleven, Anhaueser-Busch, Chevron, the American Chemistry Council, PHRMA, Boeing, and Washington Banking PAC all contributing at least $900. Will Senator Pearson consider the public good of, for example, reining in drug prices, or will he be careful not to disturb the current status quo of the drug corporations and their high prices and profits?
Sen. Roach has merely pulled back the curtain on candidate-campaign contributors-legislative interactions. We don’t like what we see, but it happens all the time.
Is there a solution to this not-so-subtle corruption of public decision making? Yes! An unusual gathering of citizens, including tea party leaders, the League of Women Voters, and Connie Balmer,wife of ex-Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer, are supporting Initiative 1464, the Washington Government Accountability Act.
This initiative will limit donations from lobbyists to candidates to $100. I-1464 also sets up a voucher system, sending three $50 vouchers, called Democracy Credit contributions, to every voter in the state of Washington. As a voter, you decide if you want to contribute these vouchers to a legislative candidate. So instead of begging for $1,000 contributions from affluent residents, candidates would be motivated to request $50, $100 or $150 contributions from regular citizens, and actually give them a reason to make these donations. To be a qualified candidate to receive democracy vouchers, the candidate must receive at least 75 cash contributions of between $10 and $50. If they choose to participate, they cannot accept other contributions to their campaigns, be those from Boeing or Comcast or Jeff Bezos. They cannot contribute more than $5,000 of their own money for their campaigns. Their campaigns are limited to $150,000 to raise and spend. So they can’t buy their elections, and neither can the corporations and their lobbyists in Olympia.
Where does the money come from for Democracy vouchers? Right now, if you don’t live in Washington but you buy things in Washington, you don’t have to pay our sales tax. When my sister-in-law from Oregon comes up for Thanksgiving, or all those cruise boat passengers spend time in Seattle, they buy stuff and it’s all exempt from the sales tax. We pay it. They don’t.
Closing this sales tax loophole will provide the financing for Democracy vouchers. That would put an end to voiced and unvoiced quid pro quobetween lobbyists, candidates, elected legislators, and corporations in the halls of Olympia.
Our democracy would actually reflect the will of the people!
http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/i-1464s-would-put-campaign-cash-in-voters-hands/
-
More Than 300 New Chemicals Snagged as EPA Implements Law
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The criteria the Environmental Protection Agency is using to decide whether more than 300 new chemicals can enter commerce changed June 22 when the primary U.S. chemicals law was amended, according to information the agency provided Bloomberg BNA July 11.
The agency didn't reply July 11 or 12 to questions about whether it has made decisions since June 22 about whether some of those new chemicals could enter U.S. commerce.
Nor did the agency say when it would make or release those decisions.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, told Bloomberg BNA July 11 the number of new chemicals affected by the EPA's implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act isn't large.
For an individual company, however, every day that delays its ability to bring a new chemical or a new use of a chemical to market is huge, Bergeson said. “Every day counts.”
Timeline Hasn't Changed
Both the original and amended TSCA provide the EPA 90 days to review new chemicals.
Chemical manufacturers submit a premanufacture notice (PMN), which triggers the 90-day timeline.
The 90-day clock also applies to two other types of new chemical requests—significant new use notices (SNUNs), through which a company seeks to make or use a chemical in a way the EPA has designated to be new; and microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs ), which chemical manufacturers must submit before they commercialize certain microorganisms that can help produce chemicals
The EPA had about 325 new chemical notices under review when President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law June 22, the agency said.
When the Lautenberg Act became law, the agency “reset” the clock, meaning the 90-day review period officially restarted.
EPA Reasoning for Restarting Clock
The EPA said it needed the restart to ensure it reviewed new chemicals using the criteria the Lautenberg Act provides.
The agency also must—for the first time—make a definitive conclusion about whether a new chemical may pose an unreasonable risk before the chemical can be made in or imported into the U.S. Prior to Lautenberg, if EPA took no action during its 90-day review, the new chemical could enter into commerce.
Despite the 90-day reset, the agency said it would strive to review the new chemicals affected by amendments by the deadline that was in effect prior to the amendments.
Criteria, Decisions Changed
Under the Lautenberg Act, the EPA must consider whether the manufacturing, processing and use of a new chemical would pose an unreasonable risk to potentially susceptible populations, including infants, pregnant women, workers and the elderly, Sara Beth Watson, an attorney with Steptoe & Johnson LLP said during a July 12 webinar the law firm held.
After evaluating the toxicity of and anticipated exposure to the new chemical, the Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to make one of several findings.
The EPA may conclude the chemical isn't likely to present an unreasonable risk and can be made in or imported into the U.S.
The agency may decide it needs more information and order the submission of that information.
The EPA may conclude the new chemical would present an unreasonable risk, but control that risk through means such as limiting the chemicals' release to water or requiring workers to wear protective gloves if they could touch the new chemical.
The EPA also could conclude the new chemical presented an unreasonable risk and bar it from commerce.
More Data Anticipated
The agency is likely to ask manufacturers that would like to make or import new chemicals to provide it more data to assess risks and make the required decisions than the agency has done in the past, Watson said.
Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said June 28 he expects the EPA to use the Lautenberg Act's criteria to reach one of the new chemical decisions the law provides within a week to 10 days. Jones spoke at an American Bar Association forum about the TSCA amendments.
During that same forum, Bergeson said some of the clients her law firm represents had nearly reached the end of the agency's original 90-day review period just prior to the Lautenberg Act becoming law.
As of July 12, none of those clients had been told whether it can make or import those new chemicals, she told Bloomberg BNA.
Letter to Submitter Urged
When the EPA reaches whatever conclusions it will concerning the new chemicals it is reviewing, the agency should promptly advise the submitter with a letter or other documentation, she said.
The EPA told Bloomberg BNA it will send letters to companies when a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination is made, so that the submitter of the PMN is formally notified of the EPA's determination.
In addition to these letters, the EPA also intends to post its determinations online and publish them in the Federal Register regularly, the agency said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797522&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797522&jd=93797522
-
TSCA Supporters Say Lawsuits Will Likely Hinge On EPA's Implementation
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Supporters of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law say that chemical sector groups, advocates and others will likely hold off filing any legal challenges under the new law until EPA starts to formally implement the new authorities under the law, although they say several major provisions appear likely to draw lawsuits.
New requirements for confidential business information (CBI) claims, section 6 risk management actions, and language on how EPA should determine whether a chemical is considered an "unreasonable risk" could be targets for eventual litigation, industry officials and environmentalists say. Sources agree there are no provisions in the law expected to face an earlier suit, for example claims of being unconstitutional.
Stakeholders will wait to see how EPA's early actions under the new law play out and much will depend on the agency's implementation of the extensive new powers to regulate existing and new chemicals -- and competing Senate Democratic and GOP analyses on how to interpret the law could be cited in briefing in future lawsuits, sources say.
"It depends on how EPA goes about doing this," one industry source says on litigation over the new law, which President Obama signed June 22. There is a possibility that industry or environmental groups could take issue with an aspect of one of the initial regulatory actions EPA must take as part of the law, such as its plans to issue next June a procedural rule to establish the agency's criteria for identifying chemicals for risk reviews.
But the source adds, the "part where we'll see the big litigation" is when EPA begins to issue safety determinations for specific substances and pursue risk management actions under section 6 of the law. "I think that's where the real fight is, I think it will be interesting to see how courts will review" those challenges.
One environmentalist says they are not aware of any stakeholder that would be interested in pursuing a legal challenge before EPA begins taking action under the law, but that both the new language on cost considerations under section 6 and the revisions to the "unreasonable risk" standard in the law could be ripe for litigation.
"It's very unclear what unreasonable risk now means," that source says, adding, "It will probably have to be and probably ultimately will be figured out through litigation by the courts."
The new law represents a landmark bipartisan compromise between lawmakers and has been widely praised by EPA officials, industry and environmentalists as a major improvement over the 1976 TSCA.
The law, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act after the late senator who fought for TSCA reform early in the legislative efforts, would give EPA substantial new powers to govern the safety of chemicals, including mandating that the agency affirm the safety of new chemicals before allowing them to enter the marketplace and of existing chemicals grandfathered in under the old TSCA law.
Potential Lawsuits
Lawsuits filed under the law will be closely watched, given that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 1991 inCorrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA struck down the agency's asbestos ban under TSCA.
The decision was largely considered to point out a major failing of TSCA by limiting EPA's power to ban chemicals it deemed unsafe, although some advocates have suggested there are doubts about whether the agency plans to make asbestos -- a known carcinogen -- one of the first substances it will regulate under the new law.
Under the original 1976 TSCA, the agency in deciding whether to regulate a chemical had to weigh economic factors as well as pursue the "least burdensome" requirements. The revisions would remove the "least burdensome requirement" provisions and set a list of factors based on "reasonably available information" that the agency would have to consider in proposing a risk management rule under section 6 of TSCA, including economic factors.
But under the new law, the cost considerations would be kept distinctly separate from the agency's risk evaluation. Instead, cost considerations would occur later in the process, when EPA determines what type of restriction is adequate -- while still mandating that the chemical must be regulated to guard against unreasonable risk.
"We really don't know what kind of risk is 'reasonable'" the environmentalist says, pointing out that the 1991 ruling from the 5th Circuit linked cost to whether or not the agency could justify the regulation. That is one issue that could be ultimately decided by the courts in a legal challenge to an agency determination, the source says.
A second chemical industry source says that while they do not see a basis for any legal challenges to the law itself, once EPA begins taking section 6 actions to manage risks from existing chemicals it considers to pose an "unreasonable risk," the cost considerations are likely to be "an area of potential controversy."
That source also says revisions to CBI requirements under TSCA, which include changes to how EPA substantiates CBI claims and time limits for how long a CBI protection may last, could face litigation.
'New Approaches'
Still, some sources are hopeful that EPA will have time to implement the law without facing lawsuits. A former EPA source says the "hope, and the discussions taking place, is on allowing EPA to do its job without any litigation or a lot of litigation, at least until the foundation of the new approaches can be implemented by the agency."
However, the source suggests that EPA's interpretations could eventually face challenges, citing separate Democratic and Republican analysis of the new law entered into the June 7 Congressional Record. "We're already seeing differences of opinion about what's really meant about parts of the law," the source says.
Both analyses could potentially be cited in future litigation over implementation of the legislation, because it could be a factor in any disputes over Congress' intent when crafting the bill.
For example, the GOP analysis, entered in the form of a conversation between Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), seeks to downplay the changes to EPA's new chemicals' authority, saying the changes should not result in major differences in how the agency currently manages risks from new chemicals.
Vitter said the "amendments to this section were intended to conform closely with EPA's current practice and maintain the Agency's timely reviews that allow substances to market within the statutory deadlines."
Conversely, the Democrats' analysis, signed by EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and fellow Senate Democrats Edward Markey (MA), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Tom Udall (NM), says the bill would make "significant changes" to what they say is a "passive approach under current law."
For the first time, they say, EPA would be required to review all new chemicals and significant new uses and make an affirmative finding of safety prior to manufacture, as opposed to current law, which allows such safety reviews but does not mandate them. "Only chemicals and significant new uses that EPA finds are not likely to present an unreasonable risk can enter production without restriction," the Democrats say in their analysis.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/tsca-supporters-say-lawsuits-will-likely-hinge-epas-implementation
-
Jul 12, 2016 | Harris Martin Publishing
An amicus brief has been filed in the pending appeal of a $1.6 million verdict entered in favor of a plaintiff who contended that she developed kidney cancer as a result of exposure to C-8 in her drinking water.
In a June 20 brief filed in the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, American Tort Reform Association, and American Chemistry Council said that if the verdict is allowed to stand, it “threatens to deter business defendants from relying on a mutually beneficial and efficient alternative model for resolving general causation ...
Subscription required, for full story: http://harrismartin.com/article/21070/amicus-brief-filed-in-appeal-of-16-million-c-8-verdict-says-dupont-should-have-been-permitted-to-contest-plaintiffs-exposure-level/
-
Overregulation Doesn’t Even Spare HIV Patients: Guest Commentary
Jul 12, 2016 | Los Angeles Daily News
By Gregory T. Angelo
This month, the list of substances subject to California’s Proposition 65 was expanded to include Bisphenol-A (BPA), a trace ingredient in many plastics that the scientific community has deemed safe in small amounts.
As with other products that include substances deemed cancer-causing under Prop. 65, products that include BPA will now have to carry a warning label stating that they are “known to the state of California to cause cancer.” What these labels leave unsaid is that such warnings are required for substances having as little as a 1 in 100,000 chance of causing cancer over a 70-year period. A wide net, indeed.
Prop. 65’s labeling requirements may be well-intended. Consumers have a right to know if products they consume could directly give them cancer. (Think: cigarettes and tobacco.) But slapping labels on anything that has even the remotest possibility of causing cancer is not good public policy. By requiring everyday goods like flip flops, umbrellas and coffee to carry a cancer warning, consumers become desensitized to real cancer risks.
This affects HIV and AIDS medications. AZT, an early and effective form of HIV/AIDS treatment, is subject to Prop. 65’s labeling requirement because it was thought to increase the risk of cancer.
Because of the cancer fear associated with this label, thousands of AIDS patients likely avoided taking medicine that could have helped them. AIDS expert Dr. Jerome Groopman warned, “It would be a mistake for AIDS-infected individuals to avoid taking AZT on the supposition that they might get lymphoma” many years later. The CDC still explicitly recommends AZT to prevent pregnant HIV-infected mothers from spreading the virus to their unborn children. The kicker: Eight-year studies don’t implicate AZT as a carcinogen.
History may be about to repeat itself. Tenofovir — more commonly known as Truvada, a potential AIDS wonder drug — may be subject to Prop. 65’s labeling requirements as well. Used both to treat HIV-positive patients and prevent new infections, Truvada is more effective and less expensive than its predecessors. Its adoption is widespread, and is recommended in most forms of pre-exposure therapy, which doctors cite as instrumental in preventing the transmission of HIV to uninfected individuals.
Like AZT, some blame Truvada for observed increases in lymphoma, liver and lung cancers in the population of men and women being treated for HIV. This assessment is misleading. The research surrounding these drugs doesn’t implicate them as carcinogenic in humans. In reality, Truvada and other cutting-edge drugs are allowing HIV patients to live much longer, healthier lives. But will that be enough to stave off the overzealous warning-label regime of Prop. 65?
Prop. 65 now requires businesses to warn consumers about the presence of nearly 900 possible carcinogens. Many establishments elect to use the warning labels ubiquitously to avoid the costly legal settlements which have turned California into a minefield of predatory “bounty hunter” lawsuits demanding major payouts that could bankrupt businesses. The result: Everything from restaurants to luggage have cancer warning labels on them. And perhaps more lifesaving medicine will as well if the law continues in its current form.
Has Prop. 65 had any effect in reducing cancer since it was approved by voters in 1986? No — California’s cancer rate isn’t any different than in the rest of the U.S. It’s time to reform Prop 65 so that it only applies to substances with a direct and obvious link to cancer in the quantities used in existing products. BPA, HIV/AIDS medications and the vast majority of the substances on the Prop. 65 list do not meet this standard.
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20160712/overregulation-doesnt-even-spare-hiv-patients-guest-commentary
-
San Francisco Set to Ban Foam Food Packaging, Beach Toys
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
San Francisco approved a landmark law that would ban nearly all foam in food ware and limits its use in packaging.
San Francisco supervisors unanimously approved July 12 the law that expands the city's 10-year-old ban on foam carry out containers to prohibit the sale and use of foam beach float devices, coolers and packing peanuts and any material that isn't compostable or recyclable despite opposition from the American Chemical Society and Expanded Polystyrene Industry Alliance.
Exceptions will be made for packaging that comes into the city with foam protecting appliances, computers, furniture and medicine and for a written request for up to a 36-month hardship exemption.
The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Commission joined Save the Bay and the Surfrider Foundation in supporting the legislation that now returns to the board after minor amendments defining packaged food. The measure after expected final approval will head to Mayor Ed Lee (D), who has 10 days to sign, veto or let the law be enacted without his signature.
Foam is theoretically recyclable, but less than 1 percent is diverted, with virtually no recycling for food containers, the legislation said. Compostable alternatives, including corn-starch composed packaging materials, are available and were adopted after San Francisco banned foam take-out containers in 2006. San Francisco will devise a list of suitable alternatives deemed compliant that are “reasonably affordable,” the law said.
“San Francisco is not like other cities, even within California,” Michael Levy, senior director for the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Foodservices Packaging Group, told Bloomberg BNA. “I think it's important to know that some cities, even larger ones like Los Angeles, have elected to go a different route” and concentrate on waste reduction.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797528&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797528&jd=93797528
-
NTP Releases Fragrance Ingredient Toxicology Report
Jul 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has released a technical report on its toxicity studies of the fragrance ingredient, octahydro-tetramethyl-naphthalenyl-ethanone (OTNE).
The agency performed short-term tests to determine if there were toxicity effects in mice or rats, based on a dermal route of exposure. It concluded that such exposure to OTNE for three months resulted in skin lesions at the site of application, in both rats and mice.
Substances selected for NTP toxicity studies are chosen primarily on the basis of human exposure, level of production and chemical structure.
OTNE is used as a perfume ingredient in personal and household products, including soaps, shampoos, liquid detergents, deodorants and air fresheners.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48542/ntp-releases-fragrance-ingredient-toxicology-report
-
Senate Votes for Energy Bill Conference With House
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Senate voted July 12 to go to conference with the House on broad energy legislation after weeks of behind the scenes negotiations.
The measure, which passed by voice vote, came after House Republicans agreed to a final conference report that will not contain measures the president would veto, Rosemarie Calabro Tully, a spokeswoman for Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told Bloomberg BNA. An earlier separate procedural vote on the motion was passed by a vote of 84-3.
“It doesn't make sense to throw down matters that have a veto threat attached to them,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters before the vote.
In addition to voting to have a formal conference to rectify the chambers' two bills (S. 2012, H.R. 8), the Senate named seven bill negotiators. They are Murkowski and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The Senate voted to pass its version of the bill (S. 2012) on an 85-12 vote in April, but then the House voted along party lines to add a slew of bills opposed by the White House and congressional Democrats as part of an 806-page amendment before sending the measure to the Senate.
In addition to incorporating the text of House Republicans' energy bill (H.R. 8), which was already under veto threat from the Obama administration, the amendment added more bills the White House earlier promised to veto, such as legislation expediting the permitting process for mines and a bill dealing with the California drought opposed by the environmental community.
Challenges Remain
“We are not rolling back existing law to move forward,” Cantwell told reporters following several informal meetings with Murkowski and key architects of the House bill. “That's why the discussions took so long.”
While the vote gives negotiations a “permission slip”—as Murkowski put it—to begin work, challenges remain as Congress is expected to begin a seven week recess later this week and as the focus increasingly turns to November's presidential election.
“While there is talk of removing the most troubling, toxic elements of the House and Senate-passed energy bills, it is clear that any successful conference would need to dramatically improve the current proposals,” Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce said in a statement. “Among the worst provisions in the current legislation are those which claim that burning forests is ‘carbon neutral,' expedite [liquefied natural gas] exports, block energy efficiency standards, repeal federal building sustainability measures, and waive the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act at hydropower dams.”
The underlying legislation, which would be the first broad energy bill in nearly a decade, would promote cybersecurity of the bulk-power system, speed approval to export liquefied natural gas and streamline licensing for hydropower projects.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797515&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797515&jd=93797515
-
Energy Bill Creeps Closer With Conference Committee, But Fights Loom
Jul 12, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Nick Juliano
Congress is closer to passing an energy bill than at any point in nearly a decade — but anything can happen in crunch time.
Now responsibility falls to seven senators and 40 House members to bridge the gulf between the measures cleared by the two chambers.
The Senate on Tuesday appointed its members to a conference committee, kicking off formal negotiations with House conferees appointed earlier this spring. Both Democrats and Republicans on the conference committee say their goal is to send President Barack Obama a bill that he can sign this year, but they have plenty of work in front of them and not much time left on the legislative calendar this year.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held out for weeks to limit the scope of the conference negotiations so as to exclude items the White House would nix. Cantwell said she and Energy Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) reached an agreement this week to not “hold [the bill] hostage for things that we can’t get done.”
But that leaves plenty of ground for negotiation, on issues such as land and water conservation, wildfire preparedness and the scope of federal environmental laws. The House package includes all or part of 37 separate bills, several of which the White House at one time or another has threatened to veto. Democrats also are facing pressure from their left flank over a provision in the Senate energy bill that would treat biomass as a carbon-neutral resource.
Murkowski said the conference committee would not meet until Congress returns from recess in September, and she left open the possibility that a bill would not come to the floor until a lame duck session. She said staff would be working over the summer break to find areas of common ground before tackling the toughest disagreements in the fall.
“This is one of those questions: Do you eat the things on the plate that you really, really don’t like first, or do you work your way up to the tougher stuff?" Murkowski said in a brief interview Tuesday. “My guys on the energy committee have a great relationship with Cantwell’s team, but right now we’re bringing in other teams and the House folks as well. So let’s work on those areas of commonality first.”
Several pieces of the House package did not attract veto threats, but would limit the reach of the National Environmental Policy Act — a traditional third-rail for Democrats and green groups. It remains to be seen how hard Republicans push for those provisions in the conference committee, but Cantwell said she did not expect the president would sign a bill that rolled back NEPA.
“We’re not doing those things — we’re not rolling back existing law as a way to move forward,” Cantwell told reporters Tuesday. “That’s why the discussions took so long. No one has time to do that.”
Similarly, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) has said he would not accept a conference report that permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund as envisioned in the Senate-passed bill.
“I’m willing to talk about anything that’s there, but if the House is required to back off on certain levels because we can’t reach agreement, then the Senate has to be willing to do the same thing,” Bishop told POLITICO. “That’s the purpose of a conference committee. … However, having said that, I don’t want to put anything off the table.”
Another controversial item in the House package is modeled on a Republican bill addressing the California drought bill that has run into heavy resistance from the White House, but it appears unlikely to make a final bill.
“It’s my understanding [that] will be left out, that there is an agreement,” Sen.Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a leading negotiator on the issue, told POLITICO, explaining that she had been briefed by staff on the agreement.
Green groups, which mostly opposed the bipartisan Senate bill, are keeping up the pressure to remove the biomass language, which directs federal agencies to treat the resource as carbon-neutral under certain conditions.
“Now it’s up to members of the conference committee to deliver a bill that helps us build a clean energy economy. A key to that is fixing provisions undermining environmental protections, such as a Senate measure encouraging the burning of trees to make electricity,” Marc Boom, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement Tuesday. “That’s unacceptable and flies in the face of the science. Forests aren’t fuels."
Cantwell acknowledged the biomass language remains a touchy subject, but predicted it would survive in the conference report. “There’s more common interpretation of what the language means than disagreement,” she said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/07/energy-bill-creeps-closer-with-conference-committee-but-fights-loom-123860
-
Senate Votes To Kick Off Conference Talks
Jul 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
After weeks of back and forth between the two parties, the Senate this afternoon voted overwhelmingly to launch the first formal energy reform conference in more than a decade.
Senators first voted 84-3 on a procedural motion to end debate on a motion to launch negotiations with the House. The motion then passed by voice vote.
Voting followed weeks of discussions between Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
Talks also included House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), as well as House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and ranking member Raül Grijalva (D-Ariz.).
Democrats have been wary of starting formal talks to reconcile the Senate bill, S. 2012, with the House's energy package, which representatives amended in May to include measures the White House had threatened to veto.
Today's breakthrough came after Murkowski and Cantwell reached an agreement to exclude controversial provisions from the final bill.
Pressed on the issue, Murkowski earlier today referenced last month's joint statement by Upton and Bishop, in which the pair affirmed their support for producing a final energy bill that President Obama would sign (E&ENews PM, June 20).
"I think all you need to do is go back to the statement that was made by our House colleagues a couple weeks ago when they said it's their intention, as it is mine, to make sure that we have an energy conference product that will be signed into law," Murkowski told reporters. "Doesn't make sense to throw down matters that have a veto threat attached to them."
Cantwell on the floor this afternoon said Upton and Bishop's statement "made it helpful for us to move forward"
"They basically said they didn't want to waste time on things that were going to be vetoed," she said, urging her colleagues to support moving to conference.
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon said Murkowski had "given her word to side" with Cantwell on the final conference report.
Murkowski in floor remarks hailed the "strong working relationship" between herself and Cantwell, who conducted extensive outreach to stakeholders in assembling their energy package. She noted the bill contains provisions from 80 senators.
Murkowski said the conference would not "unilaterally disarm" itself on any issues but reiterated her goal of producing a bill that would become law.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today notified senators it would "key vote" the move to go to conference, which it supports.
Environmentalists have resisted a formal conference, citing fears over the House's package. In a statement, Natural Resources Defense Council Associate Director of Government Affairs Marc Boom lauded Cantwell for "sidelining the most egregious House provisions."
He said, "Now it's up to members of the conference committee to deliver a bill that helps us build a clean energy economy. A key to that is fixing provisions undermining environmental protections, such as a Senate measure encouraging the burning of trees to make electricity. That's unacceptable and flies in the face of the science. Forests aren't fuels."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/07/12/stories/1060040161
-
'A Lot of Talking' Ahead for Conferees -- Cantwell
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The top two senators who will lead energy negotiations with the House signaled yesterday they plan to make up for lost time after overcoming weeks of hesitation that delayed the formal conference process.
Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said they were ready to dig into the substance of the chambers' competing bills, after lengthy talks over the conference process resulted in a 84-3 vote to formally launch talks (E&ENews PM, July 12).
"I think it's fair to say just leading up to today, my staff has been engaged in a lot of work, just making sure that all of the preliminary stuff is done, so once we are officially in conference and conferees have been named, we start sitting down," Murkowski told E&E Daily before the vote. "We are not going to let any moss grow under our feet here."
Cantwell predicted "a lot of talking" among staff and members over the seven-week summer recess that starts at the end of this week, telling E&E Daily after the vote that she was en route to her office to meet with members on the energy bill.
Yesterday's vote came after Murkowski and Cantwell spent weeks talking with their respective House counterparts on the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources committees, discussions that stemmed from Democrats' concerns with multiple provisions in the House's revised package that had drawn veto threats from the White House.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that Murkowski had committed to siding with Cantwell on the final product, which brought reluctant Senate Democrats to support the conference, despite strong objections from the environmental community.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a close ally of environmentalists and ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said that she voted to go to conference because of her confidence in Cantwell.
"I trust Maria," Boxer said in an interview. "Maria said she's going to work closely with the Republican leadership in the Senate and that she's going to protect what we did."
Senators from both parties expressed optimism for the conference process, saying they were satisfied with the assurances that led to yesterday's vote.
"We feel like we have the basis for coming out with a good bill, so we'll see," said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), an energy panel member who in recent weeks has been pessimistic about a conference.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who also sits on the energy committee, said he was "relatively optimistic" for the conference prospects.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), was similarly upbeat, noting that the Senate bill contains provisions that have broad support, including grid reliability, efficiency and pipeline permitting. "I feel good about it," she said of the conference.
Having spent 14 years in the House, Capito also said the Senate bill's more narrow focus may be helpful as well. "I think that's always better in terms of trying to get it across the finish line," she told E&E Daily.
Still, there's plenty of hurdles ahead for the conference, including an abbreviated legislative calendar cut short by the election year and major policy differences between the two chambers' packages (E&E Daily, April 26).
Despite the tough calendar, Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), a conferee, said yesterday the vote to go to conference gives "breathing room and an opportunity to try to get there."
On policy, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) yesterday reiterated his opposition to the permanent reauthorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that is included in the Senate's bill, noting the program is already authorized through 2018 under last year's omnibus spending agreement.
"If the Senate wants to talk about LWCF, there's got to be some reform element to it," Bishop toldE&E Daily. "We can't just continue on with this. The program is used right now to hurt people. It's got to be used to help people, and that means there's got to be some reform to it."
There's also major differences on efficiency in both bills, although the Alliance to Save Energy yesterday noted that several conferees -- including Murkowski, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) -- are honorary members of its board.
While industry groups lauded the move to launch conference talks, environmentalists remain less than enthused over the prospects.
"While there is talk of removing the most troubling, toxic elements of the House and Senate-passed energy bills, it is clear that any successful conference would need to dramatically improve the current proposals," said Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce in a statement.
"Among the worst provisions in the current legislation are those which claim that burning forests is 'carbon neutral,' expedite LNG exports, block energy efficiency standards, repeal federal building sustainability measures and waive the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act at hydropower dams," she said.
Another wild card in the conference is the inclusion of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as a conferee.
Sanders, who yesterday dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, has attained an almost rock star status in Democratic circles and is capable of turning out his legion of supporters to press his preferred policies. For instance, Sanders was able to install climate activist Bill McKibben on the Democratic Party's platform committee (E&E Daily, May 24).
But the choice of Sanders -- who opposed the bill in committee -- as a conferee appears to have been driven by his seniority on the Energy committee, rather than an effort to complicate the process. Sanders is third in line in seniority on the panel, behind Cantwell and Wyden.
Murkowski noted that Reid submitted the Democratic nominees and appeared unfazed by Sanders' inclusion.
"You take what you get and you work with it," she said. "I am just happy that we're going to conference."
Reporters Hannah Hess and Nick Sobczyk contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/13/stories/1060040182
-
Consolidation Sought in Power Plant Lawsuits
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide standards for power plants asked an appellate court July 12 to consolidate new lawsuits challenging the agency's denial of petitions to reconsider the rule with ongoing litigation over the standards themselves (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, motion to consolidate 7/12/16).
The move was expected after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit halted briefing in the ongoing challenges to the carbon dioxide new source performance standards for new and modified power plants (RIN:2060-AQ91) in order to accommodate the additional lawsuits.
The EPA in May denied (81 Fed. Reg. 27,442) five petitions seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the new source performance standards—particularly the requirement for some form of carbon capture at new coal-fired units—from the Utility Air Regulatory Group, American Electric Power, Ameren Corp., the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and Wisconsin.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group and American Public Power Association, 20 states led by West Virginia and Murray Energy Corp. have all filed lawsuits challenging the EPA's denial of reconsideration. In a joint motion to the D.C. Circuit, the various petitioners asked the courts to consolidate these new challenges to the ongoing litigation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797519&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797519&jd=93797519
-
EPA Hedges On Whether To Finalize Climate ESPS Model Trading Rules
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
EPA is hedging on whether to finalize its proposed model trading rules for its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule while the Supreme Court's stay of the rule is in place, with one top official saying the agency could take a “less formal” step to provide further detail on the regulation though noting that “no decisions have been made” yet.
“At this point we still have not made a decision given the pendency of the stay [about] what our next step is going to be -- whether we're going to move from proposal to final rule, or whether we're going to devise some other less formal instrument to move the ball forward in terms of the issues that were raised [in comments on] the model trading rule,” Joe Goffman, EPA's associate assistant administrator for climate, told an annual energy conference hosted by the Energy Information Administration in Washington, D.C., July 11.
His comments appear to acknowledge that EPA is wary of critics' charges that finalizing the model trading rules -- which EPA has previously pledged to finalize this summer -- could be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's stay.
However, the remarks also show the agency is recognizing that it needs to take action to address issues raised in comments to the proposed model rules in order to placate environmentalists, states and other supporters calling for more detail.
Since the Supreme Court stayed EPA's existing source performance standards (ESPS) in February, many agency critics have pressed officials to drop efforts to develop related rules and policies, including the model trading rules and the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP).
They have charged that moving forward with such policies is at odds with the stay and unlawful because advancing regulatory processes that are integrally related to the suspended rule would compel states and regulated entities to expend resources to respond -- or otherwise forgo legal rights -- and, indirectly, participate in implementation of the stayed rule.
They have also argued that the high court's stay order includes “inherent” requirements to postpone, or toll, all of the deadlines in the rule to account for the litigation.
But Goffman noted that a number of entities have urged EPA to address the “rich record of public comments” the agency received on its model trading rules, which the agency proposed last summer alongside its final ESPS.
For example, Goffman cited a group of 14 states backing the rule that penned a letter calling on the agency to finalize the model trading rules to provide further information to those states that have decided to voluntarily move forward with ESPS planning despite the stay.
“[W]e request that EPA provide a final model rule or rules. Of course, the relevance of such a rule will depend on the outcome of the litigation; however our states would find the information helpful in the near term for the planning purposes described above,” the states wrote in their April 28 letter
The states' letter came just two days after EPA sent a draft proposal outlining further details of its CEIP to the White House for interagency review. That proposal has since been released, with a comment period that began June 30.
'Less Formal' Instrument
The states and other EPA backers insist agency actions to issue the recent CEIP proposal, as well as the final model trading rules, are wholly consistent with the Supreme Court stay of the ESPS, which they say prohibits the agency from implementing the rule but does not preclude it from continuing to develop related programs.
Agency officials have said as much, as well. For example, acting air chief Janet McCabe wrote in an April 18 letter that the agency “will move forward developing these actions in a way that is consistent with the stay while providing states the tools they have asked for to help address carbon pollution from power plants.”
McCabe added that EPA “has in the past moved forward with preparing for the potential implementation of a rule while it has been stayed, in anticipation of the possibility that the stay could be lifted. Such actions are unaffected by a stay."
However, comments like McCabe's tend to refer to ESPS related actions generally without addressing in particular the fate of the model trading rules, which prior to the high court stay of the rule EPA had pledged to finalize this summer.
Thus, Goffman's comments serve as one of the first indications that the agency intends to take some sort of action on the model trading rules, though he was careful to stress that no formal decisions have yet been made on a path forward.
Goffman declined to answer what form a less formal instrument might take. When asked, he told Inside EPA that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had previously told the House Science Committee that no decisions have been made on whether to finalize the trading rules. “For the moment, that's the up-to-date word,” he said.
But one environmental lawyer says that if EPA were to issue a “less formal” action related to the model trading rules, it could take the form of a guidance or memorandum, which the source notes would be somewhere between the proposal and a final rule.
However, the source also says there is “no legal impediment” imposed by the stay that precludes EPA from finalizing the model trading rules, or taking any other steps “including regulatory action that has the effect of helping everyone understand what this program is going to look like.”
CEIP Proposal
Nonetheless, were the agency to take a less formal action instead of finalizing the model trading rules, it could serve to minimize some criticism from opponents that EPA is compelling action from states, thus violating the high court stay.
Rule opponents have argued that the agency's recent CEIP proposal and any final action on the model trading rules “compels” action from states in the form of a comment period and a litigation window, respectively.
In terms of the CEIP proposal, “if you're a state that didn't want to be working during the stay, you have to pick up your pen and write comments and evaluate this rule, otherwise if at the end of the day the rule comes back, you're going to be in a position where you didn't have any opportunity to have any input on this part of the program,” industry attorney Allison Wood told Inside EPA last month.
Likewise, if the agency were to finalize the model trading rules, that triggers under the Clean Air Act a 60-day window in which to file a legal challenge or “otherwise you waive your right to do so,” Wood argued, adding “then suddenly you're in litigation, and that's all very entailed and costly and involves picking up many pens.”
Emissions Leakage Guidance
One issue that EPA could address in any “less formal” action like a guidance in lieu of finalizing the model trading rules is how to deal with emissions leakage, an issue with which Goffman said stakeholders were “particularly fascinated” in comments.
EPA under the ESPS generally requires states that use mass-based compliance approaches to take steps to prevent leakage of emissions from existing plants to new facilities, particularly new natural gas plants that are not subject to the rule's requirements.
“We got plenty of comment on that. We have been the beneficiaries of a lot of analysis and information from the public sector and private sector parties, and clearly we will make some decisions at some point about how to respond to those in the wake of the proposal that was issued last summer and the already-existing and complete comment record that we've got from January,” Goffman told the EIA conference.
One approach states can take to mitigate leakge -- which analysts said is the easiest and most effective -- is to include new sources under the cap, using an approach called the new source complement. But because EPA cannot mandate such a method, it includes in the proposed model trading rules an alternative -- under which 10 percent of all the state's allowances must be divided equally into two set-asides, one for renewable generation and another for existing natural gas units to be distributed through an updating output-based allocation system.
Environmentalists have called on EPA to revisit the issue in the final model trading rules after several analyses found the approach ineffective at preventing leakage, thus undermining the emissions reductions that would be achieved by the rule
Some analysts, however, have expressed uncertainty over what EPA could do to fully resolve the issue, as analysts have been unable to find an alternative approach that would mitigate leakage 100 percent.
“I think their hands are tied. Statutorily they are going after existing sources under [Clean Air Act section] 111(d), so the tools available for just regulating existing sources are the ones we're already looking at,” Rhodium Group analyst John Larsen told reporters last month, though noting EPA could take further steps to incentivize the new source complement approach.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-hedges-whether-finalize-climate-esps-model-trading-rules
-
Pa. Senate OKs Bill Trimming New Fracking Regulations
Jul 12, 2016 | Law 360
By Alex Wolf
The Pennsylvania Senate on Monday approved through bill amendments an assortment of measures that would essentially counteract pending environmental oversight rules for hydraulic fracturing at oil and gas wells, sending the legislation back to the House.
In a 41-7 vote, the Senate approved an assortment of changes to a bill that initially only addressed the horseracing industry, but has since been amended to include a variety of other policy measures.
Some of the amendments to SB-1229 approved Monday would seemingly undo certain fracking regulations finalized in April by the state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission, andadvanced by the governor in June, that are currently under review by the state attorney general’s office.
Jeffrey Sheridan, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, told Law360 in an email Tuesday that the governor’s office is not in favor of the amendments.
“We do not support, and if it reaches the governor's desk, he will veto,” Sheridan said.
The proposed regulations would largely ban the use of in-ground impoundments for storing drill cuttings and waste fluids, require monthly reporting of gas production and waste, and force drillers to take stock of a lengthy list of public resources that could be impacted by proposed wells. They have not been updated since 2001, long before the Marcellus Shale boom transformed the state’s energy landscape.
The amendments passed on Monday would nix the proposed requirement for monthly well production reports in favor of maintaining the current policy that requires biannual reporting, and give drillers 24 months, instead of the current nine months, to restore a well site after use.
Additionally, an approved amendment would block the state’s Department of Environmental Protection from prescribing requirements for the storage of surface water, fresh groundwater or water obtained from an approved public water purveyor for use in oil and gas development that are more restrictive than those for storing similar freshwater sources used for other purposes.
Last month, the Pennsylvania House and Senate passed a bill that would let the state implement the IRRC’s Chapter 78a regulations, which govern unconventional drillers involved with shale exploration and production. Wolf approved the measure a week later.
The law repeals any regulations approved by the DEP’s Environmental Quality Board regarding oil and gas sites in 2016 prior to June 23. Any future rulemaking concerning conventional oil and gas wells that the board undertakes will be done independently of unconventional wells or other subjects, the law says.http://www.law360.com/articles/816556/pa-senate-oks-bill-trimming-new-fracking-regulations
-
Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Source of Methane Contamination
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wellbore failure, not high-volume hydraulic fracturing using horizontal drilling, was the main cause of industry-related methane gas contamination found in water wells in a major oil and gas producing region northeast of Denver, the National Academy of Sciences said.
Of 924 sampled water wells in the 23,000-square mile Denver-Julesburg Basin region of northeastern Colorado, dissolved methane was detected in 593 wells at shallow depths of about 60 feet to 600 feet deep, the academy said July 11. Most of this methane was naturally generated biogenic gas, likely from shallow coal seams, the study said.
A total of 42 water wells contained thermogenic “stray” methane gas, which originates from underlying oil- and gas-producing formations where fracking occurs.
However, the study said, none of the contamination affecting those wells, representing 32 separate cases of contamination, could be specifically attributed to recent horizontal well drilling or hydraulic fracturing. “Assessment of the risk of thermogenic methane release should therefore address the full history and life cycle of both conventional and unconventional oil and gas operations,” it said.
Inadequate surface casing and leaks in production casing and wellhead seals in older, vertical wells—not the use of horizontal drilling and high-volume fracking per se—were identified as the sources of the stray gas in those wells, according to the NAS study, which was published online ahead of print publication.
Fracking is the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into tight shale formations underground to release trapped crude oil and natural gas that was previously uneconomical to develop. Environmentalists say the technique could contaminate groundwater and cause other environmental and public health harms, while industry maintains it's safe.
Wellbore Failure Rates
According to the NAS study, the rate of oil and natural gas wellbore failure was estimated as 0.06 percent of the roughly 54,000 wells in the basin. The rate of well failure of the 20,700 wells in the area where stray gas contamination occurred was 0.15 percent and has remained steady, at about two cases per year, since 2001.
Overall rates of contamination of water wells remain ambiguous, the NAS said. The researchers, which included scientists from the University of Colorado and the California State Polytechnical University, studied Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission data collected from 1988 to 2014 to determine the sources and occurrence of groundwater methane in the basin.
Energy in Depth, a pro-industry group, said in a statement the NAS study “is just the latest scientific analysis to rebuke anti-fossil fuel activists who have long-claimed that fracking is tainting drinking water.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797524&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797524&jd=93797524
-
Why Obama’s Top Scientist Just Called Keeping Fossil Fuels In The Ground ‘Unrealistic’
Jul 12, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin
White House science adviser John Holdren’s comment Monday that it was “unrealistic” to halt fossil fuel extraction altogether in the U.S. may have seemed like stating the obvious. But it has further highlighted the tensions that exist even among top American policy makers and environmental advocates concerned about curbing the rate of climate change.
Bernie Sanders and his followers, influential green movement leaders like Bill McKibben and powerful organizations like the Sierra Club, have been pushing a “keep it in the ground” approach. For these advocates, a future strongly dependent on wind, solar and batteries can’t come fast enough. And they have led campaigns not only to oppose fracking for natural gas but also to block — successfully — the Keystone XL pipeline. Most recently, Sanders’s supporters have been deeply engaged in a push to make the Democratic Party’s official platform more strongly reflective of this point of view, although they were unsuccessful in trying to incorporate a fracking ban into the platform.
Yet Obama administration officials and many energy policy wonks continue to suggest that we will need to rely on burning natural gas, nuclear energy and even outfitting coal plants with carbon capturing technologies for some time. In contrast to “keep it in the ground,” their approach has sometimes been labeled “all of the above.” Meanwhile, Clinton has called natural gas, in particular, a “bridge” to a cleaner energy future.
Sanders’s supporters did score a few victories in the recent platform-writing process by passing amendments endorsing a price on carbon, methane and other greenhouse gases and supporting the rights of local communities to ban fracking. Those “unity amendments” were implicitly backed by presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
The tension was reawakened yesterday at this week’s annual conference held by the Energy Information Administration. According to a Tweet by Brian Scheid, a reporter for Platts, Holdren yesterday called the “keep it in the ground” movement “unrealistic” in his keynote speech at the conference.
Morning Consult also reported that Holdren stated, “The notion that we’re going to keep it all in the ground is unrealistic. We are still a very heavily fossil-fuel dependent world.”
“When asked whether it was feasible to leave all the remaining fossil fuels in the ground, Dr. Holdren noted that it is not, because the U.S. — and the world — still depend on fossil fuels for more than 80 percent of all the primary energy we use,” said White House spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler said in an email. “It’s not practical or affordable to replace the huge, fossil-fuel infrastructure with nuclear and renewables overnight, no matter how badly we may want to. As a result, the U.S. will be using fossil fuels for decades to come, albeit, one hopes, with the share of non-fossil supplies increasing over time.”
In one sense, Holdren’s remarks could be viewed as simply stating what’s already known. Indeed, wind and solar provided a little over 5 percent of U.S. electricity last year. Meanwhile, a key driver of the recent U.S. trend toward “cleaner” energy has not been burning less fossil fuels, but rather the swapping of one fossil fuel for another.
More specifically, very cheap natural gas prices, which have driven fracking and the exploitation of huge new “unconventional” shale gas reserves, has led to a shift in how we get power. More and more, utility companies are switching away from burning coal for electricity and toward burning gas. According to the EIA, 2016 is likely to be the first year in which the country as a whole gets more of its electricity from gas than from coal.
And that has significant greenhouse gas emissions implications, as natural gas burns cleaner than coal and only produces about half as much carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy.
“Facts are facts: America is leading the world in oil and natural gas production and in lowering carbon emissions, which are at 20-year lows, because of clean-burning natural gas,” said Eric Wohlschlegel, director of media relations and communications at the American Petroleum Institute, regarding the Holdren statement. “American voters support increased oil and natural gas production. They understand that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine and that an all of the above energy strategy is needed to power our future. Keep-it-in-the-ground tactics aimed at misleading the public present a false choice, especially when there’s overwhelming support for American energy production.”
In the transportation sector, meanwhile, cleaner options like electric cars or cars that run on high volumes of biofuels are even further away from achieving market dominance than wind and solar are in the electricity sector. So when Holdren reportedly called the “keep it in the ground” movement “unrealistic,” it was simply a statement that there is no way we are going to get off fossil fuels in the near term.
Still, that stance diverges from that of environmentalist allies. “Science shows clearly that if we want to protect the health of our communities from dangerous pollution and the serious threats of the climate crisis, we have to start keeping dirty fossil fuels in the ground now,” said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, in response to Holdren’s statement. “That clearly means that gas cannot be a bridge fuel, and the Obama Administration’s efforts to mitigate the threat gas posed through methane safeguards and fracking standards shows they recognize the dangers of this pollutant.”
Indeed, top administration officials have emphasized the need to reexamine the climate implications of fossil fuel extraction from federal lands and waters, but have not yet embraced the idea of banning these activities altogether. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, a former petroleum engineer, has said that government officials need to recognize that some of the nation’s fossil fuels must remain untapped if they are serious about combating global warming, and the department just imposed stricter rules on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
In January Interior put a moratorium on new coal leasing on federal land, arguing it needed to scrutinize both the carbon impact and economic implications of its coal leasing practices in the West.
But several aspects of the department’s energy leasing program have continued under stricter safety standards, including offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. Those activities are a major source of revenue for the federal government.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/12/why-obamas-top-scientist-just-called-keeping-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground-unrealistic/
-
EPA, OSHA Rules ‘Simplify' Safety Process: Official
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A planned emergency services regulation in development before an OSHA subpanel lines up well with the Environmental Protection Agency's emphasis on boosting first-responders as a way to mitigate chemical safety incidents, an agency official said July 12.
Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for land and emergency management, said the Occupational Safety and Health Administration plan also serves his agency's goals.
“My intent is to align and simplify as much of our agency's processes as possible,” Stanislaus said. A confusing set of rules “doesn't really benefit anyone for the ultimate goal of public safety.”
Stanislaus was addressing the Emergency Response and Preparedness Subcommittee, part of OSHA's National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
The OSHA panel is taking the first crack at writing new standards for emergency services providers like fire departments and ambulance companies. The plan would update OSHA's fire brigade rule and set new standards for planning, training, vehicle operations and other emergency tasks.
Stanislaus's job includes overseeing the EPA's pending risk management program update, which the agency is expected to finalize later this year. Both the risk management program update and OSHA's planned Emergency Responder Preparedness Program Standard stemmed from agency responses to the 2013 fertilizer explosion, which killed 12 emergency responders and three members of the public in West, Texas.
After a three-day public meeting this week, the subpanel should complete its work on the proposal once another multiday public meeting in September concludes, said Rick Ingram, panel co-chairman and a health and safety adviser to BP Plc.
OSHA officials haven't given a timetable for when the rulemaking (RIN:1218-AC91) could advance.
EPA Work Not Duplicate of OSHA
Stanislaus also defended the EPA's work as not duplicating similar OSHA programs. Though industry groups have criticized the risk management program proposed rule and a different OSHA initiative, its update to the Process Safety Management program, as redundant, Stanislaus said that wasn't the case.
Both rules would present a “unified approach” when finalized, Stanislaus said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797532&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797532&jd=93797532
-
(ACC Blog) FAST Action By Congress Helps Keep Chemical Transportation On Track
Jul 12, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
During the final legislative business days of last year, Congress passed a major and much-needed piece of legislation called the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or “FAST Act,” which addressed many critical transportation issues.
In addition to providing long-term funding to the Department of Transportation, the legislation contained important provisions to help improve the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including chemical shipments.
Passing the legislation was no easy task and certainly would not have been possible without the tremendous leadership of Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and the entire U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Following up on their work, the Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security held a July 12, 2016, hearing to examine the implementation of the FAST Act and its role in improving our nation’s infrastructure, increasing safety, and enhancing economic growth. One of the witnesses, David Eggermann representing BASF and the American Chemistry Council, testified on the Act’s hazardous materials provisions.
During his remarks Eggermann explained how the chemical industry helps provide “the building blocks that are necessary for safe drinking water, life-saving medications and medical devices, and a safe and plentiful food supply.” He also emphasized that a strong foundation for transportation safety exists thanks to industry programs such as Responsible Care, TRANSACER, and CHEMTREC.
Turning specifically to the FAST Act, he told the Committee that passage of the Act means a great deal to U.S. manufacturers and outlined the provisions that will help bolster safety,
To begin, TRANSCAER has received Federal Railroad Administration and DOT grants, supporting community programs across the US. Increased funding and greater accountability as provided for in the FAST Act, will further improve the effectiveness of these programs.
Regarding rail tank cars, The FAST Act found common ground among all stakeholders by directing the DOT to place the highest priority on upgrading cars that will deliver the greatest safety benefits to the public, while concurrently providing a realistic and workable timetable for car owners and shippers.
Finally, we support the FAST Act requirement for the DOT to conduct a study on the levels and structure of insurance for railroads transporting hazardous materials. A workable liability framework is necessary to support the safe and efficient rail transportation of essential products.
Eggermann concluded by highlighting several challenges that if addressed would help build on the good work that has been done to enhance the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
First, the most important way to reduce hazmat releases is to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place. When rail accidents occur, primary causes include equipment defects, track defects, and human error in rail operations. My hope is that Federal policymakers will continue to address these root causes.
Next, while we understand and respect the concerns of individual communities, we believe that hazmat transportation safety cannot be effectively advanced though a patchwork of individual state and local polices. It is a national issue and needs an effective and uniform national regulatory program.
Finally, the Association of American Railroads, through its Tank Car Committee, has in the past attempted to unilaterally impose requirements on tank car owners. If unimpeded in the future, this approach has the potential to usurp the DOT’s regulatory authority and threaten to undermine collaborative efforts that will drive future tank car safety advances.”
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/07/fast-action-by-congress-helps-keep-chemical-transportation-on-track/
-
Slow Progress Seen On Faulty Rail Cars
Jul 12, 2016 | AP (In Salon)
By Matthew Brown
Slow progress has been made on efforts to upgrade or replace tens of thousands of rupture-prone rail cars used to transport oil and ethanol, despite numerous fiery derailments that prompted new rules for the industry, U.S. safety officials said Tuesday.
Just over 10,000 stronger tank cars mandated by the new rules are available for service, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press from the Association of American Railroads.
That’s equivalent to roughly 20 percent of the 51,500 tank cars used to haul crude and ethanol during the first quarter of 2016.
Fiery accidents and spills involving the older, rupture-prone cars have occurred in Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, Illinois, West Virginia and Canada.
In Lac-Megantic, Quebec, 47 people were killed when a runaway oil train derailed in 2013. During the most recent accident last month in Oregon, 42,000 gallons of crude oil spilled, sparking a massive fire that burned for 14 hours near the small town of Mosier in the Columbia River Gorge.
Transportation officials and rail and oil industry representatives have touted the new rules as a key piece of their efforts to prevent more accidents.
Yet National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt told the AP on Tuesday that federal regulators need to set milestones to hold the industry accountable for getting unsafe cars off the tracks.
“There’s been 28 accidents over the past 10 years. That’s almost three accidents a year,” Sumwalt said. “Unfortunately, history shows we probably will have more accidents involving flammable liquids.”
Without mandatory benchmarks for meeting the requirements of the new rules, the decision to upgrade to safer tank car designs “is left entirely to tank car fleet owners, and may be driven by market factor influences, not safety improvements,” NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart said in a letter Tuesday to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
A Wednesday meeting was planned in Washington, D.C., where government and industry officials were set to update the safety board on progress addressing the issue.
Tom Simpson with the Railway Supply Institute, which represents tank car manufacturers and owners, said the industry is committed to putting stronger cars in place. Members of the group will meet deadlines outlined last year by Congress for replacing or upgrading the cars, he said.
Congress has said the accident-prone cars do not have to be fully replaced until 2029. Most would have to come off the tracks sooner.
Demand for rail cars has eased as crude shipments decreased with lower oil prices, Simpson said.
“The need to modify or install new cars isn’t as urgent as when the rule was issued,” he said.
The railroad association said only 700 of the least resilient of the older-style tank cars remain in service. Most of the cars in current use have at least some improvements, such as shields at either end of the car to help prevent punctures during derailments.
Transportation officials cautioned, however, that thousands of idled “legacy cars” could quickly come back online if oil prices rise and shipment volumes rebound.
Most tank cars are owned or leased by companies that ship fuel by rail, not the railroads themselves. Railroad association spokesman Ed Greenberg declined comment on the progress being made toward replacing older cars.
“Every tanker carrying crude or ethanol needs to be upgraded or replaced,” he said.
https://www.salon.com/2016/07/12/apnewsbreak_slow_progress_seen_on_faulty_rail_cars/
-
House Backs Bill to Curb Executive Power
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
The House yesterday passed legislation that would have a sweeping impact on environmental law.
On a mostly party-line vote of 240-171, the House approved Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe's H.R. 4768, known as the "Separation of Powers Restoration Act."
The legislation would end courts' controversial practice of deferring to agencies' expertise on rulemaking, established in the 1984 Supreme Court ruling Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Chevron deference is one of the, if not the primary, driving forces behind an outrageous expansion of a regulatory branch that our Founding Fathers never intended and one that is crippling the American economy and the American people," Ratcliffe said.
The bill, part of Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee's conservative Article I Project, would effectively nullify the Chevron decision and clarify the Administrative Procedure Act by requiring courts to conduct "de novo," or new reviews of relevant questions of law (Greenwire, March 17). Such action would dramatically shift the landscape for businesses and other entities challenging regulations.
"Unelected bureaucrats now draft regulations with the Chevron doctrine in mind, knowing that it will give them the ability to regulate, sometimes for political gain, beyond the actual scope of the statutes that we pass as the duly elected representatives of the people," Ratcliffe said.
League of Conservation Voters advocate Sara Chieffo called the measure "a brazen attempt to advantage polluting companies who are trying to use legal challenges to dismantle core environmental and public health protections."
She said, "This legislation allows unelected, non-expert judges to potentially throw out the work of the scientists, economists, lawyers, doctors and other experts at the federal agencies who in many instances have also undertaken extensive comments from the public and impacted stakeholders."
Democrats argue the legislation is the majority's latest attempt to "gum up" the rulemaking process. Other deregulatory bills passed by this Congress would greatly diminish judicial review by dramatically shortening the statute of limitations.
"In other words, the majority wants to have it both ways," said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). "When it benefits corporate interests, Republican legislation heightens scrutiny of agency rulemaking, like this act does, threatening to impose years of delay and untold costs on taxpayers."
He said, "When it benefits the public or our environment, Republican legislation slams the courthouse door shut through sweeping restrictions on the court's ability to protect public health or the environment."Supreme Court fight
As House Republicans acted to rein in the regulatory power of the executive branch, Senate Democrats accused GOP leaders of trying to hamstring the judicial branch by keeping a seat on the Supreme Court vacant.
"In just a few days -- and that's an understatement -- Senate Republicans will start the longest, least-deserved summer recess in at least 60 years, in the Senate," Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday.
Reid hammered Republicans for refusing to give President Obama's nominee Judge Merrick Garland a hearing and vote.
"What are they doing instead? They're headed to Cleveland to rally around [Donald] Trump and his anti-woman, anti-Latino, anti-middle class, anti-everything," Reid said, previewing the Republican National Convention.
LCV thanked the White House for threatening to veto the Chevron bill (E&E Daily, June 23). But the measure has little chance of making its way to the president's desk this year.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told E&E Daily that the bill was "an important piece of legislation," but there was no time for his chamber to take it up before the seven-week recess.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/13/stories/1060040184
-
House Launches Marathon Environment Funding Debate
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Top House appropriators rehashed polarized positions July 12 onlegislation (H.R. 5538) to fund the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department as the chamber kicked off a potentially marathon floor debate.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) lauded cuts to the EPA aimed at scaling back “damaging overreach,” while Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) blasted the bill for failing to safeguard clean water and endangered species.
The Rules Committee gave the go-ahead late July 11 for one-hour of debate on the bill and consideration of 131 new amendments.
Lawmakers continued to debate those measures late July 12.
The $32.1 billion bill falls $1 billion short of the Obama administration's budget request. The legislation would give the EPA nearly $8 billion, a $164 million cut from enacted levels.
The White House staunchly opposes the legislation, citing funding cuts and a range of controversial riders.
The legislation, which passed the Appropriations Committee with only one Democratic supporter, already bars funding for the Clean Power Plan, the Clean Water Rule, Superfund financial assurance regulations for the mining industry, development and implementation of rules on oil and gas industry methane emissions and any modification to the regulatory definition of “fill material” under the Clean Water Act, among a wide range of other riders.
‘Several Days' on Floor
Appropriations Committee leadership is spearheading debate on the floor, according to the directive of the Rules Committee.
Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), said the legislation is likely to stay on the House floor for “several days” in order to polish off debate on all amendments.
The chamber will, however, finish work on the legislation before departing for a nearly two-month recess at the end of this week, Hing told Bloomberg BNA.
House leadership is aiming to hold votes at roughly 11 p.m.- midnight July 12 on a subset of amendments, Thomas Tatum, spokesman for House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), told Bloomberg BNA.
“We'll then immediately jump back into amendment debate on the remaining amendments,” he said. “Some amendments may pass by voice, but if a member calls for a recorded vote, that vote will be held tomorrow.”
Averting Another Confederate Flag Flap
The Rules Committee nixed roughly three dozen amendments from possible consideration, including controversial measures to ban confederate flags at federal cemeteries and parks.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) lashed out against that move in a statement.
“Knowing that these amendments had bipartisan support and would have passed the House, they chose to kill them on trumped-up procedural grounds in the dark of night,” Huffman said. “They should at least have the guts to cast their votes in public and let it be known to voters where they stand. Instead, knowing that a majority of the House and the American people oppose continued displays of this hateful symbol of treason on public lands, they are choosing to slink away and hide behind the Rules Committee amendment process.”
A Rules Committee spokeswoman, Sarah Minkel, declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA on the reasons for rejecting the confederate flag amendments.
The committee also scrapped amendments to ensure no funds are used to violate the president's equal opportunity executive order for federal contracting and to eliminate federal financial assistance to sanctuary cities.
Last year, Republican leadership pulled the Interior-EPA funding bill after Democrats denounced an amendment that would have allowed the display of confederate flags in federal cemeteries.
Veto Threat
The White House said senior advisors would recommend President Barack Obama veto the bill in a July 11 statement, saying the administration “strongly opposes” the bill.
“The legislation includes numerous highly unacceptable provisions that have no place in funding legislation,” the statement said. “These provisions threaten to undermine the most basic protections for America's unique natural treasures and the people and wildlife that rely on them, as well as the ability of States and communities to address climate change and protect a resource that is essential to America's health—clean water.”
The statement, however, praised the bill's funding for water-related state revolving funds and the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program.
The House legislation would boost the drinking water state revolving fund by $207 million, $50 million above the White House request, the committee said. Those funds help finance repairs, upgrades and construction of new drinking water infrastructure.
‘EPA Underserved.'
The legislation falls short of the president's budget request for the EPA by roughly $400 million.
“This funding level would significantly reduce EPA's ability to enforce and oversee critical environmental protections for air, water, and land, including decreased capacity to find and develop civil and criminal cases against companies and individuals responsible for contaminating the environment,” the statement said. “The funding level would also severely hinder EPA's work to strengthen environmental planning efforts, educate the public about environmental risks, and address pollution in underserved communities.”
The EPA budget has decreased roughly 20 percent since fiscal year 2010. Congress approved nearly $10.3 billion for the agency that year, a substantial increase over any annual allocation since the EPA's inception.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797529&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797529&jd=93797529
-
House Appropriators Bar Spending on Climate Fund
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Barack Obama's Green Climate Fund was in the crosshairs once again July 12 as House appropriators moved to prohibit any U.S. contribution to an effort to help developing nations address climate change impacts.
Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee included the restriction in the fiscal year 2017 State Department spending bill, which the committee passed by voice vote July 12.
The prohibition now in the House version of the FY 2017 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs spending bill stands in stark contrast to the Senate version of the spending measure, which specifically authorizes a $500 million U.S. contribution to the Green Climate Fund.
The Green Climate Fund helps developing countries adapt to climate impacts and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions; it has received more than $10 billion in international support, mostly from richer, developed nations.
Democrats on the House Appropriations panel attempted to strike the language and restore the funding contribution. But an amendment to do so offered at the July 12 markup by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn) was rejected on a 19-29 vote.
Ultimately the fate of the $500 million U.S. contribution will likely be determined in end-of-year talks between Obama and congressional appropriators.
The U.S. in 2014 pledged a total of $3 billion over four years to the climate fund in hopes of getting developing nations to sign on to a global climate deal. That deal was reached in Paris in December, when nearly 200 nations reached the first global deal to include actions to address greenhouse gas emissions from developed and developing nations alike.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797512&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797512&jd=93797512
-
House Lawmakers Deepen EPA Cuts, Add Policy Riders
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly, Tiffany Stecker and Amanda Reilly
The House yesterday approved a fresh round of cuts to U.S. EPA's operating budget for next year along with another crop of anti-regulatory policy riders during a marathon floor debate for the fiscal 2017 Interior and environment spending bill.
Over almost 10 hours, lawmakers bulldozed their way through more than half of 131 proposed amendments to the $32.1 billion appropriations bill, H.R. 5538, although final recorded votes on some were put off until today.
The House is set to reconvene at 10 a.m. with GOP leaders planning to complete work on the measure later in the day.
Democratic attempts to strip out existing riders aimed at Obama administration air and water regulations uniformly failed.
Republicans pushed through more than a dozen others, including one that would block Bureau of Land Management regulations on hydraulic fracturing on federal property.
Republicans continued to whittle away at EPA's budget for next year. As approved last month by the House Appropriations Committee, the bill would have cut the agency's funding by about 2 percent from this year's $8.1 billion threshold with the bulk of the proposed reduction coming out of operations.
The House yesterday agreed to siphon off another $110 million or so, with the money redirected to the agency's Office of Inspector General, forest products research, a coal field reclamation program and a Forest Service "hazardous fuels" effort to reduce vegetation that can feed fires.
"The marginal loss to a rogue administration ... will dramatically increase the Forest Service's ability to prevent dangerous wildfires," said Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), sponsor of that last amendment.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) argued that such cuts would imperil EPA's ability to do its job. The consequences "will be felt negatively across the country," she said.
The White House has already issued a veto threat. And the Senate Appropriations Committee last month approved a rival version of the bill that contains slightly more generous spending levels and fewer riders.
Last year, few of the riders championed by House GOP members made into the final omnibus spending measure approved in December.
Besides Interior and EPA, the bill funds the Forest Service, the White House Council on Environmental Quality and several other agencies.Climate
A key target has been the administration's climate change agenda, with the House last night voting down several Democratic attempts to strip Republican language from the spending plan aimed at specific initiatives.
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) introduced three amendments to strike Republican language targeting EPA's carbon rules for power plants, the agency's program for reducing ozone-depleting substances and the Obama administration's social cost of carbon estimates.
"We've already wasted enough time on legislation to just-say-no to climate action," Peters said last night.
The House rejected Peters' amendment, which he introduced on behalf of Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), to allow EPA to enforce its carbon rule for new power plants and its Clean Power Plan for existing power plants in a 182-244 vote.
The chamber voted 185-241 against his amendment to strike language from the bill barring agencies from using the social cost of carbon until a new working group revises the estimates.
A handful of Republicans joined most Democrats in supporting both amendments.
The House by voice vote rejected Peters' measure to allow EPA to continue regulating heat-trapping ozone-depleting substances through its Significant New Alternative Policy, or SNAP, program.
House also voted 208-217 against a GOP amendment that would have eliminated more than $88 million in funding for EPA's Air, Climate and Research Program, which provides information support for agency regulations.
"The result of ACE research furthers regulations, which burdens our nations' energy sector in communities across the country," amendment sponsor Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said on the House floor.
Democrats argued successfully that the amendment would hurt EPA's ability to regulate air pollution and address climate change.
"What this amendment would do," Pingree said, "would be to set back any advances in new technology and scientific tools that would help protect the American public from harmful exposure to air pollutants."
Thirty-three Republicans broke ranks to join 184 Democrats in voting down the amendment.Spat over tribes
In a surprise move earlier in the debate, House leaders agreed to a point of order by House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) against a provision intended to protect Native American land taken into trust. He said it violated a ban on using spending legislation to set policy and is now off the bill.
The language had been drafted in response to a controversial Supreme Court ruling in the case known as Carcieri v. Salazar, which limited trust lands. Bishop says his panel is already working on a legislative response.
House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (R-Ariz.) tried to protect the spending bill provision. In a statement afterward, he complained of a procedural double standard applied to Indian tribes.
"The rules don't apply until it comes to the tribes," Grijalva said. "Then, all of a sudden, we need to be careful not to make policy on an appropriations bill."
The bill's overall dollar value is close to this year's benchmark, albeit about $1 billion below the White House's request.
While Democrats bemoaned the purportedly stingy funding levels, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that crafted the measure, had to fend off several GOP colleagues eager for more tight-fistedness.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sought to impose a 1 percent across-the-board cut on every program in the bill for a predicted savings of $321 million. "It's a penny out of a dollar," Blackburn said. A vote is pending.
Similarly, Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) sought to kill the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program. The EPA initiative hands out grants to replace or retool older diesel engines and enjoys bipartisan support.
To Palmer, however, it is one in a long list of supposedly temporary programs "for which there is no end in sight."
Calvert highlighted the payoff in improved air quality. "When you have a program that is actually working, we ought to keep it," he said. A significant number of Republicans agreed as they sent the amendment down to defeat by a 175-250 margin.Water
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) sought to strip the legislation of GOP-backed riders to address California's ongoing drought.
McNerney offered a series of amendments to strike a modified version of California Republican Rep. David Valadao's H.R. 2898 from the bill.
Valadao's bill would change the operating instructions for California's major water projects that bring water from Northern California to the Central Valley's farms and Southern California's cities.
McNerney said these changes would take away water for fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
The rider would "violate existing biological opinions for salmon and endangered fish," said McNerney, referring to the rules that regulate water releases to maintain fish habitat.
Valadao and other Golden State Republicans say the rider would prevent water from being sent to the Pacific Ocean and wasted.
McNerney opposed this rationale. Instead of being wasted, the water "was used to prevent saltwater intrusion that would permanently damage some of the most valuable farmland in the world," he said.
The debate angered Valadao, who accused Democrats of trying to undermine the legislation behind closed doors.
"I've been approached off-camera a million times about this," he said. "No more, everything on the floor."
Valadao added, "The conversation has to be had in an open, transparent process."
An en-bloc vote is pending for McNerney's amendments.
Squashed was an amendment by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) to eliminate a bill provision prohibiting the implementation of the Obama administration's controversial stream protection rule for coal mines.
Also defeated was an amendment from Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) to eliminate a rider that would halt EPA implementing new financial assurance requirements for hardrock mines under the Superfund law.
A handful of Democratic amendments won approval. The most notable was a measure by Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) to free up $6 million for EPA to create a long-term water monitoring program for the Animas and San Juan rivers, both of which were tainted by last summer's Gold King mine spill in Colorado.
With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle demanding more funding for Gold King cleanup, the amendment passed by a 219-207 vote.Other amendments
Other amendments considered include:An amendment by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) to increase funding for the National Park System operations account. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.) and other lawmakers to scrap a section from the bill taking aim at Bureau of Land Management methane emission rules. Failed 184-240.An amendment by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to strike a section of the bill taking aim at offshore drilling rules. Failed 186-237.An amendment by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) to scrap a section of the bill to delay air quality rules in the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic Ocean. Failed 181-244.An amendment by Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) and other lawmakers to scrap a section of the bill preventing the administration from changing the definition of fill material under the Clean Water Act. Failed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) to sunset Land and Water Conservation Fund grants after 20 years. Failed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) to prohibit Interior from enforcing any rule or guidance regarding outer continental shelf financial assurances. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) and other lawmakers to prevent money from being used to develop legislation to allocate Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act money. Passed by voice vote.An amendment from Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) to block and Fish and Wildlife Service's oil and gas rights rule. Passed by voice vote.An amendment from Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) to prevent EPA from implementing the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure rule on farming and ranching operations. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) to cut EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Gosar and other lawmakers to block an EPA-U.S. Geological Survey technical report on protecting aquatic life. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) to block EPA rulemaking on in-situ recovery uranium mining. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) to block new rules for hydraulic fracturing on federal land. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) to prevent new EPA rules for animal feeding operations. Passed by voice vote.
Pending amendments include:An amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and other lawmakers to strike a section of the bill related to methane emissions.An amendment by Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) to scrap a section of the bill preventing Interior from reforming coal valuation rules.An amendment from Grijalva and other lawmakers to strike a section of the bill restricting the creation of new national monuments.An amendment by Boustany and others to block Interior's well control rule.An amendment by Byrne and other lawmakers to prevent implementation of the National Ocean Policy.An amendment by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to prevent the administration from punishing states that don't met Chesapeake Bay cleanup benchmarks.An amendment by Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.) to prevent offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.An amendment by Lamborn to implement or enforce Endangered Species Act listings without periodic review.An amendment by Newhouse to prevent the administration from treating the gray wolf as an endangered or threatened species after June 2017 in the Lower 48 states.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/13/stories/1060040192
-
White House Threatens To Veto House's FY17 EPA Bill
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
The Obama administration is threatening to veto the House's fiscal year 2017 spending legislation for EPA and other environment agencies ahead of an expected floor vote on the measure this week, calling its $164 million funding cut for EPA “unacceptable” and attacking policy riders blocking EPA rules as needlessly obstructive.
The White House released its statement of administration policy (SAP) on the FY17 bill, H.R. 5538, on July 11. “If the President were presented with H.R. 5538, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill,” the SAP says.
The same day, the House Rules Committee approved rules for the full chamber to consider the legislation. Debate on H.R. 5538, including over 100 amendments the committee cleared for floor votes, is currently scheduled to begin July 12, with voting possible later in the week.
H.R. 5538 would cut EPA's budget from $8.14 billion to $7.98 billion in FY17, rejecting President Obama's proposal to fund the agency at $8.27 billion and focusing cuts mainly on the accounts that fund EPA's regulatory and research activities. It also includes a host of riders that would bar the agency from advancing controversial climate, water, air, waste and other regulations.
The July 11 SAP targets both the funding cuts and the policy provisions as justifying a veto if the bill reaches President Obama's desk without major changes.
Funding reductions “would make it more difficult for States and businesses to plan and execute changes that would decrease carbon pollution and address the challenges facing the Nation from climate change. They would also reduce support for partnerships and effective collaboration with States, Tribes, local governments, and private entities on efforts to restore and conserve natural and cultural resources,” it says.
On the policy riders, it says “These provisions threaten to undermine the most basic protections for America's unique natural treasures and the people and wildlife that rely on them, as well as the ability of States and communities to address climate change and protect a resource that is essential to America's health -- clean water.”
Riders already included in the bill would limit EPA's power plant greenhouse gas (GHG) standards; its proposed controls on methane releases from oil and gas extraction operations; its revised national ambient air quality standards for ozone; and its contentious Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule, among others.
Proposed amendments up for consideration on the floor would add restrictions on EPA's CWA authority to “veto” dredge-and-fill permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers; its pending final phase 2 rule limiting GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks; and its CWA cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay, among many others.
However, the White House is praising the bill's support for water infrastructure spending -- including the state revolving funds (SRFs) that directly support state and local projects and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act that leverages federal funds to support borrowing. It would fund at $1.07 billion for the drinking water SRF, $207 million above its current level and $50 million above the White House's request, while cutting the clean water SRF from $1.39 billion to exactly $1 billion, $21 million above the request.
“Despite these shortcomings, the Administration welcomes the bill's investments in EPA's water infrastructure financing programs, including the State Revolving Funds for clean water and drinking water projects and the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program.”
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/white-house-threatens-veto-houses-fy17-epa-bill
-
Refiners Get Extra Time to Comply With Some Air Standards
Jul 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Refineries will get an additional 18 months to comply with some aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 hazardous air pollution standards covering the sector.
The EPA, in a final rule scheduled for publication July 13, gave refiners until Aug. 1, 2017, to meet requirements related to venting during maintenance and controlling emissions from fluidized catalytic cracking units and sulfur recovery units during startup and shutdown procedures. The agency said the compliance extension is necessary because refinery operators need additional time to meet those standards in a way that adheres to federal Risk Management Program and Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements.
The American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, trade associations representing the industry, requested a compliance extension for those parts of the refinery standards in a January petition for reconsideration. Those organizations, which represent Exxon Mobil Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corp. and other major refineries, said in comments to the EPA that the compliance extension is “critical” for ensuring safe implementation of the refinery standards.
The agency did not alter the compliance dates for other aspects of the 2015 refinery standards, including new requirements for operating flares and a January 2018 deadline for refineries to install monitoring systems to measure fence line concentrations of benzene. The 2015 refinery standards (RIN:2060-AQ75) apply to 142 petroleum refineries in the U.S. and are projected to cut about 5,200 tons per year of hazardous air pollutant emissions once fully implemented.
The EPA said it expects the compliance extension to have an “insignificant” effect on a refinery's overall emissions.
Agency Responds to Criticism
The EPA used its final rule to defend itself against criticism raised by Sierra Club, the Environmental Integrity Project and other environmental organizations in comments on the proposed compliance extension.
Those groups said the EPA did not provide sufficient justification for giving the refinery sector an additional 18 months to meet the emissions control requirements for startup and shutdown. The organizations also alleged that extending the compliance date by 18 months also would extend unlawful exemptions that allowed industry to exceed emissions standards during startup and shutdown, previewing a legal argument that could be raised if the groups decided to challenge the rule.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008 ruled that startup and shutdown exemptions were not permitted under the Clean Air Act (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 68 ERC 1033, 2008 BL 282130 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
The EPA said that while it wants to implement the refinery rule “as quickly as possible,” it would not be feasible for refineries to immediately comply with the venting during maintenance and startup and shutdown provisions. Refineries are expected to need to install alarms and other equipment, conduct a risk assessment, revise standard operating procedures and train employees in order to safely meet the startup and shutdown provisions, according to the EPA.
OSHA's Process Safety Management standard requires industrial facilities that use highly hazardous chemicals to complete a full assessment of the effect of process changes on employee safety and health, including an assessment of the risk of chemical accidents and other catastrophic events. As part of that process, affected employees must receive training in advance of any process change.
The amount of toxic pollution that would be emitted if an explosion or fire occurred due to inadequate planning “could dwarf” the emissions reductions that the startup and shutdown requirements are expected to achieve, the EPA said.
“We cannot ignore feasibility and compliance with health and safety requirements … in determining an appropriate compliance timeframe,” the agency said. “The ‘delay' in establishing these requirements does not somehow make it technically feasible to immediately comply with these new standards.”
While refineries will have until summer 2017 to meet those requirements, the EPA said industry will need to “immediately” begin planning in order to meet that new compliance date.
The new compliance deadlines, along with technical corrections made by the EPA, will go into effect July 13 upon publication of the final rule (RIN:2016-AS83) in the Federal Register. Publication also will open a 60-day window for challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has jurisdiction over nationally applicable Clean Air Act regulations.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93797510&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93797510&jd=93797510
-
Del. Sues EPA To Crack Down On Out-Of-State Emissions
Jul 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Delaware environmental regulators are suing to prod U.S. EPA to crack down on out-of-state air pollution.
In the suit, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control challenges a recent EPA decision to give a Philadelphia-based nonattainment area another year to comply with the 2008 ozone air quality standard, according to a news release from the state agency.
The nonattainment area covers parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware. While the first three states favored extension of the attainment deadline, Delaware was opposed, the release said.
Although the state's residents and businesses have made "great strides" in curbing home-grown air pollution, "we cannot meet our air quality standard without sources in other states taking similar action," David Small, head of the Delaware natural resources department, said in a statement. More than 90 percent of the state's "bad ozone days" are caused by pollution wafting in from other states, according to the agency.
"If we are going to continue to ask Delawareans to do more, we need EPA to take steps to level the playing field between states," Small said.
The suit was filed last week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit but has been slow to show up in the federal courts' online docket system.
EPA had officially granted the one-year extension to the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City region in May. The region was among eight "marginal nonattainment areas" around the country to win a reprieve; the Washington, D.C., region was another, according to the final rulepublished in the Federal Register. The 2008 standard is 75 parts per billion.
Delaware regulators have also asked EPA to make an administrative finding that the coal-fired Brunner Island power plant, located in York, Pa., is contributing to high ozone levels in their state. If EPA makes that conclusion, the Brunner Island plant would have to curb nitrogen oxides emissions that help form ozone, according to the release. The plant is owned by Talen Energy.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/07/12/stories/1060040160
-
EPA Finalizes Compliance Deadline Extension For Refinery Air Toxics Rule
Jul 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is finalizing an 18-month deadline extension for the oil refining industry to comply with certain provisions of the agency's air toxics rule for the sector, while rejecting environmentalists' objections that the delay will compromise public health by allowing more time for refineries to exceed Clean Air Act emissions limits.
The final rule, slated for publication in the July 13 Federal Register, follows a petition for reconsideration from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers that criticized EPA's original air toxics rule deadlines for various compliance steps as either too short to complete equipment or process changes, or as unclear.
The regulation largely echoes the Feb. 9 proposed version of the rule, pushing the compliance deadline for some of the rule's startup, shutdown, maintenance and inspection provisions from its original intended date of Feb. 1, 2016, or the first available maintenance opportunity after that date, to Aug. 1, 2017.
The provisions impose particular compliance requirements for maintenance vents, fluid catalytic cracking units and sulfur recovery units. These requirements form part of EPA's maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics standards for refineries, known as MACT 1 and MACT 2, which EPA last revised in December along with new source performance standards improving the combustion efficiency of flares used to dispose of waste gas.
In comments submitted to EPA on the rule as proposed, environmentalists said that the compliance deadline delay is unjustified and violates Clean Air Act requirements that air toxics limits apply at all times.
A coalition of nine environmental groups including Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project in March 25 comments said, “EPA’s new compliance dates are unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious because they provide an extended period of time when non-compliance is allowed; and because EPA has not provided a reasoned explanation based on facts in the record that the new 18-month compliance date meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act.”
EPA in the final rule refutes this, however, saying, “we have determined that it is infeasible to immediately comply with certain provisions of the December 1, 2015, final rule, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide the additional compliance time. Based on the information that we now have, we concluded that facilities require additional time to comply with certain provisions in the final rule in order to allow facilities to install the appropriate monitoring equipment, change procedures, and, if necessary, add or modify emission control equipment.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-finalizes-compliance-deadline-extension-refinery-air-toxics-rule
-
Why The Next Frontier For Green Building Is Manufacturing
Jul 12, 2016 | Crain's Chicago Business
By Mahesh Ramanujam
Conjure an image of a factory and smokestacks come to mind. “Green” building isn't in the picture. But in fact, factories around the world are going green at a remarkable pace. Today, there are 500 million square feet of green factory space, including pace-setting construction, here in Chicago.
Why? Green manufacturing saves big money in the long run. Manufacturers do well by doing good.
Evidence for this trend is in a new report from the U.S. Green Building Council, which oversees LEED, the world's most widely used green building rating system. According to LEED in Motion: Industrial Facilities, there are more than 1,775 LEED-certified industrial facilities, a figure projected to soon double to more than 2,710 industrial facilities, which would comprise an additional 737 million square feet of factory floor space.
LEED is not a government mandate. It is a voluntary, private-sector-driven program that has helped make workplaces healthier and more energy efficient. Factories and buildings attain LEED certification by demonstrating superior performance through the use of sustainable design and construction materials and practices.
Office buildings have long been exemplars of LEED certification. But manufacturing plants, industrial facilities and product factories also have become a cornerstone for the international green building industry. The growing adoption of LEED in this sector has given corporations another tool to achieve high-performing business operations and positively impact occupant health, reduce water and energy use and increase cost savings, all at the same time.
The boom in LEED manufacturing facilities reflects the changing nature of manufacturing itself. Today's newest factories no longer make yesterday's products nor do they fit the stereotype of the dark, dirty assembly lines that gorged on fossil fuels.
The USGBC's LEED program, which stands for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is spreading among manufacturers of legacy products as well. The Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Trenton (Mich.) South Engine plant became the world's first engine plant to achieve LEED Gold. Because of its design, annual CO2 emissions were lowered by 12,000 metric tons—equal to the energy use in nearly 1,000 homes—and annual new energy use was reduced by 39 percent, saving $1.25 million a year.
Here on Chicago's Far South Side, Method's soap factory is the first packaged goods manufacturer to achieve LEED Platinum—the highest level possible—thanks to its wind turbine, “solar tracking trees” (solar panels that follow the sun) and the world's largest rooftop farm, a 75,000-square-foot commercial greenhouse set to produce 500 tons of food annually.
LEED buildings lower operating costs, create a higher return on investment and lead to higher resale and rental rates. One leading manufacturer saw a 33 percent savings on energy costs after changing a building's design to pursue LEED certification. LEED also contributes to the larger U.S. economy. By the end of 2018, USBGC's 2015 Economic Impact Study conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton, estimates that green buildings could create 3.3 million U.S. jobs and generate $190 billion in labor earnings.LEED manufacturing sites are now located in nearly every state. California leads the way with 200 followed by Texas with 99 and Illinois with 66. And that's significant. Manufacturers consume 30 percent of America's energy.
Credits in the LEED system are determined with constant and direct input from the building industry. In the newest iteration of the rating system, certain credits were adapted specifically to better reflect the needs of the industrial sector.
Professionals in the industry—from architects to contractors—should see the benefits of LEED and use it in manufacturing structures. Sean Hogan of RDK Architects notes that the manufacturing ”industry has traditionally been considered the main contributor to environmental pollution.” But manufacturers are changing their worldview, he says, and are ”actually doing the right thing.”Construction teams, even on factories, now understand they can save money and also do their part to preserve the planet's resources.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160712/OPINION/160709895/green-building-industrys-next-frontier-is-manufacturing
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested