Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/14/16
-
Regulation of Some Chemicals Quicker Under TSCA Amendments
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemicals with certain hazardous characteristics must be regulated quicker under the amended U.S. chemicals law than substances without those properties, an attorney said July 13. -
TSCA Reform is Keeping 325 New Chemicals in Limbo
Jul 13, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
When a company is waiting for a new chemical to be approved for commerce by the Environmental Protection Agency, every day matters. Now that chemical laws were changed on June 22, the wait on about 300 chemicals just got longer. -
Federal Government Rewrites the Rules on Getting and Using Chemicals in the Marketplace
Jul 13, 2016 | Lexology
By B. David Naidu, David L. Rieser, Cliff L. Rothenstein and Molly Nixon
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Lautenberg Act”), which significantly reforms the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). -
(ACC Mentioned) New Use Rules Withdrawn for Three Chemicals by EPA
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Industry plans to object to three new use chemical rules issued in May prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw the rules effective July 15. -
(ACC Mentioned) [Corrected] 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. -
NGO Links California Policy, Flame Retardant Exposure
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) says the findings of a recent study suggest California's flammability standards may have contributed to consumer exposure to potentially harmful substances. -
Leading Scientists Develop Systematic Review Framework for EDCs
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A group of 27 scientists, including some of the most prominent endocrine toxicologists, have developed a systematic review and analysis framework, designed to integrate a wide range of scientific evidence on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). -
Legal Fees Mounting for School District
Jul 13, 2016 | The Malibu Times
By Arthur Augustyn
An additional $1.5 million dollars was approved last week in a 4-2 vote by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education to pay Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, the law firm hired to defend the school district against litigation that would force remediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). -
EU Chemicals Agency Seeks Information on Formaldehyde Releasers
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency July 13 called for information on compounds that release formaldehyde and that are used as preservatives in cosmetics and other products. -
Democrats Fail To Block Interior-EPA Energy, Monument Riders
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The House this afternoon turned back Democratic attempts to strip riders from an Interior Department and U.S. EPA spending bill for fiscal 2017 that would block the Obama administration from naming new national monuments, stymie new methane regulations on the oil and gas industry, and bar Interior from updating mineral valuation methods. -
Both Sides Claim Victories in Interior-EPA Debate
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly, Tiffany Stecker and Amanda Reilly
The House is poised to pass a fiscal 2017 appropriations bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA today after extended amendment debate helped derail plans to finish up work on the measure last night. -
What’s In, What’s Not For The Energy Conference
Jul 13, 2016 | Bloomberg - Government
By Mark Drajem
Now that the Senate’s (finally!) agreed to go to conference with the House on energy legislation, the question is: What’s on the negotiating the table? -
House Chairman: Energy Bill Unlikely Before Election
Jul 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A conference committee working to combine House and Senate energy bills likely won’t finish its work before November’s elections and will probably yield a stripped-down reform package, a top negotiator said on Wednesday. -
House Nears End of Debate on EPA Funding Amendments
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
House lawmakers shot down efforts July 13 to make across-the-board funding cuts of 1 percent in the spending bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency and to allow the EPA to move forward with oil and gas methane regulations. -
Power Plant Emissions Cuts Under White House Review
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A regulation that would require the utility sector to achieve additional reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions is now under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget. -
Ceres: 2014 Power Plant Emissions Decline
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Emissions of four key air pollutants from the largest electric power producers have declined since 2000, despite increases in total generation and the gross domestic product, according to the 12th annual benchmarking reportreleased July 13 by Ceres. -
House Votes Down Florida Offshore Drilling Amendments
Jul 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Gullen
House lawmakers today shot down two bipartisan amendments to the chamber’s $32 billion Interior-EPA spending bill aimed at blocking offshore oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Babin Amendment To Promote Drone Safety
Jul 13, 2016 | Cleveland Advocate
The U.S. House of Representatives passed on Monday, July 11, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2016 (H.R. 636), which included an important amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) to set strict new guidelines for the operation of drones near chemical plants and oil refineries. -
DHS Needs Clearer Rules for Whistle-Blower Complaints: Audit
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Department of Homeland Security still has work to do to implement new whistle-blower requirements mandated under a 2014 law, the Government Accountability Office found. -
Law Could Bring Relief To Eight Mile After 2008 Chemical Spill
Jul 13, 2016 | Lagniappe Weekly
By Dale Liesch
Residents and leaders in Eight Mile hope a new federal law will help provide relief from a putrid chemical additive to natural gas that has spoiled the area for more than eight years. -
Crude-by-Rail Response Plans Required Under Proposed Rule
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Railroads shipping crude oil and other flammable liquids would be required to file comprehensive oil spill response plans and share more information with emergency responders under a proposed rule made public by the Transportation Department July 13. -
Ore. Lawmakers Unveil Bill To Address Derailments
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
Oregon Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley unveiled legislation yesterday aimed at preventing dangerous oil train derailments that have recently plagued their home state. -
U.S. Regulators Propose Information Sharing On Crude-Carrying Trains
Jul 13, 2016 | Reuters
By Timothy Gardner
U.S. regulators on Wednesday proposed a rule on trains carrying crude that requires railroads to share information on the shipments with local governments and emergency responders, a month after a fiery derailment of an oil train along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge. -
Upgrades To Unsafe Tank Cars Could Take 15 Years
Jul 13, 2016 | AP (In Crain's Chicago Business)
Accident-prone tank cars used to haul crude oil and ethanol by rail could remain in service for another 15 years under federal rules that allow companies to phase in upgrades to the aging fleet, according to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. -
Obama Administration To Propose Stronger Emergency Response Rules For Oil Trains
Jul 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Obama administration later today plans to propose stronger spill-response planning rules for oil trains, according to a copy of the plan obtained by POLITICO. -
Facing Legal Threat, OMB Weighs EPA Plan To Tighten HFC Handling Rules
Jul 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan & Stuart Parker
The White House has begun an inter-agency review of a draft final EPA regulation that would extend existing refrigerant management and handling guidelines for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to alternative chemicals, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which act as potent greenhouse gases. -
EPA Sends Final CSAPR Update Rule For OMB Review
Jul 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent its final rule updating it Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for pre-publication rule, aiming for a September release of the regulation that will revise CSAPR's nitrogen oxides (NOx) caps to help states meet EPA's ozone limit. -
Health Risks of Multiple Air Pollutants Examined by EPA
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing an approach to understand the health risks posed by mixtures of different air pollutants. -
California Proposes 258.6 Million Ton Emissions Cap for 2030
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California would cap statewide greenhouse gas emissions at 258.6 million metric tons in 2030, under a draft regulatory proposal headed to the state's Office of Administrative Law for review.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Regulation of Some Chemicals Quicker Under TSCA Amendments
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemicals with certain hazardous characteristics must be regulated quicker under the amended U.S. chemicals law than substances without those properties, an attorney said July 13.
Cadmium and cadmium compounds along with chromium and chromium compounds are among the chemicals that meet the law's criteria for high priority persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, Martha Marrapese, an attorney with Keller and Heckman LLP, said during a webinar the law firm hosted.
Companies and other parties that have data which could affect the Environmental Protection Agency's possible regulation of high priority chemicals should take advantage of the many opportunities the amended law provides to engage with the EPA as it implements the law, Marrapese said.
Marrapese and other Keller and Heckman attorneys discussed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114–182), which the president signed into law June 22.
The Lautenberg Act revised the fundamental provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time in 40 years.
As amended, the law requires the EPA within three years of enactment to identify some persistent, bioacumulative and toxic chemicals that are on a list of chemicals the agency already has slated for review.
Risk Evaluation Not Required
The EPA must issue risk management rules for those types of chemicals it selects, Marrapese said.
As long as the chemicals have the characteristics detailed in the law, they are presumed to be sufficiently hazardous for risk management to be considered.
The EPA would, however, have to identify the types of uses and exposures that could pose health or environmental risks.
The list of about 90 chemicals—which includes cadmium and chromium—that the EPA must use for this expedited rulemaking is called the work plan list.
Those metals, Marrapese said, are known to have a high potential to persist in the environment and bioaccumlate up the food chain. They are known human carcinogens and are highly toxic following short-term high exposures and longer term chronic exposures.
Other Chemicals on Work Plan List
Other chemicals on the EPA's work plan list that Marrapese said had characteristics that could make them subject to expedited rulemaking include:
• pigment yellow 83 (Chemical Abstracts Service No. 5567-15-7), which is a coloring agent for paints, plastics and inks;
• decabromodiphenyl ether (CAS No. 1163-19-5), a flame retardant; and
• ethone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl) (CAS No. 54464-57-2), a petroleum-derived fragrance chemical also known as Iso-E Super.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887514&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887514&jd=93887514
-
TSCA Reform is Keeping 325 New Chemicals in Limbo
Jul 13, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
When a company is waiting for a new chemical to be approved for commerce by the Environmental Protection Agency, every day matters. Now that chemical laws were changed on June 22, the wait on about 300 chemicals just got longer.
Both TSCA and the recently passed Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act give the EPA a 90-day window to review new chemicals. And according to a report in Bloomberg BNA, when Lautenberg was signed into law on June 22, the EPA restarted that 90-day clock on about 325 chemicals already under review.
In addition to new chemicals, the 90-day period also applies to significant new use notices (SNUNs), when a company wants to use a chemical in a new way; and microbial commercial activity notices, or when companies want to commercialize certain microorganisms that are used to produce chemicals.
Prior to Lautenberg, the EPA could simply take no action and after the 90 days were up, the chemical was good to go. Because of the new rules, the EPA said it was necessarily to restart the clock to ensure it is moving through the revised process appropriately.
For the first time, the agency must make a concrete decision about whether or not the chemical poses an unreasonable risk before it can be manufactured in or imported to the U.S.
EPA review will look at each chemical’s toxicity to determine if it poses a risk to pregnant women or other susceptible populations. After evaluating the chemical, the EPA will decide if it is OK for the marketplace, if it needs restrictions or if it should be barred from commerce.
While the passage of TSCA reform was mostly met with praise among environmentalists and the industry alike, some have been critical of the stricter review process for chemicals. One expert recently said that EPA evaluations of high-profile chemicals already in commerce are likely to lead to decreased choices and higher prices for consumers.
Others have also questioned the EPA’s ability to handle its much higher workload under Lautenberg. But some experts are hopeful the agency will improve its review process over time.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/07/tsca-reform-keeping-325-new-chemicals-limbo
-
Federal Government Rewrites the Rules on Getting and Using Chemicals in the Marketplace
Jul 13, 2016 | Lexology
By B. David Naidu, David L. Rieser, Cliff L. Rothenstein and Molly Nixon
This client alert is the second in a series that discusses the significant changes instituted by the passage of a new federal Toxic Substances Control Act. The first alert addressed broadly the law’s myriad of changes. Future alerts will cover enforcement of the new law, protection of confidential information, preemption of state law, and international impacts of the amendments.
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the “Lautenberg Act”), which significantly reforms the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). For chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors, one of the most important changes in this statute is the process by which new chemicals are reviewed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can be brought to market. As with other components of the Lautenberg Act, the amendments present manufacturers with a mixed bag by requiring more stringent review of new and existing chemicals, but also clarifying the priorities of that review and providing mechanisms for manufacturers to expedite the process. As a result, manufacturers will need to develop a strategy to bring new chemicals to market quickly by becoming familiar with EPA’s new requirements and by developing information proactively to take advantage of the measures to speed up the process.
New Chemicals or Significant New Uses
Under both the original TSCA and the amended statute, manufacturers must submit notice of new chemicals, or significant new uses of existing chemicals, 90 days before manufacture or processing. Previously, if the EPA failed to reject the application within that 90-day period, then the new chemical or significant new use of an existing chemical could proceed to the marketplace. By contrast, under the new statute, EPA must, within 90 days, review the notice and make an affirmative determination:that the chemical or new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,that EPA has insufficient information or that the chemical or use may present an unreasonable risk, orthat the chemical or use is likely not to present an unreasonable risk.
If EPA fails to act within the 90 days, the applicant cannot proceed with manufacturing, processing, or importing, although EPA must refund the processing fee. This change has the potential to result in delays for new chemicals. Industry should be prepared to provide and substantiate quickly any information requested by EPA in order to efficiently move chemicals through the review process and minimize delay. Moreover, EPA may issue additional policies, procedures, and guidance on the submission requirements, and industry should be proactive in ensuring that any requirements are met in the initial submission.
Significantly, the Lautenberg Act prohibits EPA from considering cost in determining whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk or whether more information is necessary. The statute, however, does not define what an “unreasonable risk” is. If EPA does determine that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, EPA may nevertheless regulate that chemical for use, but EPA’s decision on how to regulate that chemical must include a cost-benefit analysis.
Once EPA decides to regulate the chemical, its options include banning the chemical, creating labeling requirements, or establishing use restrictions. In establishing label or use requirements, EPA is no longer limited to employing only the “least burdensome requirements” but must impose requirements “so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such [unreasonable] risk.” Additionally, the Lautenberg Act provides EPA with significant authority to require the development of new information relating to a chemical substance or mixture by rule, order, or consent agreement. EPA can request this information both in the context of evaluating whether the chemical poses an unreasonable risk and in the context of imposing restrictions or labeling requirements on a chemical. By authorizing EPA to act by order or consent agreement, the amendments may reduce delays in requesting or obtaining new information.
With respect to premanufacture notices already in the review pipeline, EPA has taken the position that the Lautenberg Act resets the 90-day clock on its deadline to complete its review. Nevertheless, EPA has also stated that it intends to make efforts to review and issue determinations on those notices by the original deadlines. EPA’s determination appears to reflect a view on its part that the Lautenberg Act’s amendments apply to notifications submitted prior to June 22 that have not yet reached the 90-day deadline for EPA to act.
Existing Chemicals
The Lautenberg Act also requires EPA to prioritize its review of existing chemicals based on certain identified risks. In 2012, EPA developed a listing of certain existing chemicals and assigned those chemicals a hazard score, an exposure score, and a persistence and bioaccumulation score. That listing served as a work plan to help EPA direct and focus its Existing Chemicals program under the original TSCA. The work plan was revised in 2014 based on additional data submitted to the EPA and termed the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan is available on the EPA website.
In reviewing existing chemicals under the Lautenberg Act, EPA must prioritize its review of chemicals listed in the Work Plan having persistence and bioaccumulation scores of 3 (the highest score) and those in the Work Plan that are known human carcinogens and have high acute and chronic toxicity. EPA has stated that it will publish a list and formally initiate risk evaluations of ten Work Plan chemicals by mid-December 2016, at which point it will also publish (1) a proposed rule establishing EPA’s process and criteria for identifying high and low priority chemicals, and (2) a proposed rule establishing the process for evaluating the risk of high priority chemicals.
Manufacturers may also request that a specific chemical be evaluated, but will be required to pay an enhanced fee for the privilege. In deciding whether to grant such requests, the EPA will consider whether state restrictions on that chemical have the potential to have a significant impact on interstate commerce, health, or the environment. For evaluations of chemicals on the Work Plan performed pursuant to requests from manufacturers, EPA will set the evaluation fee at 50 percent of the costs of conducting the risk evaluation. For all other risk evaluations performed pursuant to request, the fee set shall defray the whole cost of the evaluation. By contrast, the fee is set at the lower of 25 percent or $25,000,000 for other evaluations. Chemical manufacturers and other parties will also have an opportunity to submit draft risk evaluations of their own to the EPA. EPA is to develop guidance to assist interested persons in developing and submitting such draft risk evaluations within the next year.
Risk evaluations, whether initiated by EPA or based on a request, must be completed no later than three years after the initiation of the risk evaluation. If EPA finds that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, it must propose a rule for the chemical no more than one year after the final risk evaluation and a final rule no more than two years after the final risk evaluation for that chemical is published. EPA will provide deadlines for compliance in each rule promulgated.
Finally, in order to create an inventory of active and inactive chemicals, EPA will require industries to report chemicals manufactured or processed in the previous ten years. EPA expects to publish a proposed rule for this industry reporting in mid-December. The current nonconfidential TSCA inventory has over 67,500 listings. The designation of chemicals as active or inactive will allow EPA to more efficiently prioritize its review of existing chemicals.
Articles
The Lautenberg Act imposes new limits on EPA’s ability to require significant new use notifications for articles (manufactured goods) or category of articles that contain a chemical. Under the new law, EPA may require notification of the importation or processing of a chemical substance as part of an article only if EPA has made an affirmative finding in a significant new use rule that the reasonable potential for exposure to a chemical through an article justifies notification. EPA can regulate such articles “only to the extent necessary to address the identified risks from exposure” to the chemical, so that the chemical does not present an unreasonable risk identified in EPA’s risk evaluation.
Although EPA has had the authority to regulate manufactured goods containing chemicals, the agency has generally not regulated articles, until recently. For example, EPA’s proposal to regulate polybrominated diphenylethers (“PBDEs”) includes provisions addressing goods containing PBDEs. That significant new use rule, however, was proposed prior to enactment of Lautenberg Act and has not yet been finalized so EPA may need to repropose the rule in accordance with the new limitations on regulating articles in the act.
Additionally, EPA may exempt articles (and chemicals) from requirements for specific conditions of use that are deemed critical and for which no technical and economically feasible alternative available; where compliance would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure; or when the specific use exempted provides a substantial benefit to health, the environment, or public safety. Replacement parts for complex durable goods and complex consumer goods designed prior to the date of publication of a rule are also exempt from the rule, unless EPA finds that such replacement parts contribute significantly to the risk.
These amendments are likely to result in more certainty and less delay in connection with the use of chemicals in manufactured goods and should provide industry with increased transparency with respect to the TSCA’s application to articles.
Conclusion
The most important takeaway is that entities that are knowledgeable regarding these changes and that stay abreast of EPA’s implementing regulations will be comparatively advantaged in speeding new chemicals and uses to market. Moreover, EPA will exercise significant discretion in implementing the Lautenberg Act and there will be opportunities to influence EPA in its interpretation of the amendments. For example, Congressional Record statements from Democrats and Republicans reflect divergent views on preemption, confidentiality, and “conditions of use.” Interested entities and individuals will be able to submit comments to EPA at several points over the next few years as EPA develops rules and guidance and may be able to use these different interpretations to bolster their arguments. Engagement with legal and policy professionals with agency experience will be critical to identify the appropriate time and circumstances in which an industry participant should make its views known to the regulator.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a0499c91-aaca-4c3b-817f-a3cb2a2b7f28
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Use Rules Withdrawn for Three Chemicals by EPA
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Industry plans to object to three new use chemical rules issued in May prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw the rules effective July 15.
The EPA will announce the withdrawal in a Federal Register notice scheduled for publication on July 14. The agency will then propose SNURs for the three chemicals in a future Federal Register notice.
The SNURs for the three chemicals were among 55 new userules(RIN:2070-AB27) the agency issued May 16 (81 Fed. Reg. 30,451).
The premanufacture notice, or PMN, numbers and generic identities of the three chemicals are:
• P-15-0559, modified diphenylmethane diisocyanate perpolymer with polyol;
• P-15-0378, diisocyanato hexane, homopolymer, alkanoic acid-polyalkylene glycol ether with substituted alkane (3:1) reaction products-blocked; and
• P-15-0276 functionalized carbon nanotubes.
Law Firm, ACC Prompt Withdrawal
James Votaw, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP in Washington, D.C., objected to the EPA's description of what would constitute a new use of the carbon nanotubes and the rule's disposal requirements for this particular type of nanotube.
The American Chemistry Council and its Diisocyanates Panel and Aliphatic Diisocyanates Panel submitted separate notices to the EPA saying they planned to object to the SNURs the agency issued for P-15-0559 and P-15-0379.
The SNUR withdrawal process does not require a reason for the planned objection, and the ACC and its panels did not provide one.
The agency's standard practice for most SNURs, which are designed to make sure all manufacturers of a particular chemical comply with restrictions the agency already has imposed on the original manufacturer, is to issue the new use rules covering multiple chemicals as direct final regulations.
If a company, trade association or other group files notice saying it plans to object to a rule for one or more chemicals, the agency withdraws those particular rules and reissues them as proposed regulations.
The party's objections can then come out during the public comment period.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887482&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495193500&searchid=27993908&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) [Corrected] 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 Chemistry Council 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&wsn=495234000&searchid=27993908&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
NGO Links California Policy, Flame Retardant Exposure
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
NGO the Environmental Working Group (EWG) says the findings of a recent study suggest California's flammability standards may have contributed to consumer exposure to potentially harmful substances.
Researchers from the EWG and Duke University identified higher flame retardant exposures in mothers and children in the state.
The team compared urinary metabolites of organophosphate flame retardants and tetrabromobenzoic acid (TBBA) in mother-toddler pairs in California and New Jersey.
Several metabolites were found in 100% of Californian urinary samples. These included the metabolite bis(1,3-dichloro-2propyl) phosphate (BDCIPP). The researchers say this suggests "ubiquitous exposure to the parent compound, tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCIPP)'.
The EWG says that the flame retardant TCIPP has been known to cause cancer in animals.
The study found significantly higher BDCIPP levels in California toddlers compared to the New Jersey cohort that had been examined in 2014.
The metabolite ip-PDPP was also found in elevated levels as compared to the other study. The EWG says the substance is a breakdown product of chemicals used in Firemaster 550, and other flame retardants. It is a suspected endocrine disrupting chemical.
The researchers say that the regional differences in these metabolite exposures may be driven by California's flammability standards.
Prior to 2014, California had in place stringent flammability standards for upholstered furniture. These required the use of added chemical flame retardants to be met.
Amid concerns that exposure to flame retardants may be harmful to human health and the environment, the governor approved a new standard in November 2013 – Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013. This eliminated the open-flame test, allowing manufacturers to more readily meet the standard without added flame retardants.
But the EWG says that most California homes still have furniture that meets the old standard. Most, if not all upholstered furniture in the state, they say, will still contain large amounts of chemical flame retardants.
The NGO says the study's finding "underscores how misguided regulations could expose people to harmful chemicals."
The study, which is published in Environment International, comes as the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) considers a petition from several industry groups to establish a national flammability standard based on California's.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48593/ngo-links-california-policy-flame-retardant-exposure
-
Leading Scientists Develop Systematic Review Framework for EDCs
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A group of 27 scientists, including some of the most prominent endocrine toxicologists, have developed a systematic review and analysis framework, designed to integrate a wide range of scientific evidence on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs).
Known as "Syrina" (systematic review and integrated assessment), the framework can be used to review and integrate evidence from epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animals, in vitro and in silico studies, to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDCs to adverse health or environmental effects.
The authors of the paper, just published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Health, believe it can increase confidence in risk management conclusions, by using “transparent and reproducible methods that acknowledge uncertainties”.
The paper sets out the seven stage framework, which begins with defining the scope and objective of the review and continues by following a written protocol, including a literature search strategy, screening methods and an evaluation process.
All relevant studies are identified and evaluated, before the various evidence streams – such as epidemiological studies or animal experiments – can each be summarised and evaluated. This is done by considering the relationship between exposure and effect, and then exposure and evidence of endocrine activity – although the framework also works with other toxicological mechanisms.
Finally the evidence of exposure and effect, for all streams, is brought together and conclusions drawn on the strength of evidence, the uncertainties and the consequences of taking – or not taking – risk management measures.
Syrina is not the first systematic review framework. The US National Toxicology Program developed theOffice of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) system in 2012. The US EPA also tested a system, known as the navigation guide, in 2014.
However, lead author Laura Vandenberg from the University of Massachusetts says Syrina has the advantages: that it was built specifically to incorporate information from all evidence streams; and to address the question of whether a compound is an endocrine disruptor in the context of the WHO/IPCS definition.
Another author, Professor Christina Ruden of Stockholm University, adds that Syrina pulls the best out of several existing frameworks so is “more comprehensive and stronger as a whole”.
Professor Ruden also confirms that it will be put to the test shortly because funding has been obtained from the EDC-MixRisk project to conduct a case study. This will involve a well-investigated substance that has already been risk assessed, “such as bisphenol A and DEHP”, she says.
“Another very important aspect is the usability of the tool,” Professor Ruden notes. “It should not be too resource intensive but, at the same time, needs to be scientifically solid. I think we made a good compromise there.”
The authors also made an effort to harmonise EU and US ways of thinking. “It would of course be a huge strength if we had one really good system in both the US and the EU,” she concludes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48543/leading-scientists-develop-systematic-review-framework-for-edcs
-
Legal Fees Mounting for School District
Jul 13, 2016 | The Malibu Times
By Arthur Augustyn
An additional $1.5 million dollars was approved last week in a 4-2 vote by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education to pay Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, the law firm hired to defend the school district against litigation that would force remediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
“I hate to see us spending money on lawyers, when at this point I think we all agree that remediation is the right path forward,” Board Member Craig Foster said. Foster made up one of the two dissenting votes against the funds, along with Board of Education Member Oscar de la Torre.
Pillsbury was hired at a rate of $695 dollars per hour to defend the school district from a lawsuit filed by Malibu-based America Unites For Kids that alleged the school district violated the federal Toxic Substances Control Act and some state laws.
America Unites For Kids’ lawsuit is not seeking monetary damages, but instead is hoping to force the school district to implement a remediation plan to completely remove all PCBs from Malibu schools.
President of America Unites for Kids Jennifer deNicola claims a complete remediation could be accomplished for roughly $1.6 million dollars, citing a comparable case in Glastonbury, CT.
Currently, the school district has spent over $5 million in legal fees, including the recently approved $1.5 million.
“It is unfortunate that we were sued,” District Spokesperson Gail Pinsker said. “This is money that could have been used for other uses or facilities, but we had to use it for legal fees.”
Multiple sources confirmed that the $1.5 million dollars was already spent before it was approved by the district’s board on June 29. Only $250,000 will be used for future work. Considering Pillsbury charges hourly, it is likely that their fees accrue gradually and are approved in a lump sum at once; however, this information has not been confirmed.
Despite the district’s fight against the lawsuit, the school district announced through a letter sent to parents on June 9 plans for “major facility improvements” on Malibu High School and Juan Cabrillo Elementary School throughout the summer. The improvements would specifically “remove and replace certain building materials that have been the subject of concern due to the potential presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).” To some, this sounds too good to be true.
“It doesn’t solve the PCB problem in its entirety,” deNicola said. “It’s not an end-all solution. For the children and those that educate them, they deserve an end-all solution. They deserve PCBs being removed from their school so they never have to worry about it again.”
Currently the improvements test for PCBs by removing all material from the floor to the ceiling of any door or window that is replaced, then the porous material within one foot on either side is “bulk tested.”
As of a Facilities District Advisory Committee meeting on July 11, all testing has been under 1 part per million (ppm), which is the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limit.
The point of contention is that PCBs are capable of spreading, and there could potentially be higher levels of PCBs in other parts of the school that the district is not testing. Still, many see this as a step in the right direction.
“This — for me, in three years, this is the first huge step in the right direction that’s really showing that things are happening that parents want,” Chair of Malibu’s Facilities District Advisory Committee Caren Leib said.
The lawsuit between America Unites and the school district required all documents to be submitted by midnight on June 27. Currently, both sides are waiting for the judge to make his decision, which could take weeks or months.
Some members close to the case anticipate a decision in July, but the judge is not bound by a specific time limit.
http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_5e794ce6-491e-11e6-97ce-8381930c194c.html
-
EU Chemicals Agency Seeks Information on Formaldehyde Releasers
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency July 13 called for information on compounds that release formaldehyde and that are used as preservatives in cosmetics and other products.
Formaldehyde is classified in the European Union as a carcinogen and skin sensitizer. A restriction on formaldehyde under the bloc's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) is under consideration, according to ECHA.
Additional information on formaldehyde releasers would help the chemicals agency and the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, decide whether to propose the restriction on formaldehyde and “whether formaldehyde releasers should be part of this restriction,” ECHA said.
Formaldehyde releasers are used to extend the life of products such as nail polish or shampoo.
An ECHA background document listed 36 substances that it said were “chemicals for which adequate clinical data are available to identify them as formaldehyde releasers beyond doubt” and seven substances that are suspected formaldehyde releasers.
Responses are due by Oct. 4 and should provide information on “the use of formaldehyde releasers on their own, in mixtures or in articles, by workers, professionals and consumers,” ECHA said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887490&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887490&jd=93887490
-
Democrats Fail To Block Interior-EPA Energy, Monument Riders
Jul 13, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The House this afternoon turned back Democratic attempts to strip riders from an Interior Department and U.S. EPA spending bill for fiscal 2017 that would block the Obama administration from naming new national monuments, stymie new methane regulations on the oil and gas industry, and bar Interior from updating mineral valuation methods.
In a series of rapid-fire votes that fell mostly along party lines, lawmakers also defeated a package of proposed amendments by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) intended to undo a GOP plan for addressing California's drought and a bid by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to impose a 1 percent across-the-board cut on the $32.1 billion bill.
The House delayed the roll call votes after it launched debate onH.R. 5538 yesterday. Discussions are set to resume later today on dozens of remaining amendments. Final passage could come tonight.
Of the amendments that received votes this afternoon, the closest tally was on the measure by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to scratch a rider that would stop President Obama from turning more federal lands into new national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act.
The designation unilaterally stops mining, logging or road-building. Grijalva's amendment failed 202-225. Nineteen Republicans -- most of them from the Northeast -- joined 183 Democrats in support.
During debate last night, Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, argued that the rider would undercut efforts "to honor, recognize and protect" the nation's most cherished cultural and natural resources.
But Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who pressed for the rider, pointed to President Clinton's 1996 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument designation in Utah as an example of the president's power to ignore local sentiment while hurting the surrounding area's economy.
"The monument has been incredibly unpopular since then," Stewart said.
Much wider was the 187-240 margin of defeat for the amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) to strike language that would block EPA's new rule to limit methane emissions from new and heavily modified oil and gas operations.
Issued in May, the rule requires companies to periodically check for and repair leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The GOP spending plan includes a provision to bar EPA from using any funds to propose, finalize, implement or enforce the new standards.
Polis yesterday called the EPA regulations "long overdue."
But Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that drafted the bill, said oil and gas companies were making progress voluntarily. Industry has made the same argument.
"This administration feels the need to over-regulate the oil and gas industry at every single turn," Calvert said.
In arguing that the Interior Department should be allowed to update mineral valuation rules for royalty purposes, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) cited Congressional Budget Office research saying the move could generate $400 million to state and federal coffers over a decade.
But defenders of a rider to block administration plans suggested royalty increases could drive off energy producers important to local economies.
"We are trying to protect our schools, our infrastructure, our communities and the very livelihoods that depend on these revenues," Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) said yesterday. Lowenthal's amendment failed this afternoon on a 183-246 vote.
In a policy statement issued earlier this week, the Obama administration cited some of the bill's riders in threatening to veto the legislation if it ever arrived at the president's desk.
But some of the most consequential of those measures have the backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In a "key vote" letter to lawmakers released today, the influential business group urged support for the methane rider and others to stymie the administration.
R. Bruce Josten, the chamber's top lobbyist, also broadcast support for a proposed amendment by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) that would stop EPA from proceeding with new restrictions on offshore energy development in the Arctic.
Josten opposed a proposal from Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) to strike a rider that would bar the Interior Department from moving ahead with new offshore air quality regulations.
Environmental groups have been equally adamant in condemning key elements of the bill. In a separate letter to House members this week, the National Wildlife Federation denounced the national monuments provision and a rider that would put greater sage grouse management plans on hold.
The Alaska Wilderness League and more than two dozen organizations today voiced objections to Young's amendment, along with more than 50 others advanced by Republicans, while supporting Democrats' efforts to remove existing riders and prevent the GOP from adding more.
Reporter Amanda Reilly contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/07/13/stories/1060040240
-
Both Sides Claim Victories in Interior-EPA Debate
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly, Tiffany Stecker and Amanda Reilly
The House is poised to pass a fiscal 2017 appropriations bill for the Interior Department and U.S. EPA today after extended amendment debate helped derail plans to finish up work on the measure last night.
Lawmakers again worked past midnight, but that still didn't provide enough time to clear away the last of the 131 amendments that got the go-ahead for floor debate on H.R. 5538.
House members finished discussing amendments. But nine still remain on the table pending votes, including a proposal by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to assure a continued law enforcement role for the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
The House yesterday dispatched some 45 amendments, many of them intended to stymie endangered species listings, new regulations on oil and gas drilling and new attempts to protect federal land.
Lawmakers approved three amendments by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), for example, intended to foster energy development in the Arctic and agreed to remove federal protections for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, listed as endangered in 2014.
Members also approved a measure by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) that would bar EPA and other agencies covered by the $32.1 billion bill from paying legal fees in lawsuit settlements brought under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Smith's amendment was intended to end what many Republicans view as collusion between the administration and environmental groups, which they say sue to force agency actions and then collect legal fees as part of settlements.
"Litigants can still sue, but they will no longer be financially rewarded by the American taxpayer for their efforts," Smith said.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) said the current system helps deter government wrongdoing "and encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal counsel, to assert their right."
The amendment approved yesterday added to the growing pile of policy riders in the bill, which has already drawn a White House veto threat.
In the course of debating the measure, Democrats were again repeatedly unsuccessful in prying out the riders, such as provisions aimed at blocking new EPA regulations on farmworker pesticide exposure and limiting methane emissions from oil and gas operations (E&ENews PM, July 13).
If there was any consolation for members of the minority, it was in the knowledge that the contested provisions stand little chance of becoming law.
"I would be remiss if I didn't point out one more obvious truth: The president will not sign a bill loaded up with anti-environmental riders like this one," said McCollum, the top Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee that drafted the bill, during the debate over one of Young's amendments.Response to Flint
Democrats scored some small victories, most notably in the area of water project funding.
A block of 10 amendments approved by voice vote included two measures from Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), whose district includes Flint, Mich. That city is coping with the widespread lead contamination in its drinking water.
One of Kildee's amendments would facilitate $3 million for Flint to build a water testing system.
The other would allow cities with water emergencies to claim a larger share of money from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Lawmakers also OK'd by voice vote an amendment from Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) to block funds to states that violate the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, an agreement to better manage the Great Lakes' water.
But partisan division resurfaced in the vote on an amendment by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania to prevent additional EPA oversight for states that do not meet federal Chesapeake Bay cleanup goals.
The amendment, adopted by a 231-197 margin, angered the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. In a letter to bay state lawmakers, the group urged them to vote against the measure.
Of the seven Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions -- six states and the District of Columbia -- only Pennsylvania has fallen to "backstop action levels" in goals for agricultural and stormwater pollution prevention, which triggered federal involvement.Climate
The bill already contains language intended to stop implementation of the administration's attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Power Plan.
With a pair of amendments approved yesterday, the House further chipped away at EPA's ability to regulate carbon releases.
By voice vote, the House added a provision to prohibit the agency from using the Clean Air Act's international provision to regulate greenhouse gases.
Section 115 gives EPA the authority to compel states to reduce emissions that contribute to health or welfare problems in other countries, as long as those countries reciprocate with similar protections.
After the Paris climate deal, some legal experts and environmentalists have eyed it as a possible way to put in place an economywide carbon regime.
Amendment sponsor Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said there was a "serious concern" that EPA was eyeing the section "to mandate state emissions levels to whatever amount the agency deems appropriate" (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
Another amendment approved by the House in a 231-197 vote mostly along party lines would block EPA from finalizing its Clean Energy Incentive Program proposal to give states credit for taking early action under the Clean Power Plan, the agency's program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants (E&ENews PM, June 16).
Republicans have accused EPA of violating the Supreme Court's February stay of the Clean Power Plan by continuing to work on the CEIP and related programs.
"The EPA has continued barreling forward, acting as if the Clean Power Plan will most certainly be upheld," amendment sponsor Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) said yesterday.
In a final tweak, the House rejected what was essentially an anti-rider rider by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) that sought to nullify any provisions in the bill that ran counter to the Obama administration' executive orders on climate change and sustainability. Beyer's proposal failed on a 194-234 vote.Other amendments
Other amendments considered include:An amendment by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) and others to block Interior's well control rule. Passed 234-195.An amendment by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) and other lawmakers to prevent implementation of the National Ocean Policy. Passed 237-189.An amendment by Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.) to prevent offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. Failed 195-234.An amendment by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.) to block seismic surveys off Florida's coast. Failed 197-231.An amendment by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) to prevent the administration from treating the gray wolf as an endangered of threatened species after June 2017 in the Lower 48 states. Passed 223-201.A bloc of amendments by several lawmakers to block major rules, block environmental education grants and study coastal barrier resource areas, among other provisions. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) to remove federal protections for the Mexican wolf. Passed 219-203.An amendment by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to prohibit the use of drones for certain activities, including collecting remote sensing data. Failed 161-262.An amendment from Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) to prevent the administration from designating a National Marine Monument. Passed 225-185.An amendment from Beyer and others to prevent oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. Failed 192-236.An amendment by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) to increase funding for the National Estuary Program. Passed by voice vote.An amendment by Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) to prevent EPA from taking Clean Air Act actions without analyzing economic effects. Passed by voice vote.
Other amendments waiting for a vote include:An amendment from Beyer to strip water-related riders.An amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) to prevent fracking in the Pacific outer continental shelf.An amendment by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Grijalva against transfering federal land to private parties.An amendment by Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) to protect BLM resource management plans.An amendment by Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) to prevent grazing permits or leases contrary to BLM rules.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/14/stories/1060040254
-
What’s In, What’s Not For The Energy Conference
Jul 13, 2016 | Bloomberg - Government
By Mark Drajem
Now that the Senate’s (finally!) agreed to go to conference with the House on energy legislation, the question is: What’s on the negotiating the table? Democrat Maria Cantwell says that House Republicans agreed to drop veto-bait measures. That would mean that much of the House’s initial energy package, H.R. 8, is out. In particular, the White House has taken issue with provisions that would change FERC deadlines for natural gas pipeline approvals and limit environmental reviews for hydropower projects.
Of the three-dozen measures the House added to its energy package in May, three other bills have veto threats: California drought bill H.R. 2898, wildfire funding bill H.R. 2647 and the research funding bill H.R. 1806. The White House also “strongly opposes” public lands management bill H.R. 2406, minerals bill H.R. 1937 and Native American energy bill H.R. 538, but stopped short of threatening to veto them.
The next step is for staffers to start negotiating “chunks” of the remaining measures, starting with the easiest stuff. First up will probably be provisions on the National Park Service Centennial and energy workforce development, a Murkowski aide says.
In its veto message for the EPA-Interior appropriations bill, which is being debated in the House this week, the White House said one provision was especially egregious: wording that would mandate the EPA consider biomass as carbon neutral. One of the Obama administration’s cabinet officials, however, needs no convincing. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack wrote his U.K. counterpart earlier this year, advocating that they consider wood pellets a tool to address climate change. “Biomass generation provides significant greenhouse gas benefits to the U.K., due to reduced fossil fuel combustion,” Vilsack wrote to Amber Rudd, the secretary of state for energy, in March.
Now Vilsack’s advocacy is prompting blowback from environmental advocates here at home. In a letter set to sent to him today, the Partnership for Policy Integrity and other groups say that Vilsack’s claims are misleading, as it cited purported growth in southern forest cover that is actually a change in methodology: The U.S. Forest Service included arid woodland in Texas and Oklahoma as forest.
The House spending bill would preempt an EPA study of the issue, mandating that the agency find that emissions from biomass “do not increase overall carbon dioxide accumulations in the atmosphere,” as long as the overall forest stocks are stable or increasing. The White House objected, saying it would compel EPA to “disregard the scientific recommendations of its own Science Advisory Board and other technical studies.”A CLEANER RFS BATTLE
The comments submitted to EPA over its 2017 RFS proposal fell into a familiar pattern: Refiners and oil companies said the agency’s proposed were too high, and should be cut; ethanol producers and their representatives said the agency should restore the quotas to the levels set in the 2007 legislation. But there was one advocate we hadn’t heard before: Soap makers weighed in, and urged the agency to minimize the use of animal fats under the RFS. They want EPA to weigh the impact of losses to its industry from biodiesel demand for the animal fat.
“Animal fats are a key feedstock used by oleochemical producers, which help supply the production of soaps, laundry detergents, fabric softeners,” the American Cleaning Institute argued in its comments. “The proposed volumes would continue to divert large quantities of a finite inelastic supply of animal fats to the biofuels market, thereby critically disadvantaging the domestic oleochemical industry.”VOTING FOR JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?
The Natural Resources Defense Council found some irony in the House vote for H.R. 4768, which would upend Chevron deference. The measure, if it became law, would instruct judges not to defer to regulators in determining what is a reasonable determination of a law. But wait, isn’t judicial activism something conservatives opposed, NRDC’s David Doniger asked in a blog post. “If it became law, the bill would as likely result in unelected judges’ overruling the decisions of future conservative administrations,” he said. “It’s worth remembering that NRDC was the losing party in the Chevron decision.”
http://about.bgov.com/blog/whats-whats-not-energy-conference/
-
House Chairman: Energy Bill Unlikely Before Election
Jul 13, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A conference committee working to combine House and Senate energy bills likely won’t finish its work before November’s elections and will probably yield a stripped-down reform package, a top negotiator said on Wednesday.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said he and other negotiators are aiming to craft a bill that could win President Obama’s signature this year.
He acknowledged that means, in some cases, cutting out provisions Republicans inserted into their version of the energy reform package this spring.
“We know it’s going to change,” Upton said. “It’s going to change; we’re open-minded; we don’t have any red lines in the sand. Clearly there are some things we think we can agree on.”
If members can get that deal, Upton said, it’s likely to come after November’s elections.
“Let’s face it, that will be hard to do, knowing that it took so long,” Upton said of passing a bill before the elections. “So it will be pretty hard to get done before the end of September, but we’ll see. I don’t know.”
The Senate voted on Tuesday to go to a conference committee with the House, a major step toward passing an energy bill for the first time since 2007.
Democrats, though, have objected to a host of conservative provisions inserted into a House version of the bill in April, such as a GOP package to relieve the California drought and a measure to bypass environmental regulations for energy projects on Native American land, among others.
The White House opposes the House bill, meaning an agreeable package will likely include fewer of those provisions. The centerpiece of a compromise bill could be an expansion of liquefied natural gas exports, a provision included in both the House and Senate bills.
Members of the conference committee — including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — said they are optimistic about getting a bill, even a pared down one, to President Obama this year.
“We’re not going to do a bill that’s going to get vetoed,” Upton said Wednesday. ”We’re going to get a bill or not.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287606-house-chairman-predicts-no-energy-bill-before-elections
-
House Nears End of Debate on EPA Funding Amendments
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
House lawmakers shot down efforts July 13 to make across-the-board funding cuts of 1 percent in the spending bill for the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency and to allow the EPA to move forward with oil and gas methane regulations.
Those votes came as the House continues to debate the appropriations bill that would fund the two agencies and others.
The fiscal year 2017 legislation (H.R. 5538) saw its second day of House floor consideration July 13, and lawmakers said they hoped to finish work on it by midnight..
The chamber also rejected Democratic efforts July 13 to fund EPA pesticide safety requirements and allow changes to royalty rates under federal coal, oil and gas leasing programs, among other measures.
The bill would provide $32.1 billion in funding but undercuts the White House budget request by roughly $1 billion.
The EPA would get nearly $8 billion, roughly $400 million short of the White House request, and $164 million less than current funding levels.
The White House has threatened to veto the legislation, citing the funding cuts and a range of policy riders that would hamstring several signature programs at the EPA.
More Amendments Expected
The House still aimed to tackle dozens of amendments before polishing off all legislative work on the bill, Thomas Tatum, a spokesman for House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), told Bloomberg BNA.
Lawmakers are set to debate amendments that would make endangered species listings more difficult and prohibit funds for implementing the EPA's Well Control Rule (RIN:1014–AA11), along with a laundry list of other riders.
The chamber approved Republican amendments late July 12 to the funding bill that would cut the agency's program and management account by more than $4 million and prohibit new guidance for oil and gas financial assurance regulations.
Lawmakers also approved a Democratic measure to direct the EPA to implement a long-term water monitoring program for the Animas and San Juan rivers in response to the 2015 Gold King Mine spill in Colorado, along with other Democratic amendments to increase funding for the National Park Service and to ensure EPA's coal combustion residual rule (RIN:2050-AE81) is consistent with a White House environmental justice executive order.
The legislation bars funding for the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), the Clean Water Rule (RIN:2040-AF30), 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 other riders.
‘Open Despite Poison Pills.'
Top Democratic lawmakers say Republican leadership has paved the way for a relatively open debate process on the funding legislation, but the Democratic caucus is still likely to overwhelmingly oppose the bill.
“Sure, its been an open process, but there's so many poison pills that the bill isn't going to go anywhere,” Appropriations Committee ranking member Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) told Bloomberg BNA on the sidelines of the July 13 votes. “And it's unfortunate that we're nearing the end of the session, and there's a lot of work to do and there's a lot of important provisions in the Interior bill.”
The House Rules Committee July 11 teed up 131 amendments for consideration on the floor.
Lowey called the riders “unproductive.”
“Its unfortunate because we're here to legislate,” she said. “And then we know when we get to conference with the Senate, its going to be a very different bill.”
Most appropriations observers assume the two chambers will ultimately rally together to pass an omnibus funding bill later this year.
Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), a Democratic leadership member, echoed Lowey's comments in response to a question about the level of Democratic support.
Weak Democratic Support
“It will depend on what amendments get accepted and what don't,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “In all likelihood, I think it's going to be very weak if present at all.”
Only one Democrat, Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), supported the bill at the Appropriations Committee markup in mid-June.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a top Republican appropriator, told Bloomberg BNA the riders are geared toward horse-trading later in the year.
“There are some that are more parochial than others that are probably going to go by the wayside,” he said. “They don't really expect it to become part of a final bill. But there will be some major ones that are countrywide that you'll see us fight for.”
Simpson pointed to the lifting of the oil export ban, a passionate Republican goal, in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus package.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887515&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887515&jd=93887515
-
Power Plant Emissions Cuts Under White House Review
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A regulation that would require the utility sector to achieve additional reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions is now under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The Environmental Protection Agency July 12 sent the White House a final rule to update state emissions budgets established under the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The updated budgets are intended to address power plant emissions that interfere with the ability of downwind areas to meet the 2008 national ozone standards of 75 parts per billion.
The agency's November proposal (RIN:2060-AS05) would require 913 power plants across 23 states to curb emissions that affect air quality in downwind areas. The agency projected its proposal would cost industry about $93 million a year while generating as much as $1.2 billion in annual public health benefits.
That proposal drew criticism during the public comment period from the American Lung Association, Sierra Club and other advocacy organizations, which had argued that the proposal did not go far enough to help downwind areas meet the 2008 ozone standards. Several state environmental agencies said the EPA's proposal would require more pollution reductions than necessary and set an unreasonable compliance deadline.
Those comments could serve as a preview of legal arguments against the final emissions budgets that EPA issues under the update rule. Janet McCabe, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, has touted the rulemaking as using an “established approach” that was sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the original Cross-State Rule in 2014 (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 2014 BL 118432, 78 ERC 1225 (2014)).
In the EME Homer decision, the court upheld the framework of the Cross-State Rule, while also deciding that the EPA does not have the authority to require states to implement emissions controls beyond what was needed to reduce pollution by the amount necessary for all downwind areas to achieve national air quality standards.
McCabe said in April that the final Cross-State Update rule will be issued before the end of 2016.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887497&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887497&jd=93887497
-
Ceres: 2014 Power Plant Emissions Decline
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Emissions of four key air pollutants from the largest electric power producers have declined since 2000, despite increases in total generation and the gross domestic product, according to the 12th annual benchmarking reportreleased July 13 by Ceres.
The report said carbon dioxide emissions from the top 100 electric power producers declined by 15 percent from 2005 to 2014 and preliminary data suggest a further decline of 6 percent in 2015. Total carbon dioxide emissions from the 100 power producers are at a 22-year low and are just 5 percent above 1990 levels, according to the report.
“This matters because reductions in the electric sector will be key to achieving the recently established U.S. national climate target,” the report said.
The report benchmarks emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide from the top 100 electric power companies in 2014. Sulfur dioxide emissions were 80 percent lower than in 1990 and nitrogen oxide emissions were 75 percent lower, according to the report. Mercury emissions declined by 55 percent from 2000 levels.
A joint effort by Ceres and Bank of America Corp., Calpine, Entergy Corp., Exelon Corp. and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the report was prepared by M.J. Bradley & Associates.
The 100 largest power producers emitted 2.8 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 1.4 million tons of nitrogen oxides, 18.6 tons of mercury and 1.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2014, the report said.
Emissions Concentrated
Emissions, according to the report, are “highly concentrated among a small number of producers.” For example, 10 producers were responsible for 56 percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions, 43 percent of the nitrogen oxides emissions, 49 percent of the mercury and 40 percent of the carbon dioxide.
Moreover, the report said 25 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions came from two companies—American Electric Power and NRG Energy Inc.—and 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions came from four companies— AEP, Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co. and NRG.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887484&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887484&jd=93887484
-
House Votes Down Florida Offshore Drilling Amendments
Jul 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Gullen
House lawmakers today shot down two bipartisan amendments to the chamber’s $32 billion Interior-EPA spending bill aimed at blocking offshore oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida.
One amendment, which failed 197-231, was led by Rep. Patrick Murphy, the leading Democrat in the race to unseat Republican Sen. Marco Rubio. His top rival in the primary, Rep. Alan Grayson, was one of several Democratic co-sponsors, as were Republicans David Jolly, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Curt Clawson, Vern Buchanan and Ron DeSantis. The amendment would have prevented seismic testing, a precursor to drilling, near the state.
Lawmakers also shot down a separate amendment from Jolly, Clawson and Florida Democrat Gwen Graham blocking funds to study offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. It failed 185-243. The amendment was added on a voice vote to last year's Interior-EPA bill, although it did not make the omnibus in December. The conservative group Heritage Action included the amendment on its scorecard this year.
Rep. Charles Boustany, a Louisiana Republican running to replace the retiring Sen. David Vitter, successfully passed a measure blocking funds for Interior's well control rule. Lawmakers also approved an amendment prohibiting money for the administration's National Ocean Policy, as well as a measure blocking EPA from punishing Chesapeake Bay watershed states that don't meet their Total Maximum Daily Load.
The House will continue debating amendments this evening, with a vote on final passage of the appropriations package expected around midnight.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Babin Amendment To Promote Drone Safety
Jul 13, 2016 | Cleveland Advocate
The U.S. House of Representatives passed on Monday, July 11, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2016 (H.R. 636), which included an important amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) to set strict new guidelines for the operation of drones near chemical plants and oil refineries. The bipartisan legislation is now expected to be passed by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President.
“As the representative of the 36th Congressional District of Texas, which is home to more petrochemical and refining facilities than any other district in the country, I was pleased to have helped secure this much-needed provision and put it on the path to becoming law,” said Rep. Brian Babin. “This carefully crafted language will ensure both the protection of our oil and gas facilities and their employees from unauthorized drone activity while also respecting the growing business of public and commercial drone use throughout the United States.”
We thank Congressman Babin for his tireless leadership on safety and for including a provision in the Senate's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill that will address the troubling gap in current policies regarding the safe operation of drones around chemical facilities,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. “This vital amendment will help protect communities and safeguard chemical facilities, which play a vital role in manufacturing products that are important to the everyday health and well-being of our nation.”
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/house-passes-babin-amendment-to-promote-drone-safety/article_7cf0fe3d-d6d5-5785-a8cc-780b5796757c.html
-
DHS Needs Clearer Rules for Whistle-Blower Complaints: Audit
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Department of Homeland Security still has work to do to implement new whistle-blower requirements mandated under a 2014 law, the Government Accountability Office found.
The GAO said in a report released July 12 that the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program is still without a documented process to respond to whistle-blowers who claim retaliation.
The report comes as DHS is implementing a 2014 law, the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act. The law reauthorized the CFATS program but granted it new authorities and safeguards meant to improve the program and help DHS close a backlog of unapproved site security plans.
Among the law's additions were procedures for addressing whistle-blower complaints. Some lawmakers viewed whistle-blowers as an important part of ensuring security at high-risk facilities.
Without a documented process for whistle-blower retaliation claims, DHS “may not be able to effectively and efficiently investigate any future retaliation reports,” the report said.
The GAO also warned DHS is failing to provide sufficient guidance to whistle-blowers who contact the agency through a telephone tip line and website. The tip line provides “no guidance” for what information DHS needs to investigate a complaint, and the website provides only “limited guidance,” the report said.
Agency Responds to Findings
In the agency's response, DHS said it would continue to address issues of whistle-blower retaliation on a case-by-case basis, though it agreed with GAO's finding that the guidance would be useful. The agency said it has not yet received a complaint of whistle-blower retaliation, though it may develop guidance through a future rulemaking process.
The report isn't the first indication DHS isn't utilizing all of its authorities under the law. In May, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, revealed in a letter to DHS that only one facility was participating in a new expedited approval program authorized under the 2014 law.
The report also revealed DHS received 105 CFATS whistle-blower reports from June 16, 2015, to April 19, 2016, including one from someone who wasn't an employee or contractor of the plant but was concerned about its proximity to a residential area.
The individual “expressed concerns about the facility's lack of security and expressed fear of a catastrophic incident if the facility was not in compliance” with CFATS regulations. The operator turned out to have seven other facilities that also were in noncompliance, the report said.
Most Complaints Dismissed
Of the 105 whistle-blower complaints, 97 were dismissed as not pertaining to the program. Of those 97, 70 were referred to other federal agencies. Eight reports were determined to involve possible CFATS violations, but after further review just one report was verified as a program violation, the GAO found.
The lone substantiated complaint resulted in the agency requiring the facility and seven other sites under the same ownership to register under the CFATS program, the report said, and DHS declined to seek civil penalties.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887493&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887493&jd=93887493
-
Law Could Bring Relief To Eight Mile After 2008 Chemical Spill
Jul 13, 2016 | Lagniappe Weekly
By Dale Liesch
Residents and leaders in Eight Mile hope a new federal law will help provide relief from a putrid chemical additive to natural gas that has spoiled the area for more than eight years.
Prichard City Councilman Lorenzo Martin said the federal oversight is needed because he believes the Alabama Department of Environmental Management has been too lenient with Mobile Gas during the ongoing cleanup of methyl mercaptan, which leaked from a company facility in 2008.
“They allowed Mobile Gas to put the cleanup plans together and establish its own timeline,” Martin said.
Mobile Gas representatives told guests at a recent open house that the company began taking steps to clean up the leak in 2012, including the installation of two groundwater filtration systems.
“The system captures water from the springs near the old, abandoned Cochran Road in a tank where ozone is added to the water,” according to Mobile Gas. “Once treated, the water is released back into the environment.”
Keeshia Davis, a spokeswoman for Mobile Gas, wrote in an email that 56 people took a tour of the site at the open house. Martin said he felt the tour and the way Mobile Gas was handling the cleanup wasn’t appropriate.
“They’re looking at it in the wrong way,” Martin said. “It leaked into the soil. More of the soil needs to be remediated.”
The new federal law called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which had overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate, updates a 1976 law allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to create a new system to evaluate and manage the risks associated with chemicals already on the market, among other things.
U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Fairhope) voted in favor of the bill. In a statement Byrne said he’d continue to work with Martin and residents of Eight Mile to resolve the issue.
Martin said the leak and its cleanup should concern everyone in the area, as it’s also the highest point in Mobile County.
Mercaptan is a chemical used to give odorless natural gas its “rotten egg” smell. Residents have reported the odor at the leak site, as well as several alleged health effects from the mercaptan, said Carletta Davis, president of We Matter Eight Mile Community.
She said residents in the area have experienced dizziness, nausea, asthma and nosebleeds due to long-term exposure to the chemical. She added any existing problems residents had prior to the spill are exacerbated by the exposure.
In a statement released this week, Davis announced that a community health survey for Eight Mile residents exposed to mercaptan would take place Friday and Saturday from 8 a.m. to noon and 3-7 p.m. She said in previous community meetings 400 to 500 residents have shown up and she expects at least that many to take part in the survey.
http://lagniappemobile.com/law-could-bring-relief-to-eight-mile-after-2008-chemical-spill/
-
Crude-by-Rail Response Plans Required Under Proposed Rule
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Railroads shipping crude oil and other flammable liquids would be required to file comprehensive oil spill response plans and share more information with emergency responders under a proposed rule made public by the Transportation Department July 13.
The rule, which would affect railroads such as BNSF Railway Co. and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., comes in response to a number of incidents involving derailments of trains hauling crude oil and other flammable materials such as ethanol.
“Incidents involving crude oil can have devastating consequences to local communities and the environment,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. “We've taken more than 30 actions in the last two years to continue to address risk, and we continue to push the industry to do more to prevent derailments from happening. This rule goes one step further to hold industry accountable to plan and prepare for the worst case scenario.”
Preparing for ‘Worst Case' Spill
The rule would require railroads to develop more thorough oil spill response plans based on the amount of oil they are transporting, as opposed to “basic plans” currently required under federal law, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in a statement.
It also would require train operators to be prepared to respond to an incident involving a “worst-case discharge”—the largest quantity of oil reasonably expected to be discharged during an incident, the agency said. It also would codify a requirement that railroads share operations information about trains hauling crude oil operations with state and tribal emergency response commissions, PHMSA said.
“The substantial surge in our country's production of crude oil is creating a serious need for improved response and communication between railroads and the communities through which they travel,” PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez, said in a statement. “This rule would help to ensure that railroads provide vital information to first responders to help them prepare for and respond to a derailment involving crude.”
28 Incidents Cited
The proposed regulation comes as there have been 28 incidents involving crude-by-rail trains over the past 10 years that have claimed dozens of lives, according to Public Citizen, a Washington advocacy group.
“Railroads must continue to do everything possible to prevent an incident from occurring and strategically prepare in case one does,” Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah E. Feinberg, said in a statement.
The rule (RIN:2137-AF08), which was written in conjunction with the FRA, has yet to be published in the Federal Register.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887510&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887510&jd=93887510
-
Ore. Lawmakers Unveil Bill To Address Derailments
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Northey
Oregon Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley unveiled legislation yesterday aimed at preventing dangerous oil train derailments that have recently plagued their home state.
The "Mandate Oil Spill Inspections and Emergency Rules Act" would require the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate every major oil train derailment and clarify that the Federal Rail Administration has authority to place moratoriums on oil train traffic when accidents do happen.
The bill would also require the Department of Transportation to reduce the amount of volatile gases in the crude oil these trains transport.
The bill arrives on the derailment of 11 cars of a Union Pacific train carrying crude oil last month. The train jumped the tracks, causing a spill and fire in rural Oregon and forcing about 100 people to leave their homes.
"Every accident needs to be fully and independently investigated. The Federal Rail Administration needs to have the power to enforce moratoriums until identified problems are fully resolved," Merkley said in a statement. "And the highly explosive Bakken crude needs to be stabilized before it rolls through our communities. This bill will do all three, greatly improving long-term safety."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/14/stories/1060040253
-
U.S. Regulators Propose Information Sharing On Crude-Carrying Trains
Jul 13, 2016 | Reuters
By Timothy Gardner
U.S. regulators on Wednesday proposed a rule on trains carrying crude that requires railroads to share information on the shipments with local governments and emergency responders, a month after a fiery derailment of an oil train along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge.
The rule proposed by the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration would require railroads to provide monthly reports to state and tribal firefighter commissions and emergency responders.
In the reports, railroads would have to include estimates of the number of so-called high hazard flammable trains expected to travel through counties in states, and the routes for the trains. The rule will soon be published in the Federal Register, but it was not immediately clear when it was expected to be finalized.
"Railroads must continue to do everything possible to prevent an incident from occurring and strategically prepare in case one does," FRA Administrator Sarah E. Feinberg said in a statement.
Since 2008, there have been at least 10 major oil train derailments across the United States and Canada, including a disaster that killed 47 people in a Quebec town in July 2013.
Nearly a dozen rail cars in a 96-car Union Pacific train carrying crude derailed and burst into flames on June 3 in Oregon about 70 miles (110) km from Portland. No injuries were reported, but the accident, the first major one of its kind this year, rekindled oil-by-rail safety concerns.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-rail-crude-idUSKCN0ZT2RO
-
Upgrades To Unsafe Tank Cars Could Take 15 Years
Jul 13, 2016 | AP (In Crain's Chicago Business)
Accident-prone tank cars used to haul crude oil and ethanol by rail could remain in service for another 15 years under federal rules that allow companies to phase in upgrades to the aging fleet, according to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.
Transportation officials and railroad representatives have touted the rules as a key piece of their efforts to stave off future disasters, following a string of fiery derailments and major spills that raised concerns about the crude-by-rail industry.
Yet without mandatory, periodic benchmarks for meeting the requirements, 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.
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 for replacing or upgrading the cars, he said, noting that demand for rail cars has eased after crude-by-rail shipments decreased over the past two years in response to lower oil prices.
"The need to modify or install new cars isn't as urgent as when the rule was issued," Simpson said.
In recent years, accidents involving the older cars have occurred in Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, Illinois, West Virginia and Canada.
The most notable was in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, where 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.
Cars built before the rule was enacted do not have to be fully replaced until 2029, although most would have to come off the tracks sooner.
Just over 10,300 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.
Transportation Department Press Secretary Clark Pettig said in response to the NTSB's criticism that the schedule to retrofit older cars was locked in by Congress in a transportation bill approved last year. The Congressional deadline represents "the absolute last moment" to meet the new standards, Pettig said.
"We agree with NTSB that industry should work to beat those deadlines," he said.
PROGRESS UPDATE
A meeting today is planned in Washington, D.C., where government and industry officials were set to update the safety board on progress addressing the issue.
Safety board member Robert Sumwalt told the Associated Press that federal regulators need to set milestones to hold the industry accountable.
"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."
A bill from U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and other Democratic lawmakers would offer tax credits for companies that upgrade their cars during the next several years.
"Communities near train tracks, like Mosier, Oregon, must be confident that companies are using the safest tank cars possible," Wyden said.
The railroad association said only 700 of the least resilient model 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.
"Every tank car carrying crude or ethanol needs to be upgraded or replaced," said railroad association spokesman Ed Greenberg.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160713/NEWS10/160719928/upgrades-to-unsafe-tank-cars-could-take-15-years
-
Obama Administration To Propose Stronger Emergency Response Rules For Oil Trains
Jul 13, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
The Obama administration later today plans to propose stronger spill-response planning rules for oil trains, according to a copy of the plan obtained by POLITICO.
The new proposed regulations from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would require railroads that carry oil in 20 or more continuous cars, or in 35 cars on a larger train, to write comprehensive response plans for use in case of a spill. The proposal also requires railroads to share information with state emergency responders, making official a provision included in the transportation reauthorization bill that President Barack Obama signed in December.
"The substantial surge in our country’s production of crude oil is creating a serious need for improved response and communication between railroads and the communities through which they travel,” PHMSA chief Marie Therese Dominguez said in a statement on the proposal. “This rule would help to ensure that railroads provide vital information to first responders to help them prepare for and respond to a derailment involving crude.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Facing Legal Threat, OMB Weighs EPA Plan To Tighten HFC Handling Rules
Jul 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan & Stuart Parker
The White House has begun an inter-agency review of a draft final EPA regulation that would extend existing refrigerant management and handling guidelines for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to alternative chemicals, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which act as potent greenhouse gases.
While environmentalists and many industry groups support the change, at least one industry group -- the National Climate Coalition (NCC) -- is arguing that EPA lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to broaden existing ODS management requirements to HFCs.
The coalition's charge, issued in comments on the proposed version of EPA's rule, echoes claims brought by some chemical firms that EPA lacks the power to phase out uses of certain chemicals due to their global warming potential (GWP).
The rule, being developed under section 608 of the Clean Air Act, was received by the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) on July 8, according to OMB's website. OMB reviews typically last 90 days, but can be shorter or much longer, depending on the issue. EPA plans to issue the final rule in September.
While grocery stores and many other firms are required to curb equipment leaks to control ODS under air act section 608, current EPA rules do not apply to substitute chemicals such as HFCs.
The draft rule would extend such coverage, while also requiring quarterly leak inspections, compared with current requirements for annual checks.
The rule is part of a broader effort by EPA under section 612 of the air act to phase out the use of HFCs -- high-GWP chemicals -- under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, with the agency issuing several rules to both remove certain HFCs from a list of approved alternatives to ODS and add new, climate-friendly alternative chemicals.
ODS chemicals, including hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), are being phased out under the international Montreal Protocol, and the Obama administration is now also pushing to phase out HFCs as well under an amendment to the protocol that is being negotiated.
Even before the HFC management rule is final, EPA could begin implementing some of its proposed provisions in aproposed first-of-its-kind court settlement with grocery chain Trader Joe's to cut HFCs as part of a bolstered management plan to reduce refrigerant leaks.
The Trader Joe's consent decree, which is open for public comment until July 28, is “the first EPA settlement with requirements to repair leaks of HFCs in order to further reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions,” the Department of Justice said in a statement.
Under the decree, Trader Joe's commits to achieve an annual corporate-wide average refrigerant leak rate of 12.1 percent through 2019, “well below the grocery store sector average of 25 percent,” according to the DOJ statement.
The company has also agreed to quarterly leak inspections, following the proposed rule's requirements.
One expert in short-lived climate pollutants predicts the agreement will not be the last such deal. “The Obama Administration including the DOJ is making an all out effort to eliminate the warming caused by HFCs. We can expect many more actions in the coming months,” the source says.
Public Comments
Environmentalists, the state of California and some industry groups support EPA efforts to strengthen management requirements for HFCs by extending section 608 coverage to ODS substitutes such as HFCs.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development argue in joint Jan. 25 comments on the proposed version of the rule that EPA is “within its authority” to include HFCs in its refrigerant management rules, noting that the air law says such rules “may include requirements to use alternative substances” and that they may “promote the use of safe alternatives” pursuant to the SNAP program.
The California Air Resources Board adds in Jan. 25 comments that the proposed change “reflects both the fact that whether a refrigerant is an ODS or substitute does not matter in its function in a refrigeration or air conditioning system and that the ODS refrigerants are being phased out of use, and being continuously replaced with HFCs.”
Further, the Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute notes it has long been a “strong proponent” of extending section 608 requirements to HFCs, while urging EPA to refine the new definition of covered chemicals in the rule to include “any substance . . . that functions as a refrigerant” and is not the original ODS chemicals targeted for phase out.
However, NCC argues in Jan. 25 comments that section 608 “does not authorize EPA to regulate alternatives to [ODS] in an equivalent or otherwise extensive manner even if those substitutes might include GHGs.”
The coalition -- which includes several power sector firms, Boeing and product manufacturer 3M -- argues that section 608 is limited only to “class I and II” ODS, with the statute requiring the agency to reduce such substances to the “lowest achievable level” and maximize the recapture of such substances.
The section includes only one reference to alternatives, NCC says, in which it says EPA “may” include “requirements to use alternative substances” besides class I and II ODS.
“In other words, neither Section 608(a) nor 608(b) authorize EPA to engage in rulemaking that would restrict the use of alternatives to class I or II substances; to the contrary, these provisions are clear and unambiguous in authorizing EPA only to require the use of alternatives and promote the use of 'safe alternatives' identified under” the SNAP program, the coalition says.
EPA in its proposed rule says the statute is “ambiguous” because some parts of section 608 are silent with respect to regulating substitute chemicals but another part covers such substitutes.
“This creates a tension or ambiguity because the regulated community is subject to an explicit and self-effectuating prohibition on venting or releasing non-exempt substitute refrigerants while servicing or disposing of equipment but at the same time is not explicitly required by section 608(a) to recover and recycle substitute refrigerant prior to servicing or disposing of equipment,” EPA says in the proposed rule.
In addition to extending rules to cover HFCs, the rule also proposed to bolster leak inspection requirements, prohibit knowingly venting ODS or substitutes, and also exempt “small cans” of auto refrigerant from regulation if such cans have self-sealing valves.
The argument over EPA's authority under section 608 echoes arguments over EPA's authority under section 612 to phase out authorized uses for HFCs. In litigation over EPA's recent phase out rule, several chemical companies argued that EPA lacks authority under section 612 to limit uses of HFCs based on their GWP and that even if it did, EPA violated its own policies in a way that was “arbitrary and capricious” by failing to consider factors other than GWP.
But EPA and its supporters are pushing back against the claims, arguing that statutory language and legislative history of section 612, as well as EPA's own policies, give the agency clear and broad authority to limit uses of HFCs.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-legal-threat-omb-weighs-epa-plan-tighten-hfc-handling-rules
-
EPA Sends Final CSAPR Update Rule For OMB Review
Jul 13, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent its final rule updating it Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for pre-publication rule, aiming for a September release of the regulation that will revise CSAPR's nitrogen oxides (NOx) caps to help states meet EPA's ozone limit.
CSAPR, finalized in 2011, is a cap-and-trade program covering 28 states in the eastern part of the country to meet the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) expressed as 84 parts per billion (ppb) by reducing ozone-forming NOx. It is also designed to help states attain the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) annually and 35 ug/m3 over 24 hours, by reducing power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide that lead to PM2.5.
The CSAPR update rule will modify only the rule's NOx caps, or “budgets,” to help further drive down the pollutant and assist states in their efforts to meet EPA's stricter 2008 ozone limit of 75 ppb. The agency subsequently tightened its ozone limit to 70 ppb in October, but has not proposed a CSAPR update for that rule.
Compared to the original CSAPR, the update rule -- which EPA sent for OMB review July 12 and plans to publish in September -- only applies to 23 states, again in the eastern part of the country.
In comments on the Dec. 3 proposed version of the rule, power companies doubted the need for it and feared a possible expansion to other sectors, while advocates claimed the rule will fail to adequately protect public health by not guaranteeing sufficient reductions in NOx emissions.
Also, the rule will respond to a remand of state emissions budgets by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Although the rule has survived scrutiny by the Supreme Court largely unscathed, the high court left open the possibility that EPA could break the law by “overcontrol” of upwind states in narrow circumstances. The D.C. Circuit then found that EPA had, indeed, overcontrolled several states.
EPA in late June issued a memo for four states in the South to partly address the remand saying the budgets were too strict, with EPA saying the states can either voluntarily adopt the budgets or resolve the issue on a case-specific basis.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-sends-final-csapr-update-rule-omb-review
-
Health Risks of Multiple Air Pollutants Examined by EPA
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing an approach to understand the health risks posed by mixtures of different air pollutants.
Barbara Buckley, a toxicologist working in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, described during a July 12 webinar a conceptual approach the agency is developing to assess mixtures of air pollutants.
Buckley said the Adverse Outcome Pathway approach the EPA is exploring is at the research stage; information would be used to identify additional studies that could address critical data gaps. The approach, however, marks an important shift in the agency from a single-pollutant at a time approach to assessing multiple pollutants in the air people breathe, she said.
The EPA sets national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, lead, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide.
The agency's integrated science assessments of these pollutants, which synthesize the most policy-relevant health studies, provide essential information for those regulatory standards, Buckley said. She spoke during a one of a series of webinars on Alternative Approaches for Acute Inhalation Toxicity” co-hosted by the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. and the National Toxicology Program's Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods.
Can Adverse Outcome Pathways Address Mixtures?
The problem the EPA is addressing is that its standards focus on one criteria air pollutant at a time, even though people breathe air that contains a mixture of pollutants, Buckley said.
The EPA is exploring whether an Adverse Outcome Pathway approach could help, she said.
Such pathways describe a chain of biological changes that must occur to trigger a specific health problem. Analysts can then examine whether a chemical, a group of chemicals, or in this case a combination of air pollutants, would cause the critical biological changes. The EPA, European Joint Research Center, Army Corps of Engineers and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development are among the institutions developing Adverse Outcome Pathway approaches to assess the health and ecological effects of chemicals, according to an EPA backgrounder.
The EPA tested the pathway approach using two case studies, Buckley said.
The first case study, Buckley said, examined airway hyper-responsiveness, an excessive response to irritants illustrated by asthma.
Scientific studies have found that people exposed to ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide for short periods of time may need to use asthma inhalers, have to go to the emergency room and experience other respiratory problems, she said. Long-term exposure is associated with asthma, bronchitis and other more chronic problems, she added.
EPA's analysis showed that all three pollutants cause specific biological changes that could lead to subsequent airway inflammation and asthma.
The second pathway the agency examined focused on lung injuries, oxidative stress and other critical biological changes that cause increased blood pressure, plaque build up in the circulatory system, heart attacks and other health problems.
Particulate matter, in particular, but also ozone can cause the biological changes that can lead to these subsequent problems, Buckley said.
Buckley is the principal author of a paper published July 18, 2015, in the journal Toxicology that described both case studies and limitations of the Adverse Outcome Pathway approach.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887503&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887503&jd=93887503
-
California Proposes 258.6 Million Ton Emissions Cap for 2030
Jul 14, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California would cap statewide greenhouse gas emissions at 258.6 million metric tons in 2030, under a draft regulatory proposal headed to the state's Office of Administrative Law for review.
California's existing statewide emissions cap for 2020 is 431 million metric tons, a limit designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by that date.
Released by the California Air Resources Board July 12, the proposal aims to update rules governing the state's cap-and-trade program to extend the program beyond 2020, provide a path to linkage with Ontario, Canada's, trading system in 2018 and use the state's program to comply with the federal Clean Power Plan.
The proposal comes as the future of California's cap-and-trade program is being questioned. A legislative proposal to establish emissions goals that are lower than stipulated in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 stalled last year. Another proposal is pending, but the likelihood of its passage is unknown. Pending litigation alleging the cap-and-trade auction is an illegal tax also adds to the uncertainty.
CARB's draft rules would administratively establish new emissions caps, allow future auction and allocation of allowances and continue all other elements of the economywide cap-and-trade program.
Cap-and-Trade Allowance Caps
The draft rules would require entities regulated under the trading program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions about 13.3 million metric tons per year beginning in 2021 through 2030. Total emissions allowances in 2030 would be capped at 200.5 million metric tons, compared to the existing 2020 cap of 334.2 million metric tons.
Emissions caps under the existing rules decline at about 3 percent a year until 2020. Under the proposal, caps would drop about 3.5 percent a year through 2030.
CARB's proposal also would require annual reductions of about 6.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from 2031 to 2050.
Other Proposed Changes
The proposal also includes changes to cap-and-trade rules designed to prevent emissions leakage, clarify compliance obligations for certain sectors and simplify participation in the trading program by streamlining registration, information management processes and issuance of offset credits.
CARB plans on submitting the draft rules to the Office of Administrative Law July 19. Based on OAL's review, the proposal could be updated, and the formal comment period is launched Aug. 5.
The agency's governing board is scheduled to consider the proposed amendments Sept. 22-23 in Sacramento, but a vote on the proposal isn't expected until March 2017.
Given the uncertainties of the pending litigation and legislation to extend the trading program past 2020, CARB's proposal, if it becomes final, would likely draw legal challenges questioning its authority to administratively establish new emissions caps, several attorneys have told Bloomberg BNA.
Super Majority Needed for Amendment
To avoid litigation, a super majority vote of the Legislature would be needed to amend the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or A.B. 32, to extend the state's climate policies beyond 2020 and set new emissions caps.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has been meeting with representatives of the oil industry, who have resisted extending the program legislatively. So far, no agreement is in sight.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=93887512&vname=dennotallissues&fn=93887512&jd=93887512
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested