Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/5/16
-
Attorneys Say EPA SNUR Aligning Protection With OSHA May Exceed TSCA
Aug 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A law firm that frequently represents industry clients is warning that a recently proposed rule that seeks to align EPA requirements for new uses of industrial chemicals with strict Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) measures may be at odds with the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
FDA to Finalize Decades-Old Food Additive Proposal
Aug 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Food and Drug Administration is set to finalize in the coming weeks potentially significant reforms to the way it regulates food additives, almost two decades after these reforms were first proposed. -
PCBs In Colorado Public Schools
Aug 4, 2016 | Boulder Weekly
By Claire Woodcock
At least one-third of Colorado public schools may contain harmful polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. -
California Leads The Way In Compliance
Aug 4, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Catherine Traywick & Mark Drajem
Call it an overachiever, but California is now the first state in the country to come out with strategy for complying with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. -
Next Admin Has 'Enormous' Potential To Boost Savings — Report
Aug 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
The next administration could bring massive energy savings for consumers if it continues President Obama's crusade to update energy efficiency standards, according to a new report. -
Better Efficiency Standards Could Net $65B in Energy Savings: Group
Aug 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
There are “enormous” potential energy savings from updating Energy Department appliance efficiency standards under the next administration, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said in an Aug. 4 report. -
America’s Fracking King on Environmentalists and Donald Trump’s Appeal
Aug 5, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Matthew Philips
It’s hard to miss the benefits of what’s happened as a result of the oil and gas renaissance. A lot of people didn’t expect it—particularly those environmentalists that would stop all fossil fuel production. -
California Cap And Trade Could Go To Ballot
Aug 4, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Jeremy B. White
The fight to extend California’s climate change program could mean putting the issue before voters, a top aide to Gov. Jerry Brown said on Thursday as the governor launched a new ballot measure committee. -
Texas Official: EPA Malfunction Emission Decision Impractical
Aug 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to require states to alter their pollution plans concerning excess air emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction at industrial facilities shows a lack of understanding of how the world operates, according to a top Texas environmental official.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Attorneys Say EPA SNUR Aligning Protection With OSHA May Exceed TSCA
Aug 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A law firm that frequently represents industry clients is warning that a recently proposed rule that seeks to align EPA requirements for new uses of industrial chemicals with strict Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) measures may be at odds with the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Bergeson & Campbell, in a July 29 memo to clients, identifies "several issues" with EPA's July 28 proposed package of significant new use rules (SNURs), including that Congress did not address the "hierarchy of controls" (HOC) approach to engineered and other protections for workers that the agency is proposing to adopt.
"Congress decided in its wisdom not to include the concept of HOC in TSCA as amended," the firm's memo says. "The re-emergence of HOC embedded in a proposed rule issued with no fanfare, and which studiously avoids reference to any of these important implications, raises many questions, not the least of which is if Congress declined to pursue this approach in amending TSCA, is it at least worth discussing the wisdom of its inclusion in this proposed rule?"
EPA's proposed rule generally requires the use of internationally-harmonized chemical labels, the use of protective measures for workers and specific respiratory protections -- all standards that OSHA has also adopted -- when developing SNURs.
The worker protection provisions would require that all facilities use a philosophy of worker protection called HOC, which prioritizes the use of engineering and administrative controls in facilities to protect workers from harmful exposures, only using personal protective equipment (PPE) as a last resort.
EPA explains in its notice that it is proposing the change in response to comments that the agency received from labor, public health and environmental groups on SNURs that it proposed in 2011 for several carbon nanotubes and other substances.
For example, the AFL-CIO told EPA in January 2012 comments on the earlier proposed rule that it was "deeply concerned" that EPA selected PPE as "the first and only means of protecting workers against exposure to carbon nanotubes.
"PPE is the least effective approach for controlling worker exposure," the labor federation says. "Not only is PPE the least effective method to protect workers, it should be the last approach that is used -- and only in circumstances where other more effective exposure control methods are being utilized but have not reduced exposures sufficiently."
'Core Approach'
Instead, the group recommended the HOC approach, which it called "the fundamental core approach used in industrial hygiene." And it identified several OSHA rules, including its respiratory protection standard and its standard for air contaminants, as well as guidance issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) for protecting workers from carbon nanotubes, as examples of the approach.
EPA appears to have followed the groups' requests. "Each of these comments generally stated that EPA's approach of exclusively identifying the absence of adequate personal protective equipment as a significant new use instead of engineering and administrative controls is not following the best occupational health and safety practices," the notice explains, adding that comments suggested that EPA consider the HOC approach and adopt OSHA requirements that personal protective equipment be a last resort, which the agency is now proposing.
The agency says in its July 28 Federal Register notice that it is "proposing changes to general requirements for SNURs," as well as some of the definitions, in order to better align future and many existing SNURs with standards set by OSHA and NIOSH, as well as the international chemical labeling system known as the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
The first of the three-part proposal would revise 40 CFR 721.63, making it a significant new use -- and thus requiring manufacturers or importers to notify EPA before activity can commence -- if a HOC to protect workers is not implemented.
"This revision would require persons subject to applicable SNURs to determine and use appropriate engineering and administrative controls before using personal protective equipment (PPE) for worker protection, similar to the requirements in OSHA standards at 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1) and guidance in Appendix B to subpart I of 29 CFR 1910," the notice adds.
A second component of the new proposal focuses on respiratory protection described in past and future SNURs, with EPA trying to update the language to be consistent with OSHA and NIOSH's most recent respiratory protection standards.
The third component addresses the international labeling standard for chemicals, known as GHS, which OSHA has already adopted. EPA is striving to make its labeling consistent with GHS, which OSHA adopted in 2012. EPA explains it is proposing new provisions to 40 CFR 721.72 requiring that a "written hazard communication program be developed and implemented for the substance in each workplace in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200, the OSHA HCS," containing specific warnings and statements described in the rule.
TSCA Reform
But the law firm's memo questions why Congress did not authorize the HOC approach when it revised TSCA earlier this year. While the firm recognizes "the importance" of the HOC approach, it notes that lawmakers had considered backing the approach in some early legislative proposals but the language did not make it into the final legislation. "We . . . question why, after an extensive legislative debate that produced an amended TSCA, EPA would propose to include the [HOC] approach in its significant new use provisions," the memo says.
Bergeson & Campbell in its memo also questions whether EPA's rule writers "considered the impact of amended TSCA on the proposal. Based on a quick read, we note the citations to TSCA appear to be to old TSCA. Apart from correcting the citations, however, new TSCA may materially impact the content of the proposal and it is unclear if EPA's review considered this possibility."
The memo also points to the experiences of EPA's pesticides office and pesticide industry stakeholders trying to adopt GHS. EPA has moved more quickly to adopt these new standards with regard to pesticides than industrial chemicals controlled by TSCA. The firm's memo notes that "stakeholders in the pesticide area know well the challenges and legal and regulatory ambiguities that have arisen regarding EPA's efforts to align pesticide labeling under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) with GHS requirements. EPA has devoted considerable effort to clarifying the application of HCS/GHS requirements to FIFRA labeling, and unresolved issues still remain."
In a separate July 29 article in the National Law Review, Lynn Bergeson, managing partner with the firm, and colleague Carla Hutton say, "manufacturers of new nanomaterials should implement a hierarchy of controls whenever possible," given EPA's new rule proposal.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/attorneys-say-epa-snur-aligning-protection-osha-may-exceed-tsca
-
FDA to Finalize Decades-Old Food Additive Proposal
Aug 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Food and Drug Administration is set to finalize in the coming weeks potentially significant reforms to the way it regulates food additives, almost two decades after these reforms were first proposed.
The measure could change the way the FDA grants certain substances exemptions from its standard pre-market food safety reviews through its Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, process.
In response to a lawsuit from an advocacy group, the FDA agreed in 2014 to finalize by the end of this month a set of reforms to the GRAS process that the agency had first proposed in 1997 (Ctr. for Food Safety v. Burwell, D.D.C., No. 1:14-cv-00267, consent decree, 2/20/14).
But how much these final reforms will differ from what was proposed almost 20 years ago, or from the FDA's current regulatory status quo, is anyone's guess, according to both the food industry and food advocacy groups.
“No one is privy to what its contents are,” Leon Bruner, chief science officer for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, told Bloomberg BNA. “I honestly don't know what's going to happen in this situation.”
Recognized as Safe?
The FDA's GRAS system was set up to make it easier for the agency to comply with federal statutes that require it to conduct safety reviews on all ingredients added to food.
The FDA can assign a GRAS designation to a food ingredient, and avoid conducting a full review, if that substance has a long history of use in food or if scientific experts generally regard it as safe. The hundreds of substances that have been designated as GRAS over the years range from complex chemical agents to everyday ingredients like cornstarch and gelatin.
Initially, a food company looking to market a new ingredient had to request a GRAS designation from the FDA. But by the mid-1990s, the agency had become inundated with GRAS requests, spurring it to introduce the proposed reforms.
Under this proposal, a company would notify the FDA that it was introducing a new ingredient that the company believed qualified for GRAS status. The FDA would then conduct a review for that substance only if there were data suggesting it might not be safe.
Status Quo Unlikely to Spur Change
If the final version of the reforms is similar to the proposed version from 1997, not much will change for the makers of food additives.
That's because after the 1997 proposal was introduced, both the FDA and the food industry voluntarily agreed to move forward as though the proposed reforms were in effect. This means that the food industry has been operating under the new GRAS system since 1997, even though this regulatory structure isn't legally enforceable.
The lawsuit from the group Center for Food Safety sought to force the FDA to either formalize this new GRAS system or to enact a new system.
‘Not the Right Way.'
Advocacy groups like CFS criticize this new regulatory regime as essentially allowing industry to oversee itself.
Jaydee Hanson, a senior policy analyst at CFS, said the GRAS process was originally intended to be used for commonplace ingredients like sugar and salt. Now, he said, companies are attaching GRAS designations to new ingredients that were developed through genetic engineering and nanotechnology.
“It's not the right way,” Hanson told Bloomberg BNA.
Bruner disagreed, saying that the FDA's old regulatory system of reviewing every food ingredient was unsustainable.
“In many cases, it was ingredients where use changes were trivial and didn't merit the time of the FDA,” he said. “Under the new system, if the FDA has questions … it puts the brakes on things.”
Bruner added that introducing unsafe ingredients into food products goes against the fundamental economic interests of the food industry.
No Extension?
Hanson said he has received no indication that the FDA will ask the court for an extension on the Aug. 31 deadline it agreed to in a 2014 consent decree reached between CFS and the agency.
FDA spokeswoman Lauren Sucher told Bloomberg BNA that the agency isn't at liberty to comment on the legal deadline or on the rule itself until after the rule is formally issued.
Whether the FDA's final rule is identical to the proposed version or is significantly different, it will likely trigger a flurry of legal action, according to Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
He told Bloomberg BNA that he will be looking to see whether the upcoming final rule complies with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's mandates that require FDA to oversee the safety of the country's food supply.
“Everyone presumes [the final rule is] not going to be the final word on GRAS,” Jacobson said. “There probably will be lawsuits, I don't know from how many different directions.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95138077&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95138077&jd=95138077
-
PCBs In Colorado Public Schools
Aug 4, 2016 | Boulder Weekly
By Claire Woodcock
Research estimates as many as 300 buildings are at risk of exposing students.
At least one-third of Colorado public schools may contain harmful polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. Experts familiar with the issue, including researchers at Harvard who have published two studies including one in 2016 titled “Review of PCBs in U.S. Schools: a brief history, an estimate of the number of impacted schools, and an approach for evaluating indoor air samples” and a SUNY Albany professor who focuses on the health impacts of long term PCB exposure, believe that the probability that hundreds of schools in Colorado are currently contaminated with PCBs is absolute.
“The chances that some Colorado schools have PCBs is 100 percent,” says Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at SUNY Albany.
Carpenter has led several studies that focus on populations exposed to PCBs. His research has found that rural and inner city school districts are more likely to have higher concentrations of leftover PCBs in the caulking and masonry, and that, like lead or asbestos, PCBs are carcinogenic and hazardous if inhaled.
“Of course some have been remediated and upgraded such that concentrations may be low now, but I’m sure that is not the case for all of them,” Carpenter says.
He’s also testifying pro-bono on behalf of parents and teachers in a high-profile citizen’s court case against Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) in California. In the fall of 2013, three teachers developed thyroid cancer within months of one another all while working in classrooms with unsafe levels of toxic PCBs in the window caulking.
Soon after the teachers were found to have cancer, it was learned that the school district had known that its buildings and soil contained an “unacceptable risk.” Then, when the school tested the window caulkings, it found as much as 11,000 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) legal limit of PCBs. Critics of SMMUSD’s handling of the matter are now accusing it of attempting to bury the evidence.
In May 2016, nearly 6 years after Malibu first learned it had a contamination problem, a federal judge took up the citizen’s lawsuit against the School District.
What occurred in the Malibu school district demonstrates that no school system, regardless of its affluence or funding, is above the potential for PCB exposure. It also speaks to the crippling cost of remediation that a wealthy system such as SMMUSD would be willing to go to such lengths and expense just to avoid cleanup.
“In many cases the PCBs migrated from the caulk into the adjacent masonry, making remediation even more expensive,” Carpenter says. “So it isn’t just a matter of removing and replacing windows and caulk.”
The total cost of remediation and legal fees in the Malibu case could top $9.5 million and that does not include any potential settlements of lawsuits pertaining to illness among students and teachers. Carpenter says that the high cost of remediation is the reason most districts avoid testing school buildings for PCBs altogether.
While the testing is relatively inexpensive — usually between $50 and $300 according to Carpenter — remediation is not. Carpenter says it’s difficult to guess how much remediation is likely to cost until a thorough examination of a school in question has been conducted.
He also points out that the current regulations do not require any action even if you think PCBs are present in a school but don’t test for them. For that reason he says many schools and even states don’t test simply because they don’t want to deal with the expense of fixing the problem should PCBs be found.
Even when testing occurs, the legal requirements can make for less than thorough results. The EPA is only legally required to test one room suspected of containing PCBs. If PCBs above the allowable limits are found in one room, the EPA is required to remove the contamination from that room only. The agency then has no further obligation to even test the remaining rooms in the building, let alone the other school buildings within the district. Critic’s argue this selective test and cleanup procedure is a glaring loophole in the system designed to save money, not necessarily protect children and teachers.
Since “administrators and facility managers are [the ones] most familiar with the materials and equipment used in their buildings, the EPA relies on schools to evaluate and determine potential risks,” says Richard Mylott, a spokesperson with the EPA.
Until 1979, PCBs were legal to use as sealants for window caulking and ballasts in fluorescent lights. Then Congress banned the manufacturing and use of PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). By that point, PCBs were slowly being phased out. The TSCA contains the laws governing the legal limits of PCBs allowed in public buildings. Responsibility for enforcing the TSCA falls to the EPA in theory, but as with many environmental regulations, it’s not that simple.
But no matter the arguments over who is in charge of regulating PCBs, it is imperative that the squabbling is settled quickly because as the recent Harvard study mentioned above asserts, up to one-third of the nation’s schools, constructed between 1950 and 1980, may contain PCBs. That’s between 12,960 to 25,920 schools nationally.
That’s why PCB exposure poses such a threat to Colorado public schools. More than 900 public schools in the state were built before the EPA determined these toxic chemicals to be human carcinogens. Many of these buildings are still in use today, which means, based on Carpenter’s and the Harvard researcher’s estimates, some 300 Colorado schools are likely to be currently exposing their occupants to PCBs at some level.
So what has the EPA found in Colorado schools so far? The answer is nothing, but that’s because the EPA says it isn’t required to test for PCBs until it’s asked to do so and no one has requested a test. The agency did confirm that the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) is the only school that has been proactive on the PCB front by requesting the EPA’s assistance. But that assistance was only a request for updated regulatory information so the district could conduct its own PCB audit via an outside consultant.
While the BVSD did find PCBs in some buildings, Briggs Gamblin, director of communication and legislative policy for BVSD, says the district believes the PCBs are now “contained.” Boulder Weeklywill be following up on exactly what was found and what steps to remediate the problem were taken in BVSD. But more importantly, BVSD’s experience only confirms that Colorado has a statewide issue in its public schools.
“Any exposure is going to increase risk of disease, and the greater the exposure the greater the risk,” Carpenter says. “This is especially important for children in schools, where they should not be exposed to a substance, that like lead, reduces learning ability.”
Long-term exposure to PCBs has been linked to cancer, endocrine disorders and reproductive troubles. Carpenter says the compounds have also been linked to cognitive and behavioral problems in children including impaired reflexes, lower IQs and higher rates of ADHD.
The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) has not researched PCBs in public schools across the state over which it has jurisdiction. It claims that its failure to do so is based on the fact that it has not received any legislative directive to investigate PCB exposure to its students. The CDE also says they are not responsible for conducting a PCB investigation and have no intention of doing so.
“Yes, of course CDE is concerned about the health and safety of students in public schools in Colorado,” Jeremy Meyer, CDE assistant director of communications, says. But he then notes that the CDE depends on the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to conduct such tests at public school facilities. If that’s true, it’s news to the CDPHE.
“The state of Colorado is not authorized to implement the regulations pertaining to the management and disposal of materials containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),” says Freddy Arck, public information specialist with the CDPHE. He says it’s instead the EPA Region 8 that oversees PCB regulations in Colorado.
But the EPA maintains it is not required to test Colorado schools for PCBs because no one has asked them to do so. A seemingly large loophole in the system, given that TSCA regulations do not specifically require PCB testing for public buildings.
Rather, they wait for school districts to contact them with concerns about PCB exposure and then, as mentioned before, test one room. Mylott says the EPA recommends schools take action to reduce potential exposures with the role of the EPA being to provide technical assistance if requested.
It is not a recommendation that the CDE seems interested in hearing. Meyer says the CDE has no intention of researching PCB threats to reduce potential exposure because it has not received any complaints, questions or concerns regarding PCBs. Like many other school districts across the country, Colorado districts are already facing budget cuts. So, according to Carpenter, they know that looking for harmful PCBs will only exacerbate their budget problems.
As for the CDE’s decision to wait for complaints before testing, it could be years, even decades, after exposure before cancer symptoms or other problems surface and are diagnosed. And often by that time, it is impossible for the medical community to trace the exact cause of the illness, particularly if there is no record of PCB exposure because no one ever bothered to test for the carcinogens and report their presence in schools.
“Colorado is a local control state, and we cannot mandate them to fix an item like this,” Kevin Huber, a regional program manager for CDE, says. “This would have to be resolved at the district level.”
And the blame shifting goes on and on.
The EPA says it is up to the individual schools to test for PCBs. The schools say it is up to the district. The districts say it is the CDE that has to tell them to test. But the CDE says that they won’t test because that job falls to the CDPHE. And the CDPHE won’t test because it claims that only the EPA is responsible for doing so.
It seems when it comes to PCBs and Colorado schools, it’s just one big circle of denied responsibility. And yet, all the while, if the Harvard study and the experts who have researched the issue more closely are correct, Colorado children and teachers in as many as 300 of our schools are potentially being exposed to carcinogenic PCBs every day. And, every hour that the state and federal government delays its investigation, the price tag for cleanup only goes up, not to mention the potential health impacts.
Carpenter points out that all of this lack of taking responsibility on the part of bureaucracies that are supposedly in place to keep our children safe creates a Catch 22. “[Legally] if you don’t know they’re [PCBs] there, you don’t have to do anything about it,” he says. “But to have it be a dangerous place and have no one know is unethical.”
At this point, it has become clear that those in charge of keeping our children safe from PCB exposure in Colorado have been made aware that it is an issue, or at least the experts and the researchers at Harvard say it’s an issue.
The only question now is who will take responsibility for enforcing our environmental laws and get started with the necessary testing. If Malibu and the other districts are any example, it will likely take parents getting involved to spark the needed actions.
http://www.boulderweekly.com/news/pcbs-in-colorado-public-schools/
-
California Leads The Way In Compliance
Aug 4, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Catherine Traywick & Mark Drajem
Call it an overachiever, but California is now the first state in the country to come out with strategy for complying with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. The California Air Resources Board published its blueprint a full six weeks ahead of the original Sept. 6 deadline. (To be fair, California’s 2012 cap-and-trade program gave it a pretty substantial head start on other states.)
The timing is more political than incidental. The state air agency released the draft plan on the one year anniversary of the Clean Power Plan’s release. Chairman Mary D. Nicholstells Bloomberg BNA that it’s “intended to signal our belief that the Obama rule will ultimately be upheld… and to encourage other states to move forward with their own plans, either using ours as a guide or doing their own thing.”
While 27 states challenge the rule in federal court, California is one of 19 that’s backing the EPA.
The compliance plan builds upon the cap-and-trade program, as well as the state’s greenhouse gas reporting rule and renewable portfolio standard. The standards it’s proposing would affect 246 electric generating units at 93 facilities owned by 67 different companies.
http://about.bgov.com/blog/california-leads-way-compliance/
-
Next Admin Has 'Enormous' Potential To Boost Savings — Report
Aug 4, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
The next administration could bring massive energy savings for consumers if it continues President Obama's crusade to update energy efficiency standards, according to a new report.
The report, released today by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), found that updating older standards when the next president takes office in 2017 could produce 215 billion kilowatt-hours in energy savings annually by 2035.
By 2050, that number could grow to 335 billion kWh, which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an amount equal to the emissions of 60 coal-fired power plants.
The Department of Energy is required by law to review each of its energy efficiency rules at least once every six years, and the analysis makes estimates based on existing technology and rulemaking deadlines.
"Some have been saying that we've run this race about as far as we can go, that there are no more savings to be had," said Lowell Ungar, a senior policy adviser at ACEEE. "This report shows the contrary."
The biggest savings would come from large appliances, the report says. Updated standards for water heaters and central air conditioners, which the report lists as two of the biggest potential savers, could save consumers a combined $328 billion in energy costs over the next 35 years.
The report also found that updated standards for products like shower heads and faucets could save nearly 800 billion gallons of water by 2035, a potentially important step for Western states gripped by drought.
National shower head standards haven't been updated since 1992, but California recently introduced a water-saving measure that requires shower heads to use no more than 1.8 gallons per minute, nearly a gallon per minute lower than the current national standard.
The report includes several recommendations to improve the DOE energy standard rulemaking process in the next administration, including improvements to data analysis and test methods and an expansion to the scope of appliances subject to energy efficiency rules.
Energy use has risen in recent years in products not previously considered under national appliance standards, such as computers and other electronics, noted ASAP Executive Director Andrew deLaski.
Energy efficiency standard laws have been on the books for nearly 30 years, and DOE has been granted rulemaking power by a series of bipartisan laws enacted under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
But by 2006, DOE had missed 22 mandatory deadlines for reviewing standards, some by more than a decade.
In February 2009, just days after taking office, Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing DOE to meet all deadlines for new standards. Obama has since made energy efficiency for appliances and lighting a major part of his administration's strategy to combat climate change. The administration has adopted more than 40 new standards, and DOE estimates they will save consumers more than $500 billion on utility bills through 2030.
"The next occupant of the White House has a pretty high bar to meet," deLaski said. "Taking into account standards enacted by law and those set by DOE, the Obama administration has completed 18 more standards than any previous administration."
But with improved testing and rulemaking processes, deLaski says, the next administration has the chance to advance the program even further.
"The potential is enormous regardless of whom the administration is," he said. "And we would hope that any incoming administration would recognize that one of the key strategies for addressing America's energy needs is to keep advancing energy efficiency."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/08/04/stories/1060041227
-
Better Efficiency Standards Could Net $65B in Energy Savings: Group
Aug 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
There are “enormous” potential energy savings from updating Energy Department appliance efficiency standards under the next administration, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said in an Aug. 4 report.
The report found that regularly updating appliance efficiency standards for 45 of the 55 products regulated under the DOE standards program starting in January 2017 could cumulatively lead to saving 70 quads of energy by 2050. As a comparison, the U.S. uses 100 quads of energy per year. Also by 2050, the standards updates could lead to $1.1 trillion in cumulative energy savings for consumer and businesses and could lower carbon emissions by 3.5 billion metric tons.
“The thing that we found most surprising as we completed this research over the past two-plus years is that the future potential is almost as large as what's been accomplished to date,” Andrew deLaski, the executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said in an Aug. 4 media call. “So the well of energy efficiency opportunity has proven to be one that keeps yielding more results and more potential.”
On an annual basis, the updated standards could lead to $43 billion in energy savings by 2035 and $65 billion in annual energy savings by 2050. This would translate to $300 in annual energy savings per household by 2035 and $400 in annual energy savings per household by 2050, Mel Hall-Crawford, energy projects director at the Consumer Federal of America, said on the Aug. 4 media call.
The report noted that the DOE estimates that existing energy efficiency standards completed through February 2016 will lead to savings of 132 quads of energy, save consumers nearly $2 trillion on their electricity bills, and cut carbon emissions by 7 billion metric tons.
The report assumed that under the next administration, the 45 appliance products would follow the national appliance standards law, which requires the DOE to review each standard every six years to determine if an update is needed, and if it is, to complete the update within two years.
Large Annual Savings Starting in 2035
Additionally, the report found energy savings could grow at an annual rate of 2.6 quads of energy in 2035, which is equal to current annual household energy consumption in Texas and Ohio. The groups estimate these energy savings could increase to 4 quads per year in 2050, which is the equal annual household energy consumption in Texas, Ohio, New York and South Carolina combined.
Large water savings are likely, as several standards require updates to water-using products, such as showerheads and faucets, which could lead to potentially saving 770 billion gallons of water annually by 2035, increasing to 850 billion gallons of water saved annually by 2050.
The group also provided five recommendations on activities the Energy Department could take to further increase energy savings from its existing efficiency standards.
Recommended Activities
These recommendations included:
• investing in improved test methods,
• expanding the scope and conduct of rulemakings,
• improving analysis methods and data sources,
• considering how DOE test methods, ratings and standards can realize or facilitate systems savings, and
• develop a strategic approach to address connected products.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95138081&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95138081&jd=95138081
-
America’s Fracking King on Environmentalists and Donald Trump’s Appeal
Aug 5, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Matthew Philips
The following is a condensed and edited interview with Harold Hamm, CEO, Continental Resources.
Domestic crude supplies have almost doubled. Do you feel Americans appreciate what your industry has done?
It’s hard to miss the benefits of what’s happened as a result of the oil and gas renaissance. A lot of people didn’t expect it—particularly those environmentalists that would stop all fossil fuel production.
The industry has been forced to reckon with efficiencies in the face of lower prices. How much more efficient are Continental and its competitors today?
When horizontal drilling began in the 1980s, one well would take the place of 18. So one surface location would take the place of 18 locations on the surface—a tremendously more efficient situation.
What has given us this energy renaissance in America is the horizontal drilling techniques that the small independent operators like my company developed.
Do you think that your industry is going to come out of this price cycle stronger in any way?
As far as processes, yes. As far as financial, no. I mean, it’s hurt our industry greatly. But … it made OPEC irrelevant. They’re no longer going to be able to control America and the consumer prices here. You know, that’s probably the biggest patriotic gain that we’ll ever see in our lifetime. For 50 years, they’ve controlled consumer prices at the pump in this country—50 years.
Dealing with a diminished OPEC, you think, is a good thing for the U.S.?
Absolutely. I mean, what are you paying for gasoline out there today? Two dollars?
I paid two bucks last week.
There you go, man. They had it at $4 or $5. So it’s a huge thing. We can’t even measure that. Has it helped our economy? Absolutely. You know, the last eight years were pretty miserable, but they would have been real bad without what we’ve done—without this energy renaissance. It’s been tremendous.As it relates to energy policy, what do you want to see from the next president?
Well, somebody’s going to have to change the rhetoric on the fossil fuel industry and not have a target on everybody’s back in this industry and trying to put us out of business.
Do you see Hillary Clinton as Obama 2.0? What does she mean for the oil and gas industry?
Well, just listen to what she said, that she’s going to stop pressure treatment of wells. That pretty much would put an end to everything [for shale development]. And for what? I mean, it’s been proven, you know, there hasn’t been any [environmental] damage from that.
For the Republican Party, what happened during the past four years that fed the rise of Mr. Trump?
It’s not just in the Republican Party; I think it’s basically across the country. Call it the Washington disconnect. While working there to lift the crude-oil export ban, I got a real feeling that there was a huge disconnect between the everyday American worker, the average American, and Washington. There wasn’t any attention being paid to it. And I think that’s played out with this entire process. The people that weren’t insiders necessarily have fared very well. And yes, Donald Trump is not a politician.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/america-s-fracking-king-on-environmentalists-and-donald-trump-s-appeal
-
California Cap And Trade Could Go To Ballot
Aug 4, 2016 | The Sacramento Bee
By Jeremy B. White
The fight to extend California’s climate change program could mean putting the issue before voters, a top aide to Gov. Jerry Brown said on Thursday as the governor launched a new ballot measure committee.
In publicly proclaiming the possibility of shifting from the Legislature to the ballot box, the Brown administration underscored its commitment to fortifying its climate change efforts, which the governor has placed at the center of his fourth and final term, despite resistance from some legislators.
As the legislative session accelerates into its final stretch, the fate of California’s cap-and-trade system has dominated talk at the Capitol. Established under the auspices of a 2006 bill, the system requires businesses to buy permits for the climate-altering emissions they put into the air.
But that authority could expire soon, since it is linked to a goal of reducing emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020. In a sign of uncertainty about the program’s future, the most recent auction generated far less revenue than projections, pulling in around $10 million where previous auctions had reaped hundreds of millions.
A bill before the Legislature would set a new 2030 target, shoring up cap and trade’s legal authority. But that legislation is in a tenuous position. It would need to clear the Assembly, where an earlier version of the bill died last year shortly after Republicans and moderate Democrats succeeded in diluting another Brown-championed climate bill.
Those obstacles aside, Brown aide Nancy McFadden said Thursday that the administration remains determined to bolster California’s climate programs. In a statement, McFadden rejected “the fallacy that a vote on any single measure in the next 27 days will make or break our climate agenda.”
“We are going to extend our climate goals and cap and trade one way or another,” McFadden said. “The governor will continue working with the Legislature to get this done this year, next year or on the ballot in 2018.”
McFadden’s statement accompanied the appearance of a new ballot measure committee affiliated with Brown: Californians for a Clean Environment.
Voters broadly support policies to curb the effects of climate change, a recent Public Policy Institute of California found. The poll found a majority of likely voters back further-reaching emissions targets and a plurality favors cap and trade. Most respondents said they would be willing to pay more for electricity and gas if it helps fight climate change.
Oil companies have fought efforts to broaden California’s climate programs, rallying centrist Democrats last year to help bury a mandate to halve the state’s petroleum use. The Brown administration has been negotiating this year with the industry representatives like the Western States Petroleum Association, which declined comment on Thursday.
Going through voters, rather than the Legislature, could dispel some of the legal fog encircling cap and trade. An ongoing challenge charges that the program should have been passed with a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority. Getting voter approval would remove the need to secure the program with a two-thirds vote, a high hurdle given the difficulty of putting together a simple majority.
Should the legislative effort resume next year, Democratic leadership could find themselves in a stronger position. In the Assembly, Democrats could expand their already-substantial margin by multiple seats.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, has projected little urgency about making a deal this year, sources say. On Thursday he released a statement saying “we are committed to extending California’s emission targets beyond 2020, and we will keep working on this until it’s right.”
Earlier this week Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, said he was “not going to negotiate a bad deal just to get it done.”
“One way or the other, we’re going to get it done,” he said.
With legislative prospects uncertain, the California Air Resources Board has also initiated an effort to establish new emissions goals. Shortly after McFadden’s statement, ARB Chair Mary Nichols posted a message to Twitter saying it was “certain” California’s climate efforts would continue through 2030.
“Low carbon fuels, (zero-emission vehicles), renewable electricity, cap and trade are all in CA’s future,” Nichols wrote.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article93820472.html#storylink=cpy -
Texas Official: EPA Malfunction Emission Decision Impractical
Aug 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to require states to alter their pollution plans concerning excess air emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction at industrial facilities shows a lack of understanding of how the world operates, according to a top Texas environmental official.
Texas is one of 36 states that are subject to a 2015 agency rule, known as a “SIP Call,” that requires the revision of state implementation plans to remove provisions that shielded power plants and other industrial facilities from being subject to civil penalties over malfunction-related emissions violations.
Steve Hagle, deputy director for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, criticized the EPA's decision to require the removal of those provisions, known as affirmative defenses, during Aug. 4 remarks at the 28th Texas Environmental Superconference.
“My comment on this whole thing is that it is just not practical to say that those emissions limitations apply at all times, including for malfunctions. It's just not practical,” Hagle said during a panel on air quality.
The SIP Call rule (RIN:2060:AR68) is being challenged in federal appeals court by a variety of industry associations and states, including Texas. The petitioners alleged the EPA lacked the authority to require the states to change previously approved pollution plans, while the agency argued that it rightfully disapproved of state plans that violate “bedrock principles of the Clean Air Act” (Walter Coke Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1166,brief filed 7/26/16).
Emissions Spike During Startup, Malfunction
At issue, the panel said, are any state plans containing affirmative defenses, which shield companies from civil penalties, and a variety of exemptions to the emissions standards, including for maintenance, load change, soot blowing or on-line operation changes.
The EPA originally approved the state plans containing those provisions but later changed its policy in response to a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that held the Clean Air Act didn't provide the agency with the authority to include an affirmative defense in national hazardous air pollution standards for cement kilns (NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 2014 BL 108218, 78 ERC 1369 (D.C. Cir. 2014)).
The EPA has since taken steps to remove affirmative defense language from other air toxics standards and state implementation plans in an effort to comply with the court's ruling that emissions limits must be continuously applicable.
Business Group Supports Hagle
Addressing the ongoing dispute over how to define what is permissible under an air quality permit as it relates to atypical emissions, a representative of the Texas Association of Business told Bloomberg BNA from the sidelines of the conference that he shared the Texas official's call for a recognition of how industrial facilities operate. The association is the state's largest business advocacy group.
“Just like your car is less efficient when you start it up the first time in the morning, power plants and other industrial facilities also take a time to get to a steady state so that they're emitting for 99.9 percent of the time they're operating, they're operating at a certain predictable appropriate level,” said Stephen Minick, the association's vice president of governmental affairs.
“Historically, we've allowed those companies some discretion for the fact that when they first start up a unit its emission profile is a little different from what it's going to be when it's operating most of the time. Same thing with malfunctions … things break,” Minick said. “When it does [break] the state has always recognized an affirmative defense.”
EPA Requirement ‘Not Practical.'
Minick said he agreed with Texas officials that it is “simply not practical” from an engineering standpoint to avoid exceedances of emissions limitations during malfunctions.
“It's not the way the world works,” he said. “If you follow EPA's line of reasoning and the environmental groups that challenged the rule and following their line of reasoning, you're going to end up with people getting a lot more violations for doing what they have to do, the only way they can do it, and so you're going to end up with people with poor enforcement records for things that they have no control” over.
Hagle of the TCEQ linked the ongoing dispute over startup, shutdown and malfunction emissions to the conference's baseball and Yogi Berra-themed mantra ‘Déjà vu all over again.’
“That's a perfect quote for this particular rulemaking because this is at least our fourth or fifth time to redo this rule, all of them based on EPA's changing their minds,” Hagle said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95138074&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95138074&jd=95138074
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested