Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 8/10/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks Input On Competing Exposure Methods For New TSCA Reviews
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is seeking input on how to implement a directive in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for using either “sentinel” or “aggregate” exposures to evaluate chemicals' safety, with advocates saying the aggregate approach would better reflect real world risk compared to the sentinel method traditionally used by agencies. -
Better Living Through Chemistry
Aug 9, 2016 | The Millbrook Independent
By Bill Schlesinger
One cannot but be impressed with how humans have embraced “better living through chemistry” in modern society. More than 85,000 compounds are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency for potential public use. -
‘Large Number’ of CDR Reports Yet to be Submitted
Aug 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA expects a “large number” of reports to be submitted during the second half of this summer’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) period, and is urging responsible parties to complete them “well in advance” of the 30 September deadline. -
API Aims Latest Campaign to Reform or Repeal RFS Directly at Voters
Aug 9, 2016 | Oil and Gas Journal
By Nick Snow
The American Petroleum Institute launched a fresh advocacy campaign aimed at reforming or repealing the federal Renewable Fuels Standard. -
States Launch New Bid To Block ESPS Incentive Plan While Stay In Effect
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
States opposing EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for existing power plants are launching a new effort to block the agency's related Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), arguing that the Supreme Court's stay of the GHG rule requires the agency to extend the proposed CEIP's comment deadline until the court decides if the underlying rule is lawful. -
Fossil Interests Urge EPA To Scrap CEIP Or Let Natural Gas Earn Credits
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Fossil fuel companies are urging EPA to scrap the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) for its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule or allow natural gas projects to earn compliance credits, adopting in part an argument from environmental groups that extended renewable energy tax breaks would give double incentive to certain projects and crowd out others. -
Ohio Enacts New Reporting System for Oil and Gas Emergencies
Aug 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Ohio officials yesterday implemented a new "one-call" system for reporting spills and other emergencies related to oil and gas. -
Perfluorinated Chemicals Linked to Military Bases, Airports
Aug 10, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Drinking water contamination from perfluorinated chemicals is a known concern for communities near industrial sites in the U.S. where the chemicals were once produced. -
Rail Safety Remains Strong
Aug 10, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Peter Goelz
Railroads moved more than 528,000 carloads and intermodal units of goods in the week ending July 23. Down 5.3 percent year over year, the numbers are still impressive when you consider the net effect on American life. -
EPA Science Advisors Sustain Push For Wider Particulate NAAQS Review
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Members of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) are sustaining their push for the agency to expand the scope of its particulate matter (PM) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) review to include the pollutant's impacts on the entire United States and to include a wider range of data on adverse effects.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks Input On Competing Exposure Methods For New TSCA Reviews
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is seeking input on how to implement a directive in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for using either “sentinel” or “aggregate” exposures to evaluate chemicals' safety, with advocates saying the aggregate approach would better reflect real world risk compared to the sentinel method traditionally used by agencies.
Representatives from environmental groups, chemical industry organizations and others weighed in on the debate during an Aug. 9 EPA public meeting in Washington, D.C. on implementation of the TSCA reform law's risk evaluation requirements. The agency is holding an Aug. 10 meeting for input on a second upcoming proposed rule -- also required under the new law -- that will establish a risk-based process for prioritizing chemicals for review.
The agency will also hold an “industry consultation meeting” Aug. 11-12 to consult with chemical producers to inform a future rule on collecting fees that will help pay for the costs of implementing the law.
At the Aug. 9 meeting, EPA sought public comment on a rule it will develop on its process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” under section 6 of the law, which outlines requirements on chemical reviews and how chemicals should be prioritized to undergo those reviews. EPA has one year from the statute's June 22 implementation date to craft the rules on prioritizing substances and evaluationing them.
Section 6(b)(4)(f) says that evaluations shall “describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures to a chemical substance under the conditions of use were considered, and the basis for that consideration.”
Environmentalists say that sentinel exposures are in line with EPA's traditional approach for risk assessment, taking the most serious risk and assuming that reducing that exposure will lower overall risk. Advocates say this is the chemical sector's preferred approach, unlike the aggregate exposures environmentalists prefer. Aggregate exposure assesses every possible exposure and leads to an evaluation that aims to reduce the sum total of risk. EPA speakers, however, said that they had little knowledge of the sentinel concept and are hoping for comments on it to further elucidate the approach.
Jeff Morris, deputy director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), told the meeting that, “Sentinel exposures, is one that we would like comment on,” adding that, “It's not a term we've typically used in our program but it is used in other areas, such as occupational exposure risk assessment.”
Morris added that other novel topics on which he expects much discussion as EPA seeks to write the TSCA reform implementing rules are areas such as where the statute discusses conditions of use of chemicals, and how they are to be addressed. He also noted that the statute explicitly discusses requirements to consider susceptible sub-populations in assessments, and to consider whether to assess aggregate exposures across pathways.
“The statute goes further by articulating what conditions of use means. . . . That is an important consideration when you talk about how you would do scoping or problem formulation of an assessment to identify the uses that would be considered. Certainly this notion of 'reasonably foreseen' will be subject to a lot of discussion,” he said, referring to how agency officials will address reasonably foreseeable risk in their evaluations.
Potential Exposures
Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition of environmental groups, said at the meting that he was encouraged by comments from OPPT officials.
He said the comments suggested EPA is looking to the alternate approach in the statute from sentinel exposures. Igrejas highlighted officials' remarks on aggregate exposure as being “something the agency is increasingly oriented towards . . . it's important because it's capturing the real wold exposure for these populations.”
Tala Henry, director of OPPT's risk assessment division, indicated in her remarks that as part of the TSCA work plan risk assessment program, staff has begun to transition from a more specific scoping excercises, where assessments looked only a few narrow uses of a chemical.
EPA developed the work plan program in 2012 to take action on existing chemicals while Congress debated TSCA reform, and also to give staff an opportunity to explore some of the risk assessment and management issues that agency leadership anticipated would be helpful in preparing to implement reforms under the new law.
Henry noted that the first several of the work plan assessments “were scoped around particular uses rather than all feasible uses. That will be a paradigm shift,” she said. “We have been striving to do aggregate assessments. If there are multiple types of exposures we're trying to do aggregate” analyses.
Still, Igrejas explained at the meeting that he and his advocate colleagues “share some of the skepticism about sentinel exposures brought up in the [TSCA reform] debate.” He added that, “The law requires you to publish which approach you chose but at least now based on what we know we hope that it will be rarer and the aggregate exposure will be more the norm of how you conduct your assessments.”
Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund -- which did support the compromise TSCA reform law -- addressed the exposure language in an October 2014 blog post.
He called the language “a classic compromise: Require EPA to consider whether the aggregate or sentinel exposure approach is warranted for a given chemical, and publicly justify its decision. While that may be less than satisfying to all, in the context of the entire proposal, it may well be a compromise that delivers the needed protections.”
Denison explained that health and environmental groups preferred that EPA always be required to “assess 'aggregate exposure' to a chemical by identifying and assessing exposures associated with every use and release and summing across all of them. In contrast, the chemical industry has sought a 'sentinel exposure' approach (more in line with most current EPA practice) by which EPA identifies what it considers the most significant exposure(s), under the assumption that controlling those exposures (where needed) will suffice to adequately reduce total risk.”
At EPA's meeting, David Sarvadi, a partner at the law firm Keller and Heckman, suggested that EPA could learn from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) use of the sentinel concept “and some of their chemical standards,” such as its regulations for asbestos and lead.
Sarvadi said OSHA equires “an initial determination process you have to go through to determine whether or not your chemical operation should be regulated. That initial determination has to be based on an assessment of what you believe is the highest exposure. One of the earlier commenters mentioned that's something that you ought to be looking at as you go through and evaluate the different types of uses, look for that sentinel exposure, that one that seems to be the highest, and also . . . look for the most number of people that are involved. Risk to population is always a combination of the number of folks involved and the exposure.”
'Upset' Conditions
Meanwhile, Gina Solomon, deputy secretary for science and health at California EPA, said at the meeting that combining the sentinel exposures language with other concepts in the new law “suggests to me that EPA should be looking at and thinking about upset conditions. Not just regular expected conditions, but in other words, there's clear reference in here in the legislation” to the January 2014 spill of about 10,000 gallons of toxic chemicals from an above-ground tank run by Freedom Industries into West Virginia's Elk River.
“[S]o if you're looking at chemicals you need to be thinking about what is reasonably foreseeable in a sentinel event in an upset,” Solomon said. She noted that requirements in the TSCA law that EPA consider conditions of use of chemicals it is assessing, including “reasonably foreseeable” uses as well as language calling for EPA to prioritize for assessment chemicals stored near drinking water hints at the need to consider both planned and unplanned conditions.
Solomon also address the law's preemption language that could impede some future state efforts to regulate chemicals. “We recognize that we may sometimes be overlapping but look forward to being value added and coordinating,” on chemicals on which California and EPA are both evaluating for possible regulation, she said. “We also recognize that there are many targets out there and expect that to be the exception rather than the rule.”
Solomon also called on EPA to grant “maximum flexibility in the rule. Science issues discussed here today are best addressed in guidance [documents]. You need a flexible rule that will allow you to meet these ambitious deadlines.”
The new law means OPPT anticipates having 20 assessments in progress at any point, far beyond the four to six assessments that are underway in the office's TSCA work plan program now, said EPA's Morris.
Weight Of Evidence
At the meeting, Sarah Brozena -- a senior director of regulatory and technical affairs with the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council -- argued that EPA should include discussion in the implementing rule of how it will determine weight of evidence analyses of chemicals' toxicity, a requirement in the new statute.
“Weight of evidence can be built into guidance … but the law mandates EPA's consideration of these issues,” Brozena said. “That really should be addressed in the rule.”
Brozena explained that doing so will provide greater certainty of the standards EPA intends to set, and the “more certainty EPA provides in the rule, the better consistency there will be in EPA's decision-making and also in information provided for EPA to assess.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-input-competing-exposure-methods-new-tsca-reviews
-
Better Living Through Chemistry
Aug 9, 2016 | The Millbrook Independent
By Bill Schlesinger
One cannot but be impressed with how humans have embraced “better living through chemistry” in modern society. More than 85,000 compounds are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency for potential public use. We have compounds to clean carpet and make it moth-proof and fire- and stain-resistant. We have chemicals to straighten hair, curl hair and hold hair in place. We have compounds to repel and kill insects, and perfumes that inadvertently attract them. Most of these have complicated formulations and names; the products that scare me the most are those that do not list the active ingredients on the label.
The chemical industry achieves $29 billion in sales of pesticides, $760 billion for pharmaceuticals and $2.3 trillion in the sales of various other chemicals each year. Clearly, people around the world pay a lot for chemicals to improve their daily lives.
Many of these chemicals persist in nature, so they accumulate in the environment. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) cycle globally and many are still found in areas where they were outlawed decades ago. Many of these were designed to kill insects by mimicking their hormones to produce lethal dysfunction. We should not have been surprised when DDT inhibited egg-shell development in bald eagles, ospreys and seabirds, which have returned to respectable numbers now that DDT is banned.
In the United States, sales of compounds for public use are subject to some form of regulation and approval by several statutes enforced by the EPA and other agencies. Compounds in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and personal care products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Most pesticides are regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Household chemicals, including those incorporated in various end-products, were to be regulated by the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which has been widely regarded as one of the most ineffectual pieces of environmental legislation ever written.
When TSCA was first enacted, some 60,000 existing chemicals were “grand-fathered” for further use, so that companies were not required to submit information on whether or not these chemicals had been proven safe for humans. Earlier I have written about the insect repellant, DEET, which has a long history without obvious impact to humans (http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/citizenscientist/cant-beat-the-deet/(link is external)), but a number of compounds were not nearly so benign. The brominated organic compounds that were applied to flame-retardant clothing, bedding, and upholstery are known carcinogens, with uptake pathways through our skin and by breathing the lint they generate.
A few weeks ago, with bipartisan support, the House and Senate approved a bill, now signed by President Obama to strengthen TSCA. The act is not perfect, but it should subject chemicals to greater scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency, which plans to focus on about 100 that are suspicious for their impacts on human and wildlife health. Among these are asbestos, formaldehyde, organophosphate flame retardants, and various fluorinated organic compounds. It is possible that some chemicals now in use will be restricted or potentially banned, if they are proven unsafe to humans.
One might hope that we could require chemical manufacturers to show that a product is safe before it is sold. For now, we will have retroactive evaluations.
As is so often the case with environmental regulations, there is too little too late. But, we should celebrate in the successes we have and move on to the next battle.
http://www.themillbrookindependent.com/content/better-living-through-chemistry
-
‘Large Number’ of CDR Reports Yet to be Submitted
Aug 10, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA expects a “large number” of reports to be submitted during the second half of this summer’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) period, and is urging responsible parties to complete them “well in advance” of the 30 September deadline.
The CDR reporting period – which happens every four years – runs from 1 June to 30 September.
But as of 5 August, the EPA says it has received only 350 CDR Form U submissions. In total, 4,785 were received during the most recent 2012 CDR.
The rule requires manufacturers and importers to report information on the production and use of chemicals in commerce.
The EPA does not anticipate system issues as a result of the high volume of reports yet to be submitted.
“While there is always a chance for system slowness due to a high volume of users, a high number of the CDR reporting community would need to be trying to access their submissions at one time for this to occur,” said the agency.
Nonetheless, it is advising responsible parties to try to complete these well before the deadline, “so that there is sufficient time to address any issues”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49028/large-number-of-cdr-reports-yet-to-be-submitted
-
API Aims Latest Campaign to Reform or Repeal RFS Directly at Voters
Aug 9, 2016 | Oil and Gas Journal
By Nick Snow
The American Petroleum Institute launched a fresh advocacy campaign aimed at reforming or repealing the federal Renewable Fuels Standard. “Our campaign will focus on how higher ethanol mandates can hurt consumers, potentially raise costs, and possibly void automobile warranties,” API Downstream Group Director Frank Macchiarola said.
“We are urging policymakers to put the interest of the American consumer first,” he told reporters during an Aug. 9 teleconference. “The broken RFS mandate aims to force consumers to use high ethanol blends they don’t want and don’t need. Nearly 90% of vehicles on the road today were not designed for higher ethanol blends, such as E15. And many automakers say that using E15 could potentially void new car warranties.”
Ethanol levels should be set at no more than 97% of the national fuel supply in the near term to protect consumers while ensuring that ethanol-free gasoline remains available to those who want it, Macchiarola said.
“API has joined a chorus of voices sounding the alarm on the potential problems created by the burdensome ethanol mandate. From recreational boaters and motorcyclists to environmental groups and food groups, an ever-increasing number of Americans are saying ‘No More’ to the ethanol mandate,” he indicated.
There’s growing bipartisan agreement in Congress that the RFS program is a failure, the API official said. He noted that HR 5180, which Reps. Bill Flores (R-Tex.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and two other US House members introduced this spring (OGJ Online, May 12, 2016), now has more than 100 cosponsors.
Asked if he had studied the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers proposal to move the collection point for Renewable Identification Numbers, which are credits to help refiners and other obligated parties meet biofuels credits, farther downstream (OGJ Online, Aug. 5, 2016), Macchiarola said API strongly opposes the idea. “It’s an interim move that would solve nothing while introducing more complexity into the system by increasing the number of collection points,” he said.
Macchiarola also said that while API has contacted both major parties’ presidential campaigns about the issue, it believes it’s more effective to contact the public directly with an educational campaign and hope voters reach out to members of their congressional delegations with their concerns.
“A lot is said during political campaigns and a lot of policies are laid out that may not be workable in the long run,” he said. “Our approach is to provide the public with the best information about what is needed. It’s not targeting anyone specifically, simply informing the American consumer.”
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2016/08/api-aims-latest-campaign-to-reform-or-repeal-rfs-directly-at-voters.html
-
States Launch New Bid To Block ESPS Incentive Plan While Stay In Effect
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
States opposing EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for existing power plants are launching a new effort to block the agency's related Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), arguing that the Supreme Court's stay of the GHG rule requires the agency to extend the proposed CEIP's comment deadline until the court decides if the underlying rule is lawful.
In an Aug. 1 request from a coalition of 27 states led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), the states ask EPA to extend the comment deadline on the CEIP -- currently slated for Sept. 2 -- until 60 days after the high court rules on the lawfulness of the existing source performance standards (ESPS).
The request effectively asks EPA to reverse its position that it can continue developing the CEIP despite the high court stay, because such a deadline would generally block any further development of the incentive program as litigation over the ESPS rule is pending.
“[B]ecause the CEIP derives solely and directly from the [ESPS], EPA is and will continue to be in violation of the stay, unless it extends the comment period as requested,” says the states' letter.
The states say their requested deadline extension would only take effect if the ESPS is upheld in court. If the ESPS does not survive judicial review, “the CEIP should then simply be withdrawn.”
Their call marks the latest effort by ESPS opponents to block the rule's implementation during the stay, as well as development of related measures. They have long argued that development of such related measures imposes costs on states because they must take action on a measure that may not be lawful.
Also, proceeding with the rule's development “deprives states and other stakeholders the benefit of the stay by compelling participation in regulatory processes that inappropriately assume the validity of a rule that may ultimately be struck down,” House lawmakers told EPA earlier this year.
But EPA is unlikely to grant the request, given that agency officials have forcefully defended their authority to continue developing the CEIP -- even while the stay is in effect. They argue that because the program is optional for states, it is consistent with the stay order, adding that many states have sought additional information about the program.
“A state may participate in the CEIP only after the EPA approves a required state plan or the EPA promulgates a federal plan for that state that includes the CEIP. These actions will not occur until sometime after the judicial stay has been lifted. Thus, this action is consistent with, and the EPA’s authority to proceed with this action is unaffected by, the stay,” EPA says in its June 16 proposal outlining additional details for the CEIP.
In contrast, EPA has hedged on whether it will finalize model trading rules for the ESPS -- while still pledging to craft the rules during the stay -- because such rules would be a key document that informs nearly every state compliance plan, compared with an optional incentive program that states could choose to ignore.
While states charge that EPA's action is unlawful, they have not yet indicated whether they plan to ask the Supreme Court to enforce its order on this issue. Such an action likely faces a high bar given the death of Justice Antonin Scalia shortly after the high court issued its 5-4 stay order.
'Expend Resources'
In general, the CEIP provides bonus compliance credits for states that deploy zero-emitting resources such as renewables and energy efficiency projects, with a focus on low-income areas, during the two years before the ESPS' formal compliance period begins in 2022.
The West Virginia-led coalition is one of several parties that successfully sought a high court stay in the underlying litigation over the ESPS, West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., which is scheduled for Sept. 27 oral argument before anen banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Echoing House lawmakers, the states argue that EPA's Sept. 2 comment deadline for the latest CEIP proposal forces states to “expend resources” drafting comments on the measure or to “do nothing and forgo their right to raise objections to the CEIP immediately upon judicial review.”
They add that extending the deadline would be consistent with past regulatory efforts to respond to litigation, including a 1992 comment extension by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration on a toxic exposure rule, a 2001 extension from the Department of Interior on an environmental review for offshore leasing, and the State Department's 2014 announcement that it would postpone action on the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline due to a Nebraska court ruling on the pipeline's route.
They also argue that a comment period extension would be consistent with the “purpose of notice and comment” because it would “ensure the States' full and robust participation.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-launch-new-bid-block-esps-incentive-plan-while-stay-effect
-
Fossil Interests Urge EPA To Scrap CEIP Or Let Natural Gas Earn Credits
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Fossil fuel companies are urging EPA to scrap the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) for its existing power plant greenhouse gas rule or allow natural gas projects to earn compliance credits, adopting in part an argument from environmental groups that extended renewable energy tax breaks would give double incentive to certain projects and crowd out others.
The tax credit extensions for wind and solar energy -- included in a bipartisan omnibus spending deal last year -- “eliminate the primary justification for a program like the” CEIP, the voluntary early action incentive program that accompanies EPA's power plant existing source performance standards (ESPS), James Watson of the American Petroleum Institute (API) said in testimony to an Aug. 3 public hearing on the CEIP proposal.
The CEIP would award states compliance credits in the two years prior to the start of the ESPS compliance period for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects with a focus on those benefiting low-income communities. Despite a Supreme Court stay on the underlying ESPS pending resolution of legal challenges, EPA in June issued a supplemental proposal outlining several design details of the incentive program.
Like API, some environmental groups had also questioned the relationship between the tax credits and the incentive program even before EPA released the supplemental proposal. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in Jan. 21 comments on EPA's proposed federal plan encouraged the agency to “implement safeguards to prevent business as usual (BAU) projects from undermining the incentives for additional (beyond BAU) renewables and low-income energy efficiency.”
The tax credit extensions, NRDC argued, “heighten the potential for the CEIP to reward renewables projects that would have occurred anyway without the CEIP in place. As noted, if the CEIP simply rewards compliance value to business-as-usual projects, it will increase cumulative emissions over the 2020-2030 time period.”
To address such concerns, EPA, as part of the proposal, adjusted the window in which renewable energy projects must “commence commercial operation” to receive early incentive credits. It also sought comment on a number of issues regarding the impact of the tax credit extensions on the incentive program. This included whether projects receiving support from the tax credits should even be eligible to receive CEIP credits.
While NRDC and other advocates are pointing out the potential for double crediting for wind and solar projects to urge EPA to preserve the intent of the incentive program -- which they and EPA say is to encourage zero-emission projects that would not otherwise happen -- API is pointing to the dynamic to argue that program is not necessary.
“The use of renewable energy incentives is already quite advantageous from the Federal side when considering the extension of the [wind and solar tax credits]. By excluding natural gas from the CEIP, that advantage is magnified. Incentives are now piled on top of incentives,” Watson said in his testimony.
Watson outlines several other state and federal incentives for renewable energy, including a new White House initiative to facilitate solar projects in low-income areas, as well as: “net metering incentives; incentives from the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates; incentives mandated by state legislatures and implemented through the tax code; and mandated state generation targets.”
Thus, Watson added: “We question the need for new incentives piled on top of bountiful existing Federal and State incentives.”
Including Natural Gas
Nonetheless, if EPA decides to continue with the CEIP, API urges the agency to make the program fuel and technology neutral, including by allowing new natural gas plants to be eligible for credits. “Any fuel and technology combination that reduces GHGs below business as usual should be eligible,” Watson said.
Other fossil fuel groups are also calling on EPA to allow CEIP credits for natural gas. Pam Lacey of the American Gas Association during a July 21 Environmental Council of the States event touted the benefits of using natural gas directly for home heating, rather than burning it for electricity, noting that it allows for greater energy efficiency.
Lacey noted that the CEIP could be a “great way” to boost the adoption of gas-based heating because it can assist low-income renters and homeowners in buying furnaces. People living in low-income communities tend to buy “the cheapest thing on the truck,” and CEIP incentives applying to natural gas furnaces makes “the cheapest thing on the truck” more energy efficient, Lacey said.
She added: “You can really make some emissions reductions by using that fuel, natural gas, in the home for heating.”
Such a move would be a fundamental change to the CEIP, given that the program is intended to spur zero-emitting projects, rather than simply lower-emitting projects compared to existing power sources.
Beyond the inclusion of natural gas for CEIP credit, API argues that “at minimum, new renewable projects receiving credits under the [tax credit extensions] should not also be eligible for credits under the CEIP.”
While EPA is taking comment on such an option, it is unclear at this point whether NRDC or other environmental groups concerned about the effect of the tax credit extensions will support this as a solution.
Regardless, “EPA seeks comment on whether it is appropriate, in light of the tax credit extensions, to include in the CEIP a mechanism that would limit the number of early action and matching allowances or [emissions reduction credits (ERCs)] that may be available to wind and solar projects that may not require additional incentives for deployment, and on how to design such a mechanism,” the agency wrote.
NRDC in its testimony at the Aug. 3 hearing urges EPA to not “give incentives to projects that don't need it,” though the group does not elaborate on how EPA should address the tax credits issue.
“If credit is given mainly to projects that were going to happen anyway, our analysis shows the level of CO2 emissions will rise relative to a world without the CEIP. That's the exact opposite result we're looking for,” Michelle DiMuzio of NRDC said in her testimony.
NRDC, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in its hearing testimony, urge EPA to “prioritize” CEIP credit for energy efficiency projects in low-income areas, backing the agency's decision to set aside half of the CEIP allowance pool for low-income projects and to allow states to use existing definitions of “low-income community” at their discretion.
The emphasis on crediting low-income projects does, in part, reflect their concerns about the effect of the tax credits.
“We are concerned, however, that EPA's proposal to allow projects targeted to commercial customers would sweep in too many projects that would have happened in the CEIP's absence and only indirectly benefit low income communities, which could water down the goal of driving investment directly to people in need,” DiMuzio said.
Nuclear & Carbon Capture
In addition to fossil fuel groups pushing for natural gas credits, some advocates are urging EPA to expand the scope of eligible projects to other zero-emitting and efficiency technologies.
For example, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) in its Aug. 3 testimony urges EPA to include nuclear units -- both upgrades to existing plants and new plants -- as well as “new innovations in zero-emitting carbon capture and sequestration plants” as eligible for credit.
CATF's Doug Dagan outlined during his testimony EPA's proposed criteria for eligible technologies as: they must be zero-emitting; they must be critical to long-term climate strategies; and they must require relatively short lead times. Dagan notes that although EPA only identifies solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal as acceptable under that criteria, several other technologies could qualify.
“Some examples of zero-emitting technologies, that provide critical long term solutions and can commence operation during the Pre-[ESPS] period include: upgrades at existing nuclear plants, new smaller modular light-water nuclear facilities, and new innovations in zero-emitting carbon capture and sequestration plants,” Dagan said.
CATF acknowledged that nuclear and carbon capture projects do have a longer lead time than renewable energy projects, but the group argues that it would not cause any harm to the intent and implementation of the CEIP to include other zero-emitting technologies.
“[T]here is absolutely no downside to offering CEIP credits for those kind of zero-emitting technologies. That is because only projects that are actually producing power before the [ESPS] compliance period will receive allowances and ERCs,” Dagan said.
CATF's testimony mirrors calls from efficiency groups, who are urging EPA to expand the scope of the CEIP to include other energy efficiency projects beyond those that service low-income communities.
For example, in a preview to their forthcoming CEIP comments, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy called for EPA to expand the scope of demand-side energy efficiency technologies eligible for credit, focusing in particular on combined heat and power systems and stressing the potential benefit for low-income communities.
Comments on the proposed CEIP are due by Sept. 2.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/fossil-interests-urge-epa-scrap-ceip-or-let-natural-gas-earn-credits
-
Ohio Enacts New Reporting System for Oil and Gas Emergencies
Aug 10, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Ohio officials yesterday implemented a new "one-call" system for reporting spills and other emergencies related to oil and gas.
Drillers will now have to report all spills, blowouts, fires and other mishaps to the state Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) instead of the state's EPA. They will have to report spills of more than 210 gallons (half a barrel), although the threshold is lower for urban and environmentally sensitive areas.
Republican Gov. John Kasich signed an executive order yesterday implementing the new system immediately. His order said the system would coordinate what is now a "patchwork" of reporting requirements.
State officials say it will fix recognized problems with the previous system and help them respond faster to spills, blowouts, chemical releases and fires.
"It's going to make things simpler," said ODNR spokesman Steven Irwin.
Industry representatives said some of the reporting requirements aren't needed. They also worry that companies could be written up for actions they didn't realize were illegal because the rule was made effective immediately.
"[Ohio Oil and Gas Association] remains concerned with how the process was implemented, as well as the broader impacts it may have on our membership," said Shawn Bennett, executive vice president of the industry group.
Environmentalists had a mixed reaction to the rules. Some welcomed the clarity, while others were suspicious of ODNR, which they consider too friendly to industry.
Nationally, there were at least 10,348 spills and other mishaps last year, releasing more than 42 million gallons of crude oil, produced water and other fluid. The number of spills fell, corresponding with a slowdown in the industry (EnergyWire, July 21).
In Ohio, 76 oil and gas spills were reported last year under the old system, more than the 38 reported in 2014. But under that system, many spills didn't get reported if they didn't reach water.
One-call system
Under the new rules, spills will have to be reported to ODNR's oil and gas division even if they don't reach water. The half-barrel threshold is lower than in most oil and gas states. Some states set it as high as 10 barrels.
Calls will be handled by a 24-hour ODNR communications center already in place for the divisions of wildlife and watercraft. The toll-free hotline is 1-844-OHCALL1, or 1-844-642-2551.
Under the one-call system, ODNR officials will handle further notification of other agencies, such as the state fire marshal, state EPA or Public Utilities Commission.
The rules were put in place immediately under emergency provisions. ODNR has 120 days to get the regulations through the rulemaking process, or they expire.
The Ohio Environmental Council cautiously praised the new reporting system, while noting that staffers were still analyzing the language.
"This one-phone-call approach should speed up response times and, as a result, make Ohioans safer," said Melanie Houston, the group's director of oil and gas.
But Teresa Mills, the Ohio lead for the grass-roots activism group Center for Health, Environment & Justice, is suspicious of giving authority over spills to ODNR, which she considers a "captured agency."
"They're trying to carve out another exemption for oil and gas," Mills said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/10/stories/1060041412
-
Perfluorinated Chemicals Linked to Military Bases, Airports
Aug 10, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Drinking water contamination from perfluorinated chemicals is a known concern for communities near industrial sites in the U.S. where the chemicals were once produced. Contamination that extends beyond the reach of production facilities is coming from other sources, experts say.
Researchers are now pointing to military bases, civilian airports, and wastewater treatment facilities as sources of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in ground and surface waters.
Xindi C. Hu of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and colleagues report drinking water supplies of some 6 million U.S. residents exceed the lifetime health advisory levels for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) set by the Environmental Protection Agency in May (Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, DOI:10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00260).
Hu and her colleagues examined EPA’s national drinking water contaminant data for a suite of PFASs and analyzed 16 industrial sites, 664 military fire training sites, 533 civilian airports, and 8,572 wastewater treatment plants. They show a statistical association between the number of these facilities in an area and the concentration of PFASs in its drinking water.
“This study gives weight to what many of us had suspected for many years, which is that there is a very significant contribution of non-industrial sources of these chemicals to contaminated water supplies,” says Christopher P. Higgins, an environmental chemist and professor at Colorado School of Mines and co-author of the study.
The Department of Defense late last year began investigating contamination at military training sites where aqueous film-forming foams containing PFOS and related fluorochemicals that can degrade to PFOA or PFOS had been used for fire training exercises. In addition, the authors note that wastewater treatment plants are unlikely to remove PFASs through standard treatment methods.
“The authors are to be commended for taking EPA data and interpreting it for the public and decision makers,” says Jennifer A. Field, an environmental chemist at Oregon State University who was not involved in the work.
Military bases and airports are more abundant than manufacturing sites, Field adds. “This issue has the potential to touch every state.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/08/Perfluorinated-chemicals-linked-military-bases.html
-
Aug 10, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Peter Goelz
Railroads moved more than 528,000 carloads and intermodal units of goods in the week ending July 23. Down 5.3 percent year over year, the numbers are still impressive when you consider the net effect on American life. Within those carloads are food products destined for grocery stores, water treatment materials that purify drinking water and energy sources that help keep the lights on.
“Everything from food to my kids’ toys will probably have been shipped by freight at some point,” says Eli Lehrer of the R Street Institute.
Given its significance to the nation’s economy, policy makers must facilitate, not hinder, rail transportation. Unfortunately, the railroads are increasingly faced with government mandates that seemingly disregard the impressive safety record of freight railroads, as well as ignoring the economic growth that partial deregulation has brought. There is a need to set the record straight, and for decision makers to view freight rail without bias.
Government safety statistics paint a rather clear picture. On the mainline rail network, derailments are down 25 percent compared to 2010. Employee injuries have decreased 48 percent in the last 15 years, while the overall train accident rate is 39 percent less today than in 2000. For the transportation of hazardous materials, 99.999 percent of carloads move freely without incident to their destinations.
Consider also the positive effect of just one train taking as many as 200 trucks off the road. It eases congestion, reduces infrastructure wear and tear and increases safety.
Also consider the continued efforts of the industry to train the emergency community and develop resources such as AskRail, a mobile application that provides real time info regarding rail cargo so that if a rare accident occurs first responders know the right steps to take fast.
Railroads have said repeatedly their goal is zero accidents, and they are working every day to achieve that goal. The record reflects the positive progress made.
Yet, several recent policy proposals seem to disregard the railroads’ safety record and perhaps mask other broader political agendas.
For instance, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) continues to advance a proposal that dictates crew size operations even though evidence actually points toward single man crews being safer. The costly supposed redundancy, in fact offers no greater level of safety. At best the proposal needs further study before being arbitrarily imposed.
“While the FRA is relying on anecdotes to argue that it would improve safety, there is no data to support its assertion,” says John Graham, a former U.S. regulatory czar. “In fact, the FRA acknowledges that the statistical evidence supporting its argument is lacking.”
The FRA also is forging ahead with a very expensive mandate to install a technology known as electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, even though evidence again indicates they will not materially improve safety. This system carries an estimated $3.4 billion price tag to be picked up by the private rail companies – without a documented corresponding benefit. In fact, extensive testing of the system proves them unreliable in most situations.
The confusing and anecdotal driven approach has permeated local communities too.
The Spokane city council recently issued a ballot measure that could ultimately fine railroads $261 per carload of coal or crude oil moved through the city. Forget that the proposal is illegal under federal laws regulating interstate commerce, or that railroads must accept the cargo they are presented with. Forget that the residents of Seattle use both coal and oil. The premise sets a dangerous precedent.
Who is to say that the same set of people won’t then move on to fining the movement of genetically modified crops, an issue taken on by a state ballot measure in Washington in 2012? There is no guarantee, because like the federal measures, it is not about safety. It is about taking the back door to shaping broader political agendas, be it hostility towards fossil fuels or to whatever is the identified evil of the moment.
Misguided proposals like these could handicap our still fragile economic growth. New data shows the U.S. economy grew just 1.2 percent in the second quarter. Meanwhile, new data also shows that the railroad sector generated $274 billion in economic activity and $33 billion in taxes in 2014 alone.
While no one is alleging that any one single policy proposal will cripple the industry, thereby diminishing its positive economic impact, the aggregate of regulations could have a real dampening effect in the future. In these less-than-ideal economic times, why should we ignore the safety record of railroads and unnecessarily disrupt an economic engine like freight rail?
Let data drive safety policies, not politics.
Mr. Goelz served as Managing Director of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1995-2000.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/290910-rail-safety-remains-strong
-
EPA Science Advisors Sustain Push For Wider Particulate NAAQS Review
Aug 10, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Members of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) are sustaining their push for the agency to expand the scope of its particulate matter (PM) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) review to include the pollutant's impacts on the entire United States and to include a wider range of data on adverse effects.
During an Aug. 9 teleconference, members of a CASAC PM panel sought consensus on the recommendations they will make to EPA in a letter giving advice on the agency's draft integrated review plan (IRP) that outlines how it will conduct the NAAQS review. The IRP precedes an integrated science assessment (ISA) synthesizing science made available since the last review, and potentially also a Health Risk and Exposure Assessment, or HREA.
The scientific reviews will eventually inform a policy assessment detailing whether EPA believes it is necessary to update the PM standards based on data about the pollutant's health and environmental impacts.
EPA last updated the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS in 2012, tightening the prior annual limit of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) down to 12 ug/m3 based on scientific data. In a 2013 review, the agency left the standard for larger coarse particles (PM10) unchanged at 150 ug/m3 over 24 hours. The Clean Air Act mandates that EPA review the NAAQS every five years, but it often falls behind schedule with the reviews.
The draft IRP says EPA intends to complete its review by 2021 -- four years beyond the Clean Air Act's mandated five-year review cycle, which requires the agency to complete the review by 2017.
Panel members agreed to maintain language contained in a draft letter to EPA on the IRP saying, “The CASAC recommends that the EPA further clarify the scope and purpose of the HREA and specify the criteria that will be used in the [HREA] Planning Document to determine whether development of a new HREA is justified.”
CASAC “also recommends expansion of the geographic scope of the HREA to the entire continental United States. The EPA can generate high quality modeled estimates of PM2.5 at all census tract centroids in its assessments. The EPA should thus consider using modeled PM rather than relying only on monitored PM for the HREA.”
Scientific Evidence
While the final wording of the letter is subject to revision, panelists appeared to broadly agree that when EPA evaluates the health impacts of PM2.5, it should use computer modeling to measure impacts on the whole country, and not rely on monitoring data derived from a relatively limited monitoring network biased toward urban areas.
Panelists further agreed that EPA should consider including more scientific issues in the IRP's discussion of the scope of the forthcoming ISA, including subjects such as studies of deposited nitrogen and sulfur-containing compounds, and identifying uncertainties in “emission profiles, particularly diesel exhaust particulate.”
They also called for further discussion of PM cancer risks, better discussion of scientific study quality evaluation, and better explanation of the process of determining causality, among other issues.
The panel expressed continued concern that available scientific evidence on the effects on the environment of PM, as opposed to effects on human health, is still very sparse.
“Primary” NAAQS are set to protect human health “with an adequate margin of safety” under the air law, while “secondary” NAAQS are set to protect public “welfare,” or the environment.
On welfare effects, the draft letter says, “The most significant issue that is not addressed is whether all forms of PM deposition are covered. Total deposition includes dry particle, dry gas, wet, frozen or cloud. It makes sense for the secondary standard for PM to address these sources of deposition. In general, greater discussion of welfare impacts (beyond effects on visibility) is needed. As there are very few studies in the literature measuring the welfare impacts of changes in visibility, ecosystem effects and other undesirable consequences, the chapter should outline processes to identify potentially affected populations and approaches to measuring the welfare impacts for these affected populations.”
Industry's Input
Meanwhile, several industry groups who would likely be expected to oppose any tightening of the PM standards submitted comments to CASAC on EPA's pending review.
For example, in Aug. 2 written remarks, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers sought to bring EPA's attention to substantial scientific uncertainties about PM2.5's effects.
“In addition to the limitations of epidemiology acknowledged by EPA, there is strong evidence of stochastic (random) variability that has not been acknowledged by EPA,” the group says. “There is evidence of geographic heterogeneity in the chronic studies that demonstrate major differences between the Eastern and Western U.S. and Europe.” The alliance also says that scientific evidence contradicts EPA's working assumption that all PM2.5 is equally toxic, and that there is no safe threshold for the pollutant.
Lindsey Jones, senior toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state's air regulator, in her written Aug. 9 remarks to the panel said TCEQ is “encouraged by the CASAC discussion suggesting that included studies be further critically reviewed for study quality and risk of bias,” and urged CASAC to press EPA to better evaluate the quality of studies.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Aug. 2 written comments to the panel urged it to support the proposition that more time is needed under the Clean Air Act for reviewing the NAAQS. “Specifically, the Chamber supports extending the review timeline for NAAQS from five years to ten years.”
Delaying the review cycle -- which some lawmakers have suggested is necessary to avoid EPA tightening the limits roughly every five years -- would lessen the likelihood that EPA would rush through regulations that do not fully take industry positions into account or which adhere to tight timetables set in litigation brought by environmentalists when EPA fails to meet its five-year review deadline, the Chamber says.
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), in its Aug. 2 written comments urges CASAC to fulfill its statutory obligation to evaluate “'any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such national ambient air quality standard[s]'. To our knowledge, this statutory requirement has never been adhered to by CASAC in its review and recommendations for NAAQS, which in the NAM’s opinion has been an oversight by the Committee in fulfilling its responsibilities.”
But chair of the seven-member chartered CASAC Ana Diez Roux, who is also the PM panel chair, said on the call that the issue is not relevant to the PM review specifically, in line with the Supreme Court's position that EPA may not consider costs when setting NAAQS. The chartered CASAC will consider the matter separately, she said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-science-advisors-sustain-push-wider-particulate-naaqs-review
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested