Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 8/24/16
-
(ACC Blog) ADA Listens to the Science: “BPA in Dental Sealants Safe”
Aug 24, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
Many of today’s consumer products are safer and more effective, thanks to bisphenol A (BPA). Every day we benefit from clear, shatter-resistant polycarbonate plastic and tough epoxy resins, both made from BPA. -
You Asked: Can My Couch Give Me Cancer?
Aug 24, 2016 | TIME
By Markham Heid
Ask a public health scientist about couches and cancer, and you’re sure to hear about a State of California law enacted back in 1975. That law, called technical bulletin 117, or “TB117”, required furniture manufacturers to treat their products with flame retardant chemicals, mainly to protect against fires started by neglected cigarettes. -
Leaked Draft Indicates Hickenlooper Poised to Slash Power Plant Emissions
Aug 24, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) could soon issue an executive order calling for reductions in carbon emissions from the state's power plants, according to a draft of the document obtained by ClimateWire. -
Raising Oil and Gas Industry Taxes is Bad Economic, Climate Policy
Aug 24, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Stephen Comstock
There’s no question the American energy renaissance has been a boon for consumers. August gas prices are at their lowest levels since 2004, and a study from IHS estimated that average U.S. disposable household income was $1337 higher in 2015 given lower home energy costs and other savings brought about by shale energy development. -
Adviser Assures: Trump Supports Fracking
Aug 24, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Donald Trump’s top energy policy adviser is trying to downplay the GOP presidential nominee's support for local bans on hydraulic fracking. -
RFA Hosting Ethanol Safety Seminars in Nebraska, Connecticut
Aug 23, 2016 | Ethanol Producer Magazine
By Renewable Fuels Association
The Renewable Fuels Association is hosting three free ethanol safety seminars this and next week in Nebraska and Connecticut. -
Federal Railroad Agency Way Off-Track in Approach to Safety
Aug 24, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Patrick A. McLaughlin
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently announced that Amtrak and select railroads around the country would be awarded $25 million to help implement positive train control technology. -
DOT Pushes Back on Pipeline Oversight Lawsuit
Aug 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Department of Transportation officials are pushing back on a lawsuit over pipeline safety, urging a federal court to throw out environmentalists' claims that the agency has let facilities go unregulated. -
EPA Increases Burden On States For Tracking Title V Air Permit Objections
Aug 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to increase the burden on states for tracking objections to Clean Air Act Title V permits by mandating that states provide written responses to comments on permits they issue under delegated air law authority and submit those records to the agency, which has ultimate power to approve or reject a state-issued permit.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) ADA Listens to the Science: “BPA in Dental Sealants Safe”
Aug 24, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
Many of today’s consumer products are safer and more effective, thanks to bisphenol A (BPA). Every day we benefit from clear, shatter-resistant polycarbonate plastic and tough epoxy resins, both made from BPA.
From eyeglass lenses to bicycle helmets, and security shields to life-saving medical devices, polycarbonate makes our lives more livable. Almost invisibly, epoxy resin coatings protect metal surfaces from degradation and support food safety by protecting canned foods from contamination.
But the single product that provides the most benefit for the least amount of BPA is almost certainly dental sealants. While BPA itself has no direct use in dental sealants, many sealants are based on a derivative of BPA known commonly as bis-GMA (or for the chemists, bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate). As noted by the American Dental Association (ADA), “[t]he introduction of [bis-GMA] by Dr. Raymond Bowen in the 1950’s revolutionized dentistry.”
Because bis-GMA may contain ultra-trace levels of residual BPA, it has been suggested that bis-GMA based sealants may not be safe. In response to these claims, ADA has invested considerable effort over the years to carefully evaluate sealant safety. That’s to be expected since ADA is America’s leading advocate for oral health and there’s a lot at stake.
The latest chapter from ADA should emphatically put safety concerns to rest. In a new study, the ADA Science Institute analyzed 12 dental sealants to provide a more complete understanding of the U.S. market. As reported in ADA’s Professional Product Review, the study “demonstrates extremely low BPA release” from the sealants. The median amount of BPA released was 0.09 nanograms from the amount of sealant applied to four teeth (you read that right, nanograms!).
Compared to total BPA exposure from all sources, as recently estimated by the European Food Safety Authority, the contribution from dental sealants is limited to 0.001%. Needless to say, this amount is orders of magnitude below safe intake limits set by government bodies worldwide. Although exposure to BPA from sealants only occurs over a period typically limited to a couple of hours after application, the tooth-saving benefit of sealants lasts for years.
Listening to the science, ADA’s overall conclusion, as summarized in the headline to its news release, is “BPA in dental sealants safe.” That conclusion is consistent with the conclusions of government bodies worldwide that have reviewed the science on BPA. Most notably, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration answers the question “Is BPA safe?” with the most straightforward answer possible – “Yes.”
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/08/ada-listens-to-the-science-bpa-in-dental-sealants-safe/
-
You Asked: Can My Couch Give Me Cancer?
Aug 24, 2016 | TIME
By Markham Heid
Ask a public health scientist about couches and cancer, and you’re sure to hear about a State of California law enacted back in 1975. That law, called technical bulletin 117, or “TB117”, required furniture manufacturers to treat their products with flame retardant chemicals, mainly to protect against fires started by neglected cigarettes.
“Most manufacturers didn’t want to have two production lines—one for California and one for the rest of the country—so after the regulation was passed most furniture included flame retardants,” says Heather Stapleton, associate professor and program chair of environmental health at Duke University. “Later on it was found that these flame retardants could migrate out of the products and into people.”
For the past decade, Stapleton has conducted a series of studies identifying the types and concentrations of flame-retardants used in consumer products. She and others say there is ample animal and lab research to suggest these chemicals may promote a number of health concerns, including cancer.
“There are concerns about endocrine disruption and neurotoxic effects, especially for pregnant women and children,” says Asa Bradman, associate director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at the University of California, Berkeley.
Bradman says these flame-retardants work their way out of your furniture and into the dust that coats your floors and other surfaces. From there, you or your children may be exposed by breathing them in or putting something in your mouth—fingers, a toy—that has been in contact with the chemical-coated dust particles.
Bradman says it’s difficult to pinpoint the precise toxicological and dose-response effects of these chemicals. “Several studies suggest associations between exposure to some flame retardants and poorer neurodevelopment in children,” he says.
But the average American is exposed to hundreds of chemical compounds on a daily basis. There are hormone-disrupting agents in your deodorantand your food and your clothing. (The European Union has estimated the health care costs of these chemicals range into the hundreds of billions.) Just as no doctor can tell you how many cigarettes you can smoke before getting cancer, it’s tough to say what level of exposure to flame retardant chemicals will lead to potential ill effects. “The data we have argues for a strategy that reduces exposures,” Bradman says.
“The half life of some of these chemicals is five to seven years, meaning it takes that amount of time for the concentration of that chemical in your body to fall by 50 percent,” Stapleton adds. “And studies have shown that 90 percent of the American population has these flame retardant chemicals in their bodies.”
The good news is that newer laws have helped limit the use of flame-retardants in furniture. California updated TB117 in 2013 and again in 2014; the new regulations make it less likely that flame-retardant chemicals will be added to the filling materials of sofas and other household furniture items, Stapleton says.
That doesn’t mean newer couches can’t contain flame-retardants. But most manufacturers have phased out these chemicals, says Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute. Thanks to greater public awareness, and research showing couches don’t need to be infused with flame-retardants to be safe, “these chemicals are under control now in new furniture,” Blum says.
But in older couches, flame retardants are “pretty much always present,” Bradman says. “And as furniture gets older and materials break down, that could increase the transfer of these chemicals into the environment.”
Unfortunately, flame-retardants aren’t the only health concerns lurking in your sofa. Some anti-microbial treatments are also concerning, Blum says. So, too, are stain and water-repelling treatments. “These chemicals, particularly fluorinated compounds, never break down in the environment—never—and they’ve been linked with liver and kidney cancer, and reproductive and developmental problems,” Blum explains.
“Consumers love these [stain-repellant] treatments, but we’re concerned,” adds Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “We don’t have adequate studies on the human health effects, but from animal studies we know some of these chemicals may have immunosuppressant and immunotoxic effects, and are also linked to cancer and developmental effects.”
Birnbaum says reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) could lead to safer standards and more before-market testing of chemicals used in consumer goods. But as of today, it’s very difficult to keep all these chemicals out of your home and your body.
“It’s scary and it’s tough, because there are no simple ways to avoid these things,” Stapleton says.
She recommends asking lots of questions before buying a new piece of furniture. When it comes to stain-repellant and antimicrobial treatments, a lot of furniture sellers advertise those as perks or add-ons. So they’re often easy to spot, she says.
To avoid flame-retardants, check out a furniture piece’s label or tags. There may be information in a checked-box section stating that the item does not contain flame-retardants. Manufacturers or sellers should also be able to provide that info, she says.
Also, clean your floors and home frequently. “These chemicals adhere to dust particles,” she says. “So vacuuming more and washing your hands can help.” She also recommends laying down blankets to keep your small children (and any toys they may put in their mouths) off the floor.
As awareness of these chemicals dangers grows, it should become easier to find safe furniture pieces. The more consumers ask questions and demand chemical-free couches, the safer these products will become, Birnbaum says.
http://time.com/4462892/couch-cancer-flame-retardants/
-
Leaked Draft Indicates Hickenlooper Poised to Slash Power Plant Emissions
Aug 24, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) could soon issue an executive order calling for reductions in carbon emissions from the state's power plants, according to a draft of the document obtained by ClimateWire.
The proposed cuts closely track goals set for Colorado by U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Hickenlooper's office acknowledged a draft is being vetted but said no final decisions have been made on the document's contents.
But the governor and members of his administration have previously said the state would continue to work on goals set forth in the Clean Power Plan despite a Supreme Court stay of the federal climate change regulations earlier this year.
According to the draft executive order, Hickenlooper would direct state agencies to work with utilities, businesses and others to "pursue all viable strategies to achieve the most significant degree of emissions reductions that can be accomplished while maintaining reliable, affordable energy for ratepayers."
State agencies would be tasked with achieving a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 2025, based on 2012 emissions levels. The executive order would increase those reductions to 35 percent by 2030.
The executive order repeatedly refers to Colorado's 2015 Climate Plan, noting that the new mandates will build on the "robust efforts to protect our clean air and meet the challenges posed by a changing climate."
Hickenlooper would also create a state interagency work group on climate change that would be tasked with recommending policy, regulatory and legislative changes, as well as gathering feedback from federal agencies, local government, the private sector and public interests, among others.
The document indicates Hickenlooper plans to announce the executive action in September.
Both Hickenlooper and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) are set to be honored with the Western Resource Advocates' Kelley Green Conservation Leadership Award next month, in part for their support of the Clean Power Plan.
Hickenlooper has called the Clean Power Plan — which would mandate a 38.3 percent emissions reduction rate across the country — an "ambitious" but achievable goal.
But Colorado is one of 27 states that have challenged the plan in court, with state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) saying the reductions would cause job losses and increased utility rates.
Western Resource Advocates President Jon Goldin-Dubois praised the draft order, calling the goals "achievable."
"Colorado has been a leader in reducing carbon for over a decade thanks to broadly supported policies that promote clean energy and Colorado jobs," he said. "We like the direction the governor's taken and support his commitment to clean air."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/08/24/stories/1060041972
-
Raising Oil and Gas Industry Taxes is Bad Economic, Climate Policy
Aug 24, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Stephen Comstock
There’s no question the American energy renaissance has been a boon for consumers. August gas prices are at their lowest levels since 2004, and a study from IHS estimated that average U.S. disposable household income was $1337 higher in 2015 given lower home energy costs and other savings brought about by shale energy development. The stability U.S. production has added to global markets is generating welcome energy security for American homes and businesses.
So cue the calls for oil and natural gas industry tax hikes. Except proponents of industry tax increases don’t call it “raising taxes;” they call it “eliminating subsidies.” It’s an inaccurate claim. Like every business in America, oil and natural gas companies deduct operating costs when filing taxes. But these deductions are not subsidies. These business expenses for the drilling and preparation of wells are a direct investment in the U.S. economy, American jobs and in local communities. Beyond producing affordable, reliable energy, these investments generate royalty payments and state and local taxes that supply revenue for schools, road and bridge improvements, water and sewer projects, local housing initiatives and environmental programs. Denying to the oil and natural gas industry the common tax practices available to other capital-intensive businesses threatens to discourage the investments that have made the United States the world’s leading oil and natural gas producer.
The industry already pays its fair share of taxes, and then some. From 2011 to 2015, oil and natural gas industry income tax expenses (as a share of net income before income taxes) averaged 37 percent, compared to 25.8 percent for other S&P Industrial companies. Oil and natural gas companies invest where the resource is found rather than where the best tax regime is located, continuing to spend billions of dollars on new and existing domestic projects each year despite U.S tax rates that are the highest in the developed world. Even with earnings down -- our industry earned 3.9 cents for every dollar of sales between 2011 and 2015, compared to 8.7 cents per dollar of sales for all manufacturing – the oil and natural gas industry contributes about $60 million a day on average to the federal government in revenue.
In a time of record deficits, calls for a variety of tax increases can be expected. But the latest tax hike pitches aren’t even focused on raising revenue. Writing in The Hill earlier this month, Tufts University Professor Gilbert E. Metcalf endorsed raising industry taxes to “strengthen the U.S. hand in its global diplomacy on climate change.” The level of tax increases Metcalf envisions could lead to a 5 percent cut in production and 10,000 lost jobs, but that’s apparently a small price to pay in the interests of climate symbolism. By implementing tax increases that discourage U.S. energy production, Metcalf argues, we can “increase pressure on China and India” to adopt their own production-stifling measures.
The fact is, the United States is already leading on climate. We lead the world in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon, which are near 20-year lows due largely to increased use of clean-burning natural gas. We’re already one-third of the way to achieving the emissions reductions we committed to under the Paris climate agreement. Since 2000, the oil and gas sectorhas invested more than twice as much as any other industry in zero- and low-carbon technologies.
The U.S. model -- leading the world in both carbon reductions and in production of oil and natural gas through market-based solutions -- demonstrates that it’s possible to cut emissions without cutting jobs and energy production. Let’s build on our achievements by sticking to what works and let tax policy focus on its true purpose, economic investment and job growth.
Stephen Comstock is director of tax & accounting policy at American Petroleum Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/292367-raising-oil-and-gas-industry-taxes-is-bad-economic
-
Adviser Assures: Trump Supports Fracking
Aug 24, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Donald Trump’s top energy policy adviser is trying to downplay the GOP presidential nominee's support for local bans on hydraulic fracking.
Oil tycoon Harold Hamm on Tuesday told The Wall Street Journal that Trump’s recent comment endorsing “local control” of fracking policy stemmed from a misunderstanding of the issue.
“Donald Trump did not understand that concept at the time in my opinion,” Hamm, head of Continental Resources Inc., said at a conference in Denver. “He does now."
Trump’s comments regarding local bans came last month in a television interview in Denver. A reporter asked Trump whether he supports “local control” and the unsuccessful efforts of some Colorado towns to prohibit fracking.
“Well, I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,” Trump said. “If a municipality or state wants to ban fracking, I can understand it.”
The comment confused and worried the oil and gas industry, which sees local bans as a way to shut down drilling and a nuisance for their operations.
Hamm, who was also the lead energy adviser to 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, said he did not speak with Trump about the fracking comments, but he is nonetheless confident that Trump supports the oil and natural gas industry’s position that towns and cities should not be able to ban fracking.
“I think he was pulled into that with the term local control, which is a magnet for Republican thoughts,” Hamm told the Journal.
“Donald Trump is pro-business. He is pro-energy and he is not going to shut down fracking or drilling or anything else,” Hamm said in a speech at the conference. “He is for this industry 100 percent.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/292456-adviser-defends-trump-on-fracking
-
RFA Hosting Ethanol Safety Seminars in Nebraska, Connecticut
Aug 23, 2016 | Ethanol Producer Magazine
By Renewable Fuels Association
The Renewable Fuels Association is hosting three free ethanol safety seminars this and next week in Nebraska and Connecticut.
Attendees will receive in-depth information on proper training techniques that emergency responders and hazmat personnel need to effectively respond to an ethanol-related emergency. Certificates of Completion will be handed out to all attendees at the end of each safety seminar.
The Nebraska seminar will be held on Saturday in Norfolk, from 9 a.m.–2 p.m. CT, at the Lifelong Learning Center, Rooms C & D. The seminar will be held with help from an Assistance for Local Emergency Response Training (ALERT) grant.
Additionally, there will be two seminars held in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, on Aug. 30, from 9 a.m.–2 p.m. ET and from 5:30–10 p.m. ET. The event, held at the Connecticut Fire Academy, will be held with a grant from TRANSCAER and the Federal Railroad Administration.
“Safety is our number one goal, and these ethanol seminars provide excellent training for first responders and others who wants to attend,” said Steve Kramer, interim fire coordinator at Western Tech in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. “As a previous ethanol safety seminar attendee, these events are well worth the time.”
The seminars are free to attend and open to the public. To register, visit www.rfa.traincaster.com.
http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/13643/rfa-hosting-ethanol-safety-seminars-in-nebraska-connecticut
-
Federal Railroad Agency Way Off-Track in Approach to Safety
Aug 24, 2016 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Patrick A. McLaughlin
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently announced that Amtrak and select railroads around the country would be awarded $25 million to help implement positive train control technology. Positive train control (PTC) — mandated by the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and subsequent regulations issued by the FRA — consists of adding GPS, computers and software to trains and railroad systems that automatically intervene to stop unsafe train movements. In theory, operator errors that lead to train collisions, derailments due to unsafe speeds or railway worker injuries would be a thing of the past, thanks to the automation of safety rule enforcement.
The idea of using automation to reduce accidents caused by human error has a proven track record across all modes of transportation. Nevertheless, the FRA recently proposed a rule requiring that train crews consist of at least two people, which largely ignores the potential safety gains from automation as well as investments in capital and maintenance. While it may be tempting to assume that two is always better than one, a more careful analysis of the historical causes of safety improvements in rail transportation indicates that track and equipment expenditures are much more important to safety than crew size.
The FRA's misguided and disjointed regulatory policy not only risks hindering further development of innovative technologies that can deliver greater safety, but it could also create a less-safe operating environment by deflecting scarce resources from known safety-enhancing uses like track maintenance to unproven uses.
Although one-person crews are currently relatively rare, the FRA believes that one-person crews are inherently more dangerous than two-person crews. In fact, the FRA believes this so fervently that it used the phrase "FRA believes" or "FRA further believes" at least 67 times in its documents proposing the new regulation. The problem, of course, is that regulating based on a belief does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes, such as improved safety, and the FRA offers no evidence to substantiate this belief.
Even worse, the proposed rule may not simply fail to achieve any improvements in safety; it may actually reduce safety and hinder the development of better, safer technology and equipment.
Still, it's easy to understand some of the FRA's logic. After all, why wouldn't two people create a safer train operation, when compared to just one? Why examine statistical evidence, when that would just slow down the implementation of a rule that is a self-evident win for safety?
Indeed, the FRA didn't let a little thing like data get in the way. As it noted in its proposed rule, the FRA "does not currently collect sufficient data related to the size of a train crew nor do accident reports investigations generally address the size of a crew in order for [the] FRA or any entity to definitively compare one-person operations to multiple person operations." The agency proposed the rule anyway, heedless of whether there was an issue in the first place or whether the new regulation might create unintended consequences that are even worse than the "solution" brought by the proposed rule.
There are several flaws with the FRA's approach: For one, consider the role of the human operator in other modes of transportation. Many decades ago, the introduction and widespread adoption of autopilot precipitated a 90 percent reduction in the pilot-attributable crash rate, according to a recentreport. Automobile safety has likewise improved because of the intelligent-driver technology introduced in recent years, such as lane-departure warnings, pedestrian detection and automatic emergency braking.
The advent of completely driverless cars offers even more promise, primarily by reducing human error — which, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, accounts for 94 percent of crashes. By cutting back on operator error, driverless cars could save as many as 21,700 lives and reduce the number of crashed by over 4 million annually, according to a study from the Eno Center for Transportation.
Similarly, railroad safety has dramatically improved over the past few decades. The total number of train accidents on the systems of the major freight railroads fell from over 11,000 in 1978 to 1,867 in 2013, even while revenue ton-miles — a metric of train usage — doubled. In a study that I recently published with my colleague Jerry Ellig, we found that most of this tremendous gain in safety is attributable to the removal of economic regulations that deterred investment in equipment and track and improvements in operational practices.
The demonstrably positive relationship between safety and investment in equipment and track maintenance raises the issue of unintended consequences. Any regulation — even a safety regulation — that deters investment in those areas that have driven the improvements in safety for decades could have the perverse effect of increasing the accident rate. By requiring a greater expenditure on labor (despite lacking any evidence that such expenditures would improve safety), the proposed rule could financially constrain some railroads from making other safety-improving investments.
As I wrote in a public interest comment filed with the agency:
Any credible estimation of the net effect of the proposed rule would need to consider losses to safety caused by an induced diminution of track and equipment maintenance or other safety-enhancing investments. Given the proven record of maintenance and infrastructure investments on safety rates ... this proposed rule may not only be ineffective in reducing accident rates, but it may also actually increase the net accident rate.
The FRA's approach in proposing the train crew size rule exactly contradicts the logic of the most significant regulation issued by the FRA in decades: PTC. While PTC represents an effort to reduce human error by automating the enforcement of speed limits and other operational rules, the FRA's crew size rule could deter further automation.
Like auto accidents, most railroad accidents that occur these days are primarily caused by operators' mistakes or oversight. A regulation that permanently requires a minimum crew size of two — especially when there is no evidence that one-person crews are less safe — can only stand in the way of further reductions in accidents caused by human error.
McLaughlin is a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/transportation/292487-federal-railroad-agency-way-off-track-in-approach-to-safety
-
DOT Pushes Back on Pipeline Oversight Lawsuit
Aug 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Department of Transportation officials are pushing back on a lawsuit over pipeline safety, urging a federal court to throw out environmentalists' claims that the agency has let facilities go unregulated.
In legal filings this week, lawyers representing DOT asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to decide the environmental lawsuit in the government's favor, rejecting arguments that a regulatory gap exists for certain pipeline water crossings.
The National Wildlife Federation sued DOT last October, arguing that the agency requires worst-case spill response plans for pipelines on land, and the Department of the Interior requires similar plans for offshore pipelines, but no such requirement exists for pipeline crossings of rivers and other inland bodies of water.
According to DOT, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and its predecessor, the Research and Special Programs Administration, have always regulated both the land and water portions of inland pipelines. That interpretation of federal law, the agency says, is entitled to deference under the Chevron doctrine.
"RSPA and PHMSA have consistently interpreted this authority as extending to the entirety of a covered pipeline landward of the coast line, including any segments that cross navigable waters," DOT lawyers told the court. "This interpretation is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference."
The agency further argues that the environmentalists lack standing to sue on some of their claims, including the argument that the secretary himself, not PHMSA, should approve spill response plans, because they have not actually been harmed by the practice.
The legal tangle comes as oil pipelines attract growing attention and resistance across the country. The lawsuit is playing out in Michigan, where an Enbridge Energy Partners LP line in 2010 spilled 800,000 gallons of crude oil in the Kalamazoo River.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/24/stories/1060041961
-
EPA Increases Burden On States For Tracking Title V Air Permit Objections
Aug 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to increase the burden on states for tracking objections to Clean Air Act Title V permits by mandating that states provide written responses to comments on permits they issue under delegated air law authority and submit those records to the agency, which has ultimate power to approve or reject a state-issued permit.
In a proposed rule signed Aug. 15 and published in the Aug. 24 Federal Register, EPA aims to improve the process for protesting Title V "umbrella" operating permits incorporating all applicable air permitting requirements. Under the air law, the public may petition EPA to object to a state-issued Title V permit where the petitioners believe the permit is legally deficient.
Title V permits alone do not impose substantive new control requirements. But they list applicable substantive requirements such as those imposed by prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, so they are frequently targeted because of perceived failings in the underlying permits. The air law gives EPA 45 days to object to Title V permits, but if the agency fails to do so, the public may petition the agency to do so within 60 days.
Environmentalists and others filing such petitions have long complained that EPA is very slow in responding to their permit objections. The agency must by law respond to a petition within 60 days of receiving it, but often fails to do so, prompting many petitioners to file lawsuits seeking judicial deadlines for an answer.
EPA in its proposal is taking comment through Oct. 22 on a plan to require that permitting authorities, usually states, "prepare complete permit records that are consistent with the requirements" of the air law "by requiring them to respond in writing to significant comments received during the public comment period for draft [T]itle V permits."
States would also have to provide that response with the proposed Title V permit to EPA for review during the agency's statutory 45-day review period, according to an EPA fact sheet on the proposal. "This change is expected to provide more access to and better understanding of permitting decisions" for the agency and others, EPA says.
In the proposed rule, EPA says, "Permitting authorities and permitted sources are expected to benefit by early consultation with the appropriate EPA Regional Office when the permitting authority is preparing a permit to ensure it includes conditions that assure compliance with applicable requirements" under the air law and federal regulations. "These early actions should minimize potential permit deficiencies and reduce the associated likelihood that a petition will be submitted" on that permit.
Permit Notification
EPA also says that petitioners would benefit with the proposal through better notification of permits and review deadlines, for example through posting on the websites of EPA regional offices when the agency receives proposed permits and the corresponding 60-day deadline for submitting a petition.
Petitioners would also get better access to permitting decision information such as the permitting authority's written response to comments, EPA says.
"These updates will clarify the expected minimum content of petitions and provide a standardized format, simplifying the process and enhancing the likelihood that petitions will be clear and complete. In addition, potential petitioners may also derive a benefit from more efficient responses to petitions and a better understanding of the process," EPA says.
The proposal encourages -- but does not require -- use by petitioners of a standardized electronic format for submitting petitions.
It also mandates certain minimum requirements for the content of petitions, such as a description of exactly how petitioners believe the permit fails to meet applicable clean air law requirements. Petitioners must in their comments on a draft permit have raised with "reasonable specificity" the points they subsequently rely on in their petition to EPA.
With respect to petitioners raising objections to the PSD permits included in Title V permits, EPA notes that it generally defers to state permitting authorities on the PSD permits, unless the permit contradicts the terms of the state's own air regulations.
Not all the provisions included in the rule are formal regulatory requirements. Rather, some are "recommended practices" for permitting authorities and sources to help ensure Title V permits "have complete administrative records and are consistent with the requirements," EPA says in the fact sheet.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-increases-burden-states-tracking-title-v-air-permit-objections
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested