Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC praises Chemical Safety Act
Mar 12, 2015 | BioPrepWatch
Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), praised the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century Act and urged for the legislature to pass it on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Regulators, Industry Settle Biocides Dispute
Mar 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The American Chemistry Council has reached an agreement with the US EPA on the trade body's legal challenge over the recently updated data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Congress Bill Would Ban Microbeads in Personal Care Products
|
-
Boxer Introduces Her Own Chemical Reform Legislation
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
Displeased with legislation introduced earlier this week, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have drafted their own bill to reform the nation’s chemical laws. -
Boxer, Markey Release TSCA Bill
Mar 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Barbara Boxer and Sen. Ed Markey today released an alternative to a bipartisan plan that would update federal oversight of chemicals and not allow EPA to preempt California and other states’ toxics controls. -
OVERNIGHT REGULATION: Greens Push Back on Chemical Safety Overhaul
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill
By Lydia Wheeler and Tim Devaney
Welcome to OVERNIGHT REGULATION, your daily rundown of rules from Capitol Hill and beyond. It's Wednesday evening here in Washington and we're dying to see if the State Department releases Hillary Clinton's emails following the AP's lawsuit. -
Boxer, Markey Unveil Competing TSCA Bill
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today put forward a new bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which Boxer said would be more effective at protecting public health than separate legislation introduced this week by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.). -
Unlike Industry Bill, Boxer-Markey Bill Protects Health, Families
Mar 12, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh, Stabile Law Fellow and Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs
The two chemical safety “reform” bills introduced this week provide a clear choice for members of Congress. -
Weak Tea in a Chipped Cup
Mar 12, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
Yesterday, Senators Vitter and Udall unveiled their new chemical safety legislation. I desperately want to like the bill. -
Republican Leader Rolls out Plan to Overhaul Energy Laws
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
The chairman of Michigan's House Energy Policy Committee gave up the gavel for the witness chair yesterday morning as he testified in support of a package of energy bills that generated a wave of backlash after they were filed last week. -
CARB Chief Nichols Talks Power Plan Changes, 'Just Say No' Compliance Option
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - TV
What changes should U.S. EPA make to its Clean Power Plan proposal to add clarity and flexibility on multi-state and regional program options? -
GOP Pits Costs of EPA Crbon Rule Against Midwest Manufacturers
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Enerygwire
By Joel Kirkland
Two coal-dependent Midwestern states strongly criticized U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan at a Senate hearing yesterday, leaning heavily on the notion that it puts their manufacturing sectors at risk. -
NERC Report on Clean Power Plan Criticized for Conflicts of Interest
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Critics claim conflict of interest possibly clouded a North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) report warning against reliability risks from EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. -
EPA Proposes State Requirements for Meeting Fine Particle Limit
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA this week released its proposed requirements for state and local air agencies to comply with the 2012 fine particulate matter standard. -
Agriculture Sector Fears Adverse Impacts From Stricter EPA Ozone NAAQS
Mar 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
Agriculture industry officials are warning that EPA's proposal to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could create significant adverse impacts for the sector, saying a stricter limit could force states to weigh first-time limits on agricultural emissions of ozone-forming pollutants and other rural sources. -
House GOP Wants Changes to EPA Coal Ash Rule
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans released draft legislation that they said would add certainty to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) coal ash disposal regulation. -
Offshore Energy Means Savings and Stability
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Randall Luthi
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that American voters are incredibly smart and savvy. I know this after having spent decades in public service, both in our nation’s capital and in my beautiful home state of Wyoming.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC praises Chemical Safety Act
Mar 12, 2015 | BioPrepWatch
Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), praised the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century Act and urged for the legislature to pass it on Tuesday.
The bill was introduced by Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), and it provides an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that was passed in 1976.
“Stakeholders from [the] industry, environment, public health, civil justice and labor organizations have provided input over more than two years of negotiations, and this bill is the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation,” Dooley said. “Importantly, this legislation will offer the kind of predictability, consistency and certainty that manufacturers and the national marketplace need, while also strengthening oversight and providing consumers with more confidence in the safety of chemicals.”
The proposed bill aims to enhance protections for the public, ensuring chemicals that are used are safe to the public and environment. According to the announcement, this bill would be the first update to the original since its adoption.
The bill would subject new and current chemicals to go under Environmental Protection Agency review, and it would strengthen the regulatory practices and safety standards. The bill also allows private rights of action to continue.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Regulators, Industry Settle Biocides Dispute
Mar 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The American Chemistry Council has reached an agreement with the US EPA on the trade body's legal challenge over the recently updated data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides. According to the agreement, the agency must release for public consultation an index on use patterns for antimicrobial products, this year.
The revised Final Rule on Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides, published in 2013, fundamentally expanded the applicability of studies required for antimicrobial uses, and introduced 12 use patterns which determine the testing required for a product.
It requires the agency to establish a comprehensive list of the uses, and identify how each fits within the use patterns established by the rule. It does not provide, however, a timeline for publication, or require a public consultation period.
The settlement now says a proposal for a use site index shall be released for a 30-day public consultation period, within the next four months. It will be published within six months of the end of the comment period.
Meanwhile, the EPA and Food Drug Administration (FDA) have signed a long anticipated data-sharing agreement on how to coordinate their work on the approval of food contact biocidal products that fall under both agencies' jurisdictions.
Products that require clearance by both regulatory agencies are, for example, antimicrobial washes intended for use on hard food contact surfaces or fruits and vegetables. Currently, registering dually regulated products poses many challenges for stakeholders, who need to carefully analyse both sets of requirements to ensure compliance (BiocidesHub 2 October 2014).
The agreement, completed and signed on 5 March, takes the form of a memorandum of understanding, which allows the agencies to share confidential business information (CBI). This will make things a lot easier for both industry and the regulators, the EPA's Elizabeth Watkins told delegates at the annual antimicrobial workshop, in Washington DC.
The agencies are now also examining the dual regulation of antimicrobial treated medical devices. These might fall under both the EPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra), and the FDA's Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), depending on the type of product and claims being made. According to the FDA's Angela Krueger and the EPA's John Herbert, “both agencies recognise that there is a lack of clarity in the marketplace.”
Also at the workshop, the EPA gave an update on the first cycle of its registration review programme, which checks existing registrations for antimicrobial pesticides. The agency is about to issue the next batch of data call-ins (DCIs), which request information to address any concerns with regard to a substance's identity, composition, potential adverse effects and environmental fate, from the registrant. It expects to serve 17 DCIs this year, starting this spring, with those for:triclosan;terbuthylazine;fludioxonil;sodium pyrithione; andbis(trichloromethyl)sulfone.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Congress Bill Would Ban Microbeads in Personal Care Products
|
-
Boxer Introduces Her Own Chemical Reform Legislation
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
Displeased with legislation introduced earlier this week, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have drafted their own bill to reform the nation’s chemical laws.
The Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act unveiled Thursday requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act quickly to consider a ban on asbestos and maintains states’ rights to protect people from dangerous toxic chemicals. Environmentalists said the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced on Tuesday, failed to address those issues.
Lawmakers have long agreed there is a need to reform the Toxic Chemicals Control Act, which is widely viewed as a broken and unenforceable law, but the consensus ends there.
Though Udall and Vitter said they spent two years working with both environmentalists and industry groups to draft a bipartisan bill, the Environmental Working Group, backed by consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, claim the legislation was driven by the chemical industry.
"We invited them to the table and they turned us down," Udall's spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said Wednesday about EWG.
As for Boxer, she’s been one of the most vocal outliers of chemical policy reform since efforts to fix the law began.
“This bill addresses asbestos, children’s cancer, and other threats that toxic chemicals pose to our families, including cardiovascular disease, developmental disorders, respiratory disorders, neurological disorders, endocrine disruption, and many others,” she said in a statement of her legislation. “Our citizens deserve nothing less than a bill that protects them – not chemical companies.”
The bill is named after Alan Reinstein, who died in 2006 at the age of 66 from mesothelioma, a disease associated with exposure to asbestos; and Trevor Schaefer, a brain cancer survivor who was diagnosed with the disease 12 years ago at the age of 13.
-
Boxer, Markey Release TSCA Bill
Mar 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Barbara Boxer and Sen. Ed Markey today released an alternative to a bipartisan plan that would update federal oversight of chemicals and not allow EPA to preempt California and other states’ toxics controls.
Their bill updating the Toxic Substances Control Act — coming on the heels of Tuesday’sunveiling of a plan from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter — also would aim to toughen safety requirements under the 1976 law overseen by EPA, quicken safety reviews of chemicals and specifically define those particularly vulnerable to chemicals.
One of the major differences is that the Boxer and Markey bill would not allow EPA at all to preempt state actions or enforcement, a central sticking point they and some environmental and public health groups have with the Udall and Vitter plan.
“Our citizens deserve nothing less than a bill that protects them — not chemical companies,” Boxer said in a statement that echoes her contention in a recent New York Times article that the chemical industry had a strong hand in developing the Udall-Vitter proposal.
There are no cosponsors yet for her bill with Markey. Udall and Vitter — who have 15 original cosponsors, seven from each party — say their version has the best chance to update a law that all chemical companies, trial lawyers, environmental and public health groups agree needs to be updated. -
OVERNIGHT REGULATION: Greens Push Back on Chemical Safety Overhaul
Mar 11, 2015 | The Hill
By Lydia Wheeler and Tim Devaney
Welcome to OVERNIGHT REGULATION, your daily rundown of rules from Capitol Hill and beyond. It's Wednesday evening here in Washington and we're dying to see if the State Department releases Hillary Clinton's emails following the AP's lawsuit.
But here's what else is happening in Congress and the Obama administration because, you know, it can't all be about Hillary.
THE BIG STORY
Environmentalists are calling for a veto if the bill Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced this week to reform the nation's chemical laws makes it to the president's desk.
Environmental Working Group President and Co-founder Ken Cook said the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act of 2015 was created by the chemical industry.
The bill, which is likely to be the first environmental law to come out of Congress since 1996, aims to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA] of 1976, which is widely viewed as unenforceable.
But Cook said the new reform bill does little to protect the public from dangerous chemicals.
"With respect to public health this is Keystone on steroids," he said.
Celebrity advocate Erin Brockovich, who is best known for building a case against the California-based Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in 1993, is backing the group. During a media call Wednesday, Brockovich said the bill fails to make chemicals safer.
"I wouldn't even consider it in my opinion a TSCA bill," she said.
Though the bill's sponsors say it will balance state and federal regulations, EWG says the wording of the bill differs from what's being presented.
Cook said the legislation preempts states from taking action on any chemical that the EPA deems a high priority and begins to review, a safety assessment, which under the proposed law could take up to seven years. The public, he said, should be "very alarmed."
Udall called the bill a bipartisan compromise that was reached after two years spent working with both industry and environmental groups.
"We invited them to the table and they turned us
-
Boxer, Markey Unveil Competing TSCA Bill
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today put forward a new bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which Boxer said would be more effective at protecting public health than separate legislation introduced this week by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.).
The new bill -- named for Alan Reinstein, the husband of a prominent asbestos activist who died of mesothelioma, and Trevor Schaefer, a brain cancer survivor who now runs a children's cancer organization -- would contain a more stringent safety standard and require faster bans of asbestos and quicker chemical reviews than the competing bipartisan proposal from Udall and Vitter, Boxer and Markey said.
The Boxer-Markey bill also would not restrict states' ability to set stricter chemical restrictions, as the Udall-Vitter bill would do for future state rules.
"Our citizens deserve nothing less than a bill that protects them -- not chemical companies," Boxer said in a statement.
Boxer's bill is expected to offer a contrast with the Udall-Vitter proposal at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Though public health groups, some of which have been squeamish about provisions in the Udall-Vitter plan, are expected to support the Boxer-Markey bill, Republicans in Congress and industry groups have said the plan is unworkable (E&E Daily, March 12).
"Senator Boxer's proposal would be a clear win for public health and the environment," Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in a statement. He added that "it does not have a downside risk for public health because there aren't any rollbacks in it, and state governments remain free to use their authority to protect their citizens."
The Boxer-Markey bill also requires immediate EPA scrutiny of a class of chemicals known as persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, or PBTs; that EPA chemical assessments follow methodological recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences; and other protective measures.
"Our outdated and ineffective federal chemical law needs an update that protects today's children and every generation to follow," Markey said in a statement. "This legislation will preserve vital protections like a state's ability to clamp down on dangerous chemicals, while ensuring that known chemical threats to public health are acted on quickly."
Reinstein's wife, Linda, founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in 2004, two years before her husband's death. Schaefer was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of 13 in 2003 and later was a co-founder of the Trevor's Trek Foundation. Linda Reinstein was at the Capitol this week urging lawmakers to oppose the Udall-Vitter bill (E&E Daily, March 11).
Reinstein said this week that when her husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma, she was surprised to learn the federal government had not done more to reduce exposure to asbestos.
"Like most Americans, I was wrong -- I thought asbestos has been banned," Reinstein said.
The Udall-Vitter bill does not contain an accelerated review process for asbestos, but aides and groups that have worked on the bill have said the bill's safety standard would remove the legal barriers that previously stopped EPA from banning asbestos.
-
Unlike Industry Bill, Boxer-Markey Bill Protects Health, Families
Mar 12, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh, Stabile Law Fellow and Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs
The two chemical safety “reform” bills introduced this week provide a clear choice for members of Congress.
One bill, introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., would require that chemicals be safe, set clear deadlines, provide needed resources, preserve a role for the states and provide an expedited process to ban asbestos. The chemical industry-backed bill, introduced by Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and David Vitter, R-La., would not.
Here are the 10 key differences between the two bills:Boxer-Markey bill strengthens chemical safety reviews – Toxic industrial chemicals that end up in people’s bodies – and even contaminate babies before they are born – should be at least as safe as pesticides. The industry bill would retain the very weak “no unreasonable risk of harm” safety standard rather than the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard applied to pesticides on produce and to food additives. By contrast, the Boxer-Markey bill applies the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard.Boxer-Markey bill puts health first – The industry bill is at best ambiguous about whether the EPA must consider costs and benefits when determining whether a chemical poses a risk. While one section seems to exclude consideration of costs and benefits, the section that defines how the safety of chemicals will be regulated does require consideration of costs (Sec. 6(d)(4)). What’s more, the bill explicitly requires a cost-benefit analysis if industry wants one if EPA seeks to ban or phase out any chemical (Sec. 6(d)(5)(D)). The Boxer-Markey bill only requires that a cost-benefit analysis be part of the safety assessment if the effect on the economy is likely to exceed $100 million a year (Sec. 6(d)(6)(A)).Chemical spills included – The industry bill requires consideration of “reasonably foreseeable” chemical exposures, but there is no requirement for safety assessments of the exposures and risks that might result from a spill. About 10,000 tons of chemicals are spilled every year in the U.S. The industry bill also lacks explicit environmental justice protections for communities that bear the brunt of the harm from events such as last year’s West Virginia spill. The Boxer-Markey bill addresses this problem head-on by requiring consideration of “reasonably foreseeable but unintended exposure conditions from unplanned releases into the environment” –such as chemical spills.Boxer-Markey bill sets tough deadlines – The EPA estimates that roughly a thousand chemicals need immediate health and safety reviews. Under the industry bill, that process could take hundreds of years. It would give the EPA up to five years just to start safety reviews of 25 chemicals and would allow the agency up to seven years to assess each one. Under the Boxer bill, deadlines are much tougher. The EPA would have to start evaluating 75 chemicals within five years and would allow only up to six years for each one. In addition, the Boxer-Markey bill would require expedited safety reviews of asbestos and chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in our bodies.No pay-to-play for safety reviews – The industry bill would allow manufacturers to get expedited reviews of their favored chemicals for a fee, but it would not require expedited review of asbestos or extremely dangerous chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in people. There is no such pay-to-play provision in the Boxer-Markey bill. Boxer would only provide expedited consideration of asbestos and toxic chemicals that are persistent and build up in our bodies.Boxer-Markey bill regulates the chemical and the couch – Under the industry bill, EPA would have to clear the additional hurdle of showing that the public has “significant exposure” to a chemical in order to regulate a product that contains it, such as foam furniture laced with toxic flame retardants. The Boxer-Markey bill has no such provision.Boxer-Markey bill reforms judicial review – The industry bill would retain the “substantial evidence” standard for judicial review of EPA’s decisions on chemical safety– which confers an enormous advantage to industry in regulatory and judicial proceedings – rather than the “arbitrary and capricious” standard that strengthens EPA’s authority in nearly all other agency actions. In the Boxer-Markey bill, the standard for judicial review is “arbitrary and capricious,” which gives greater deference to the agency’s decisions.Boxer-Markey bill protects states’ power to act – Under the industry bill, states would be preempted from taking new actions to regulate any chemical the EPA has deemed “high priority” for a safety review, which could take seven years or more. What’s more, states would be blocked from adopting and co-enforcing EPA restrictions on chemicals. More importantly, states could be blocked from using their own clean air and water laws to restrict chemicals if their actions are deemed “inconsistent” with EPA’s. The industry proposal would make it effectively impossible for states get a waiver to set more protective standards than EPA’s. Even where there is no preemption, states would have to notify the EPA of proposed restrictions on a chemical. The Boxer-Markey bill preserves a role for states: No state actions would be preempted.Boxer-Markey bill provides necessary resources – Under the industry bill, companies would pay only minimal fees for safety reviews of new chemicals and required chemical inventory reporting. Industry would be required to generate only 25 percent of total program costs, up to a cap of $18 million. In combination with the absence of meaningful deadlines, EPA could take a century to review the thousand chemicals that need immediate attention. The Boxer-Markey bill would ensure that the chemical companies pay their fair share: Industry would be required to provide the funding necessary to do timely safety reviews.Asbestos – The industry bill does not mention asbestos and does not create an expedited process to review and presumably ban of a substance that still causes the deaths of more than 10,000 Americans every year. By contrast, the Boxer-Markey bill requires expedited review of asbestos and eliminates legal hurdles that blocked previous EPA efforts to ban asbestos.
-
Mar 12, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Andy Igrejas
Yesterday, Senators Vitter and Udall unveiled their new chemical safety legislation. I desperately want to like the bill. Our coalition came together to reform our chemical safety laws so that the substances that contribute to problems like cancer, birth defects, and learning disabilities could be identified and restricted. So that public health could be advanced.
Instead, we have a bill that takes a step or two forward, but 2 and a half or 3 steps back. I’m a pragmatist, so in these difficult political times I’m more than prepared to call a step forward “good enough for government work,” as the saying goes. But we’re not there yet. Let’s hope we get there.
The central claim of the bill’s proponents is that right now, the EPA can’t do “anything.” And under the bill at least they could do “something.” It sounds very pragmatic. But when you read the fine print, you see that some of what they’ll now be able to do is a little sketchy. And that states – currently doing quite a bit – will be scaled back significantly.
To their credit, the senators fixed some of the major flaws in their original bill and addressed a core problem in TSCA. The two key legal problems in the original law -that prevented EPA from even regulating asbestos – have been removed. The EPA will now be able to evaluate chemicals against a health-based safety standard. The standard requires that they protect vulnerable populations that may be more exposed to a chemical (like the community near a factory) or more susceptible to a chemical, like a pregnant woman or child. So far, so good.
They didn’t require the EPA to follow the guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics and National Academy of Sciences on the issue of “aggregate exposure.” That’s not so good. In plain English “aggregate exposure” means that the EPA would have to add up the different sources of exposure to a toxic chemical that a person experiences in the real world. However, in the bill at least they require EPA to describe on the record, with opportunity for public input, exactly how they deal with the exposures for each chemical.
At the end of these assessments – which take three years – EPA will decide whether the chemical is safe as currently used or not. If not, the EPA has two years to devise appropriate restrictions to ensure safety. (Either deadline can be extended for a combined two years.)
Great! So how many of these assessments will EPA do?Cue the sad trombones.
The bill says EPA must list 10 chemicals in the first year, 10 more three years later, and 5 more two years after that, creating a review pipeline of 25 chemicals. New chemicals would be added to the pipeline only when the work on those was finished. Under the deadlines imposed by the bill that means EPA would have evaluated – and potentially restricted – 10 chemicals at the end of five years (or 7 years with the extensions). This represents only a slight increase in the pace of EPA assessments compared to right now.
But wait! These are just minimums, right? EPA can do a lot more if it wants to, right?
Not really. The way EPA budgeting works in practice, minimums become maximums. When EPA goes before the Office of Management and Budget or Congressional appropriators, especially in a time of scarcity, it only gets money for things it is required to do. This slow pace is likely to be all we get.
But wait! The bill authorizes fees, doesn’t it? That’s “something,” right?
True, the bill authorizes EPA to collect fees from the chemical industry for the program, but the overall fees are capped at $18 million or 25% of the program. It’s an increase, sure, but a small one. In agency budget terms, it’s the equivalent of your grandmother putting $5 in your birthday card. But Gina McCarthy won’t even be able to go out and buy an ice cream cone with this extra money, let alone assess many more chemicals. That’s because the bill also puts new work on the agency that isn’t about getting started on chemicals. For example, they will have to re-justify prioritizing the 90 chemicals they’ve already prioritized and develop new policies on testing. That will eat up some staff hours and money.
Keep in mind there are 84,000 chemicals on the TSCA “inventory.” Likely half of them are actually “in commerce” and an uncertain number, but certainly thousands, have risks associated with them that make a safety assessment urgent and necessary.
So that’s the “Weak Tea” part. If we stopped there, the bill would just be Meh. It would be better, arguably, because EPA could at least restrict some chemicals, but very few and not very soon. Still, you could ask, how is it actuallybad? What are the chips in the cup?
This is where it gets interesting.
Politically, it is taken as a truism in Washington that in exchange for even “meh” reform, the chemical industry has to “get something” in return. That was OK by me as long as the something was the imprimatur of safety for a chemical that was actually reviewed for safety and restricted accordingly.
A major innovation of the Vitter-Udall legislation from the beginning was that reform should be as much about the chemicals that EPA decides not to assess as it is about the ones they do. These chemicals don’t get the treatment I described earlier. Instead, EPA declares them “low-priority” based on a finding that the chemical is “likely to meet” the safety standard. What does that mean? Nobody knows.
A low-priority designation is a new form of pro-active non-assessment. It is effectively a hall pass for the chemical; a declaration that EPA will not review the chemical so it is therefore free to roam the economy and potentially your home without any restrictions. All on the back of “likely to.” This distinction, which confers many of the benefits of being declared “safe” but without a thorough safety evaluation, is likely to be coveted by chemical companies. Once they get it, they can tell other companies like Walmart and Target – who are increasingly demanding safety information about chemicals in products – to back off. EPA says it’s a “low priority” and they’re the experts.
Unlike last year’s version of Vitter-Udall, this year’s requires EPA to designate as many low-priority chemicals upfront as it does high priority ones (the ones that get the safety evaluation). The goal of providing the chemical industry with a hall pass to the marketplace now shares equal billing with the goal of identifying and restricting the chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects.
Public health groups have made the modest proposal that since industry will be able to sue over EPA decisions to declare a chemical unsafe, or over EPA’s choice of restrictions, the public should be able to get a court to review the quality of these hall passes. Make sure nothing dangerous gets a free ride. The response has been “no.” It’s a “deal-killer” for industry. Apparently, whoever it is that knows what “likely to” means must have big plans for this part of the bill. Sounds sketchy to me.
Also in the sketchy department are two provisions that make it harder for EPA to regulate chemicals in products. One of these is new to this year’s bill: once a chemical flunked a safety assessment, the EPA could not go ahead and impose limitations on the chemical in a product, like a toy or couch cushion, without an additional burden of proof. They would have to make a second legal finding that the product presented a “significant source of exposure.” That may sound reasonable, but when you think about how a single chemical may be used in dozens of products, you’re talking about a significant new legal hurdle EPA will have to clear to get at the problem –a bad chemical in a product you use- that most people are worried about.
Also, if that toy or baby bottle is made in China – as most are – the EPA will now have a harder time intercepting it when it contains a toxic chemical, because the bill weakens EPA’s authority over imported products. Again,sketchy.
But the biggest “get” for the chemical industry by far is the bill’s restriction on state governments, called “preemption” in legal terms. In response to criticism, Senators Vitter and Udall have now “grandfathered” – or protected from preemption – state actions on chemicals that took place before January 1 of this year. In fairness, that is a meaningful concession as those state actions are a big part of what’s driven the chemical industry to the table for federal reform.But what about the future?
Under current law, no state is preempted until and unless EPA actually imposes its own restrictions on the chemical. The bill moves that date up to the point where EPA puts the chemical on its “to do” list for a safety review and specifies the scope of the review. As you now know, that process could take up to 7 years before any restrictions are imposed by the EPA. The new gap in time presents what the California Attorney General has called a “regulatory void” where the public is protected by no one. Furthermore, with state action frozen, the affected chemical company or trade association will have every incentive to obstruct the EPA review with all the tools at their disposal: lawsuits, getting the White House political people to pressure EPA, or slipping “riders” into the appropriations bill prohibiting EPA from finalizing a particular restriction. This well-thumbed playbook has been used quite a bit in recent years.
The modest proposal of public health groups is that preemption should only occur when and if EPA actuallyimposes restrictions on a chemical. That would keep everyone honest and create a disincentive for obstruction.
The bill also takes the bold step of prohibiting states from enforcing restrictions that are identical to federal restrictions. This is a concept known as co-enforcement and it is explicitly allowed in current law. It plays a big role in environmental and consumer protection policy generally, and for some laws, most of the enforcement occurs at the state level. EPA just doesn’t have a lot of resources (see above). I have not heard anyone offer up a persuasive argument for this weakening of current law. It’s just a blatant attempt to reduce enforcement under the new program. The prohibition has to go.
I’ve not done an exhaustive review of the entire bill in this blog, but these are the highlights as I see them. You could point to a few more positive things, but also a few more negative things too. The overall point is: the limited good this bill does right now does not justify or outweigh the bad.
Senators need to at least excise the sketchy bits from the bill and restore states’ existing authority under TSCA to bring the Vitter-Udall legislation to the point where it does no harm and maybe some good. After that, consider increasing the fees, jacking up the schedule, and expediting action on the known worst chemicals, like those that build up in the food chain. Then we’d be getting into genuine moderate achievement territory.
But we’re not there yet. If senators don’t take the substance of this debate seriously going forward we may not get there at all.
-
Republican Leader Rolls out Plan to Overhaul Energy Laws
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
The chairman of Michigan's House Energy Policy Committee gave up the gavel for the witness chair yesterday morning as he testified in support of a package of energy bills that generated a wave of backlash after they were filed last week.
"I think we need to be more proactive as a state dealing with our energy issues, and I really do believe we are at a crossroads," said Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R) as he introduced a package of eight bills that would overhaul Michigan's existing energy laws.
Among the changes: The legislative proposal would undo Michigan's hybrid electric choice law that allows up to 10 percent of utilities' retail electric load to purchase energy from an alternative supplier. It would also eliminate the state's renewable energy and energy efficiency standards and widen the definition of renewable energy to include electricity generated from burning scrap tires and other municipal waste.
The bills stand in stark contrast to a plan introduced last week by Michigan Democrats to up the state's renewable energy standard to 20 percent by 2022, raise the energy efficiency standard to 2 percent a year, and establish a long-term plan to unite the Upper and Lower peninsulas to make the state a single energy market.
Even before last year's Clean Power Plan proposal by U.S. EPA, which will factor into any legislative debate, this year was expected to be a pivotal one for energy policy in Michigan.
By the end of the year, utilities will have fully complied with the state's 10 percent renewable standard, and debate continues over whether to abolish or expand Michigan's hybrid electric choice law.
Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is expected to deliver a special message on energy later this month (EnergyWire, Jan. 22). And Republican Sen. Mike Nofs, chairman of the Senate Energy and Technology Committee, is also preparing energy legislation.
Questioned about his position on electric competition, Nesbitt testified that he's sympathetic to free-market arguments for retail choice. But over the last 18 months, he's become convinced that full rate regulation is the best way to ensure reliability in the face of expected coal plant shutdowns in the next year and a half.
The Midcontinent Independent System Operator testified before the committee last week that the Lower Peninsula could face a 3-gigawatt shortfall in generation capacity as soon as 2016, and Nesbitt believes a fully regulated electric market is the best path to ensuring reliability.
But proponents of retail choice -- including Energy Choice Now, a coalition of small businesses across the state -- said a return to full rate regulation would lead to higher energy costs for more than 11,000 utility consumers, including businesses and many school districts that switched energy providers.
Mary Beth Rogers, executive director of business services for Clarkston Community Schools, was the only other witness to testify yesterday. She said the school district of 8,100 students northwest of Detroit is saving $350,000 a year on its electricity bill through an alternative supplier. Being forced back to incumbent DTE Electric would come at a high cost -- teacher jobs.
"If we had to go back to regular rates ... we're looking at 5½ teachers being cut in our district," she said.No more 'cookie-cutter mandates'
The energy package proposed by Nesbitt and other House Republicans would also eliminate Michigan's 2008 renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements and instead rely on integrated resource planning to determine the most cost-effective resource to meet demand.
Nesbitt called the IRP process a "holistic" solution to the state's energy needs and said "cookie-cutter mandates need to be a thing of the past."
The bill to repeal Michigan's renewable and energy efficiency requirements was met with swift and harsh criticism from environmental groups and clean energy advocates who pointed out that the build-out of wind power in Michigan has generated thousands of new jobs while having little effect on electric rates.
A report by the Michigan Public Service Commission also showed energy efficiency programs saved consumers $3.75 for every dollar spent.
Even Snyder, a moderate Republican, has voiced support for energy efficiency and transitioning the state away from coal.
In his most recent State of the State address, Snyder said his energy plan would place an emphasis on "eliminating energy waste" and increased reliance on natural gas and renewables.
-
CARB Chief Nichols Talks Power Plan Changes, 'Just Say No' Compliance Option
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - TV
What changes should U.S. EPA make to its Clean Power Plan proposal to add clarity and flexibility on multi-state and regional program options? During today's OnPoint, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, discusses expected changes to the power plan as the agency prepares its final proposal. Nichols also responds to the growing momentum surrounding the "just say no" option for state compliance.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. Chairwoman Nichols, thank you for joining me.
Mary Nichols: It's a pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: You're in town to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with other state officials.
Mary Nichols: Correct.
Monica Trauzzi: On the subject of EPA's Clean Power Plan. California Gov. Brown recently said that on climate policy California is a separate nation. Why is California's story so important then to other states as they craft their compliance plans for the Clean Power Plan, since your story's been pretty disconnected from what many of the other states in the country have been doing?
Mary Nichols: Well, actually we're not that dissimilar from other states. We are the only state that has a comprehensive climate plan with a cap and a target, which is similar to the Kyoto treaty requirements. So by law, California is on a path to return our admissions to 1990 levels by 2020. And we've been on that path since 2007, when Gov. Schwarzenegger first signed the law. But I think one of the things that that governor was referring to is our history of having dealt with air pollution successfully in the past. Not that we've eradicated it, but anybody who visited California in the '50s or '60s, or even the '70s, knows that you couldn't see the mountains on most days. We had many smog alerts. Days when children couldn't play outdoors. And we were able to really change that entire situation as a result of a very aggressive and successful program that regulated fuels, and vehicles, and power plants primarily.
And so the fact that we have this history of having worked with some of the same sources that are now being targeted for further action for global warming I think is the thing that gives us a position where internationally California is recognized as a leader, and we are being looked to by countries like China and India as a resource.
Monica Trauzzi: Many states are grappling with the question of how to comply with the Clean Power Plan. Others are questioning whether they even should. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently urged states not to prepare implementation plans. Is there truth to his contention that states could face legal challenges resulting from their compliance with the power plan?
Mary Nichols: Well, I would hesitate to say ever to somebody that they couldn't be challenged in court, because you can be sued by anybody. The question is are they going to succeed, and are they going to block this program? And I think the answer to that is no. And I think it's very bad advice and frankly, I think most states are not going to follow it. Even states that have governors and legislatures that are vehemently opposed to climate action are going to recognize and already are in many cases, working to figure out pragmatic ways that they can comply.
Look, the Clean Air Act has been the law of this country for a very long time, and states have been required to file plans with EPA to meet the clean air standards, and with occasional issues and a little bit of backsliding from time to time, the reality is that all the states in this country have made tremendous progress towards cleaning up their air and making it healthier for their citizens. They all have programs for dealing with their energy systems. They have different configurations, but they all have public utilities commissions, they all have energy planning agencies as well as their environmental agencies. And these entities are going to get together and they're going to figure out the most practical and cost effective way for their states to comply.
Monica Trauzzi: I recently interviewed Georgia PSC Commissioner Tim Echols, and he said his state is not yet working on compliance measures. What's your take on those states that are sort of taking the wait-and-see approach until there's a final rule available?
Mary Nichols: Well, I wouldn't contradict him in terms of what his own state is doing, because I don't know, but Georgia for years has had a very effective and active program on the environmental side dealing with clean air requirements. I think one of the problems that we're seeing is that the new thing about this EPA Clean Power Plan is that it's putting EPA agencies, that is the air agencies in most states, in a position where they have the lead in complying with something that their public utility commissions have traditionally thought was their turf. And so individual states are going to have to work that one out.
Monica Trauzzi: Regional plans and linking have been sold by the agency as key tools for state success. What conversations has California had with other states about linking?
Mary Nichols: We've been very active in two different arenas. One is the Pacific Coast Collaborative which is an organization that's actually existed for years for Washington, Oregon, California of course, and British Columbia to work together on issues of common concern. And the four governors of those entities have an agreement working together to try to figure out how to do a common carbon pricing program, and also to work on other climate related issues. We've done a lot on zero-emission vehicles, plug-in vehicles together. Oregon just adopted a low carbon fuel standard like California's, and we will be talking to them about how to implement the Clean Power Plan.
We've also been active participants with all the Western states in a conversation that's been hosted by Gov. Ritter at the center that he runs in Colorado, Colorado State University. And that has been working-level bureaucrats digging in to talk about some of their common issues and concerns. We signed a joint letter, all of us to EPA, asking for areas where we felt there was a need for more flexibility and more certainty about the regulation. So that was a first step showing that these states could actually do something irregardless of whether we're red states or blue states, and whether we think we will have a lot of renewables or not, et cetera.
So I think it was a start, but of course, talking about markets, and trading and so forth, it's a very touchy subject, and everybody's proceeding very carefully to try to look at the modeling, looking at their own economic analyses, and try to figure out what kind of a plan is going to work best for them.
Monica Trauzzi: And what changes are you expecting from the agency as they prepare to release their final rule?
Mary Nichols: Well, I think they've been pretty clear on some of the things that they're planning to do. They're planning to make it clear that the four pillars or building blocks there don't all have to be included in the state plans. That these are more or less guidance of things that could be in the plans as opposed to boxes that will have to be checked. I think they're going to be clear about the degree of flexibility that states have to submit a plan which encompasses their whole energy regulatory system without having to make that system federally enforceable. So basically something that's more of a this is how we comply with backup rather than here it all is, now you take it over. I don't think EPA wants to do that anyway, but they can't even be in a position where anyone might think that they could bring a suit against EPA to force them to cite a solar plant in California, for example. That would not be acceptable to us or any other state I'm sure.
And then on the plans that we want to work on jointly, I think they're going to make it clearer and easier for states to collaborate across state lines without necessarily having to sign up for some big common market kind of regional plan.
Monica Trauzzi: And beyond the regional plan that California is involved in, how is your compliance plan shaping up?
Mary Nichols: Well, we're going to have to file a plan obviously, just like everybody else, and we've taken a hard look at some of the issues we think that our cap-and-trade plan plus our existing power plant requirements and our energy efficiency programs will satisfy the requirements of the rule. But we're going to have to go through the process and dot all the i's and cross the t's just like everybody else.
Monica Trauzzi: A congressional question for you. Sen. Boxer has announced that she won't be seeking re-election.
Mary Nichols: Yes.
Monica Trauzzi: How do you think her departure could shift the dynamic of the conversation on climate in the Senate?
Mary Nichols: Well, she certainly has been a fierce champion on the issue, and we will miss her greatly. She's been a real leader as well as somebody that we look to as an office that we could go to whenever we were in town. I think though that from what I've seen, there's now a pretty solid group of senators who are very interested in climate. I met today in addition with Sen. Boxer, with Sen. Whitehouse, who clearly is very knowledgeable and very determined, and is thinking very strategically about these issues. And you know, there's quite a number of other senators who are also part of that group, so I think they're going to keep the issue alive. More than alive. I think they're going to keep pushing to find ways that they can make progress. But right now, what's on the plate is the administration's action on power plants, and we need to make sure that they finish that.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Thank you very much.
Mary Nichols: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: Nice to see you.
Mary Nichols: Pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
GOP Pits Costs of EPA Crbon Rule Against Midwest Manufacturers
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Enerygwire
By Joel Kirkland
Two coal-dependent Midwestern states strongly criticized U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan at a Senate hearing yesterday, leaning heavily on the notion that it puts their manufacturing sectors at risk.
"If the issues in the Clean Power Plan are not remedied, the work Wisconsin has done to restore our manufacturing sector will be threatened," said Ellen Nowak, chairwoman of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Nowak joined energy and air regulators from Indiana, California, New York and Wyoming to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It's the committee's second hearing examining EPA's proposed carbon dioxide emissions rule aimed at the power sector since Republicans took control of the Senate in January.
The proposal under the Clean Air Act is the White House's marquee policy initiative to combat greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Power Plan, as the administration calls it, requires each state to come up with a plan for hitting emissions targets set by the agency. The proposal is designed to slash U.S. emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The plan has come under intense scrutiny from GOP-led states across the Midwest and Southeast. In states reliant on coal for between 60 percent and 90 percent of their power generation, the potential effect on heavy industry is one theme emerging in the political fight over carbon. Pain associated with rising energy costs for Rust Belt manufacturers was also a dominant message in 2009, when House Democrats passed a cap-and-trade bill designed to ratchet down carbon emissions and finance energy technologies.
E&E's Power Plan Hub keeps you up to date on the latest national and state-level developments on EPA's greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector. Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub.
Coal has been cheap. But keeping coal burning in 50-year-old power plants no longer guarantees cheap electricity rates in the way that it once did. Complying with regulations around conventional toxic air pollution is gradually pushing up costs for coal-fired generation, a heavy emitter. Competition from natural gas has also bitten into coal's low-cost advantage.
Energy-intensive factories used to gobbling up coal power are seeing costs rise. Indiana and Wisconsin officials said a carbon mandate would make that worse.
In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence (R) is putting together a comprehensive energy plan, and he's opposed to the Clean Power Plan. Testifying before the Senate committee, Thomas Easterly, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, called his state "the most manufacturing intensive state in the U.S."
"This proposal will cause significant harm to Hoosiers -- and most residents of the U.S. -- without providing any measurable offsetting benefits," Easterly asserted. "Under this proposal, the total cost of the products produced in the U.S. will need to increase, eroding our international competitiveness and resulting in the loss of manufacturing jobs."
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, anticipated that line of argument. She acknowledged that costs will be incurred to comply with ozone and carbon regulations, but took issue early on in the Senate hearing with assertions that burning less coal and integrating cleaner fuels is an economic loser.
California is on track to meet one-third of its energy needs through renewable resources by 2020, she noted. "As our carbon market has gone into operation, jobs grew by 3.3 percent, outpacing the rest of the country," she told the senators.Political pingpong
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested that a switch from dependence on one fuel (coal in many cases) to another fuel isn't desirable. Natural gas is replacing coal at power plants across the country because it burns more cleanly and emits half the carbon.
"I am of the belief that if you become too dependent on one source of power, you don't have the competition to keep costs down," Sessions said.
"The unifying issue that we can all agree on is a healthier environment, things that make people sick and kill trees. I think we can do better. In the course of that, we'll have a benefit on CO2 emissions," he said. "But I'm not about to press on my constituents billions and billions of dollars of costs on the CO2 issue."
Panelists before the Senate committee touched on issues around how to credit states in the Great Plains and West for the wind generation they ship to California and the Midwest. Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a critic, and Tom Carper (D-Del.), a supporter of cutting carbon, urged EPA to sort out questions around that. Under the plan, credits for emissions reductions are attached to electricity consumption, not production.
For the most part, the hearing yesterday stayed out of the weeds of complying with the proposed Clean Air Act Section 111(d) rule. Compliance is expected to take on many forms, including possibly regional schemes that impose a "carbon price" of sorts on electricity dispatched across a regional grid. Air and utility regulators in red and blue states are actively (and quietly) working with EPA on the ins and outs of compliance.
Cost appears to be the political pingpong ball right now.
"There's been a trend over decades for the cost per unit of electricity to go up," said Nichols, a former top EPA official who helped design the acid rain emissions trading program. "But what we think is important is the bill, what the customer actually sees. And on that we're holding steady."
California was among the first states to decouple its utilities, a regulatory design that splits electricity sales from utility profits. Utilities are incentivized to encourage energy savings. In many states reliant on coal, investor-owned utilities and cooperatives with aging infrastructure are encouraged to generate as much electricity as possible, not save or invest in cleaner fuels.
That's changing in states where there are renewable energy portfolios and efficiency standards, but progress on that front has been halting.
New York utility regulators are in the process of rewriting regulations to incentivize distributed generation instead of centralized power plants.
"It's been our experience that you can reduce carbon emissions and also keep electricity prices down," said Michael Myers, environmental section chief in the New York attorney general's office.
"It seems to me that mandates, regulations that drive up costs are the same as raising taxes and having the government do it," said Sessions of Alabama.
Wisconsin's Nowak also reiterated that there has to be more clarity around renewable energy investments. That includes how to credit states that "own renewable generation in another state or purchase such generation to claim credit for that energy."
Modeling by the state's Public Service Commission showed that fuel switching, renewable deployment and efficiency measures would get the Wisconsin power sector to a 15.6 percent carbon reduction.
That's "a far cry from the 34 percent the EPA claims is attainable for Wisconsin," she said.
-
NERC Report on Clean Power Plan Criticized for Conflicts of Interest
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Critics claim conflict of interest possibly clouded a North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) report warning against reliability risks from EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan.
The November NERC report said implementing the CPP plan could hurt the grid's stability and increase blackout risks. Ohio and Indiana officials have cited the report as they oppose the proposed plan. Now the Energy and Policy Institute has alleged conflict of interest against the energy consultant company Energy Ventures Analysis, who worked on the NERC report, citing ties to a coal technology company.
Relying in part on EVA's work to project potential impacts on coal plants, the report didn't disclose the company's ties with Clearstack LLC, which focuses on "clean coal technology." Critics said NERC should have unveiled that relationship, noting that if CCP is weakened, coal plants have a better chance of staying open.
However, there are no allegations of any illegal activity on EVA's part and, as an energy consultancy company, would be expected to host an assortment of energy companies as their clientele.
NERC's spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said the agency wouldn't answer questions about a specific contractor but added that NERC fully vetted EVA before writing the report.
"NERC manages, directs and oversees the development of all its projects and assessments, including those requiring the use of contractors. NERC thoroughly reviews and validates all information used in its reliability assessments, including information obtained from industry, from a contracted source or other entities/resources," Mielcarek said.
Still, critics call for more transparency and worry that EVA's contribution to ongoing reports could cramp NERC's reliability.
"Does NERC know about a conflict of interest with EVA?" said Matt Kasper, from the Energy and Policy Institute. "And if so, when did they know it?"
Meanwhile, NERC plans to forge ahead with additional reports regarding the CPP (Kathiann M. Kowalski, Midwest Energy News, March 10). -- KS
-
EPA Proposes State Requirements for Meeting Fine Particle Limit
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
U.S. EPA this week released its proposed requirements for state and local air agencies to comply with the 2012 fine particulate matter standard.
The proposed rule contains deadlines for states to submit pollution cleanup plans for areas that are out of compliance with the standard; control strategy and emission inventory requirements; and provisions for how air agencies should demonstrate progress.
EPA's proposal also includes updated requirements for construction permits for new or modified sources of pollution in areas that are not meeting the standard.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the proposed rule Tuesday; it will be published soon in the Federal Register, where it will be subject to a public comment period. EPA said that it plans to hold one public hearing on the proposal in Washington, D.C.
Fine particulate matter refers to particles that are one-thirtieth the width of a human hair. Fine particles are linked to adverse health effects such as premature mortality and aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
In December 2012, EPA tightened the annual fine particulate matter standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 micrograms per cubic meter based on a review of public health science.
"Estimates show that attainment of the primary PM2.5 standards will result in hundreds fewer premature deaths each year, prevent tens of thousands of hospital admissions each year and prevent hundreds of thousands of doctor visits, absences from work and school and respiratory illnesses in children annually," EPA said in its proposed rule this week.
Late last year, the agency finalized a list of 14 areas in six states that do not meet the tighter standard (E&ENews PM, Dec. 18, 2014).
Under the Clean Air Act, states with areas out of compliance with the standard must develop and put into place state implementation plans (SIPs) to bring down fine particulate matter levels. EPA's proposal this week lays out the SIP process.
According to the proposal, states with areas in "moderate" nonattainment with the standard would have until October 2016 to submit plans and face a December 2021 date for coming into compliance. Areas of the country with worse fine particle pollution would get longer time frames.
EPA also proposed compliance options for areas to show that typical fine particle precursors do not contribute significantly to their fine particulate matter problems.
As part of the proposed rule, EPA is planning to revoke the 1997 annual fine particulate matter standard for regulatory purposes. The rule would replace EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 standard, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revoked in 2013 in a challenge brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
-
Agriculture Sector Fears Adverse Impacts From Stricter EPA Ozone NAAQS
Mar 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Lea Radick
Agriculture industry officials are warning that EPA's proposal to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) could create significant adverse impacts for the sector, saying a stricter limit could force states to weigh first-time limits on agricultural emissions of ozone-forming pollutants and other rural sources.
If EPA finalizes its plan to tighten the 2008 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to between 65 and 70 ppb, it could expand the number of areas deemed out of attainment with the limit, including placing several non-urban areas in nonattainment for the first time. Those areas must craft state implementation plans (SIPs) that impose controls on sources of air pollutants that lead to ozone formation in order to cut emissions and meet the NAAQS.
Under the existing ozone limit few, if any, SIPs have placed sweeping controls on agricultural operations as they tend to be located in rural areas currently deemed in attainment.
"The vast majority of states have not required the agriculture industry to take any actions that require emissions reductions, instead focusing their efforts on reducing emissions of the pollutants that form ozone from sources such as industrial processes and consumer products," according to an EPA fact sheet on the proposed NAAQS revision, which the agency is taking public comment on through March 17.
But Andrew Walmsley, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), said in a recent interview with Inside EPA that the agency's proposed stricter ozone NAAQS has the potential to adversely impact "lots of rural areas" through new air pollution controls.
If EPA finalizes a more-stringent ozone standard, then states could begin to regulate various sources of emissions from the agriculture industry, particularly so on the "combustion side of things," he said.
Combustion sources in the sector include prescribed burning of fields, and the use of older diesel irrigation engines, which could affect the frequency with which farmers plow their fields. "I know older diesel engines will probably be targeted for retrofit or upgrades," Walmsley said in the Feb. 20 interview.
He also suggested that targeting of specific agriculture-related pollutants such as ammonia -- either under the ozone NAAQS or a new standard -- "is on the table," if EPA proceeds with finalizing its proposal.
Environmental groups have filed several lawsuits seeking to force EPA to issue first-time Clean Air Act rules for concentrated animal feeding operations. Walmsley said he is concerned that the suits, if successful, could force the agency to "rush into judgment" by listing ammonia as a criteria pollutant subject to a NAAQS as called for in one of the suits. This could have a "negative detriment to agriculture," he warned.
AFBF is in the process of "trying to educate" its members about the proposed ozone standard and it plans to convey its concerns in pending written comments on the rule.
Ozone Proposal
Walmsley said that the agriculture industry "[doesn't] see value in lowering either standard," and that it wants to see how the 2008 standard "plays out; let that be implemented." The industry has "concerns about the wide swathe of rural areas that would be in nonattainment under a lower standard," he added.
Another agricultural industry officials expressed concern about the potential that rural areas would be unable to attain a stricter NAAQS -- even with controls on the sector's emissions -- due to background ozone levels.
Background ozone is formed by natural sources, such as wildfires and intrusion from stratospheric ozone -- high altitude ozone that offers protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays -- as well as transport of man-made ozone or ozone-forming pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from overseas. It is a major concern for states that would be able to attain a stricter ozone standard but for that level of natural ozone.
"It is concerning," the source says, particularly in Western states that have "high ambient levels of ozone" and deal with issues such as the controlled burning of forests, which contributes to "background" ozone.
The source says that wheat industry officials are concerned that states crafting ozone SIPs could seek to cut ozone forming emissions from a management practice some wheat growers employ of burning the "stubble" that remains on fields after wheat and other grains have been harvested.
However, a second agriculture industry source says the proposed ozone standard "doesn't really impact us at all." The source has greater concerns about the agency's pending review of its particulate matter (PM) NAAQS, which could potentially trigger new state limits on agriculture sector sources of PM.
With regard to ozone, the source says most nonattainment areas are "by and large going to be heavily populated urban areas or areas with major highway interchanges . . . based on how ozone is formed," adding that "for the most part," ozone does not occur in rural areas with "lots of agriculture."
A spokesman for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association writes in an email that the group has not filed comments on the proposed ozone NAAQS and that it does not have "specific policy" on it. "Our initial analysis indicates that these standards do not establish emissions control requirements for agriculture," he said.
Agricultural Impacts
EPA's top agricultural official is also suggesting that the agency has not focused heavily on the proposal's impact on agriculture. At a Jan. 21 meeting of the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC) in Arlington, VA, Ron Carleton, agricultural counselor to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Inside EPA that he has not yet focused on the ozone standard, given his relative newness to the position. Previously the deputy commissioner of agriculture in Colorado, Carleton began his role as agricultural counselor to the administrator Jan. 5.
"I think we can't say much this point. We're going to take a look at it and have conversations with [agriculture] stakeholders to get a sense if they see any potential problems for them," Carleton said.
The FRRCC provides policy advice, information and recommendations to the EPA administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
Since issuing the proposal in late November, EPA has met with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agriculture Air Quality Task Force at an in-person meeting in December, and with Region 7 and 8 state air directors and agriculture commissioners by teleconference, also in December, according to an EPA spokeswoman. EPA also spoke to the National Wheat Growers Association by teleconference Jan. 29, the spokeswoman says.
While it remains unclear what, if anything, states may require of the agriculture industry if EPA lowers the standard, California is one state that is already targeting the agriculture industry to lower its emissions.
For example, some nonattainment areas are addressing ozone-forming emissions from agriculture by incorporating conservation management practices developed with growers and the USDA into SIPs, such as spray application technologies and limiting combustion emission from engines by combining or reducing tillage operations to reduce the number of passes through a field to reduce nitrogen oxides NOx and VOCs, according to the EPA fact sheet.
USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program is helping to reduce NOx emissions by providing financial assistance to farmers for replacing diesel engines that power agriculture equipment with lower-emitting models.
-
House GOP Wants Changes to EPA Coal Ash Rule
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
House Republicans released draft legislation that they said would add certainty to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) coal ash disposal regulation.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would build upon the EPA’s December rule, preserving many of the rule’s main provisions that protect human health and the environment, its supporters said.
“This legislation will bring much-needed certainty to the rules surrounding coal ash,” McKinley said in a Wednesday statement announcing the bill.
“The EPA’s regulations offer more confusion and no reassurances that President Obama won’t change his mind later,” he said. “We can finally solve this problem and protect 316,000 jobs that rely on coal ash by passing this legislation.”
The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on the environment, chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), will hold a hearing next week to debate the draft bill.
Coal ash is often stored in massive ponds near power plants adjacent to waterways. It contains substances like mercury, arsenic, lead and chromium, and has caused some high-profile environmental disasters in recent years.
The EPA’s December rule sets the first federal standards for coal ash storage and disposal. But environmentalists complained that the agency does not have any authority to enforce the rules, and the standards themselves are weaker than greens had hoped.
At a hearing in January, House Republicans said the rule did not provide enough certainty that the EPA wouldn’t later make standards more strict. It also opened utilities up to litigation over their coal ash ponds.
McKinley’s bill would allow states to adopt the EPA standards and enforce them or stronger standards. The EPA would be able to set up enforcement programs in states that do not comply.
But while citizens would still be allowed to sue utilities, McKinley’s bill would no longer require power generators to publicly disclose information about the coal ash ponds, a provision in the EPA’s rule that it said would enable lawsuits.
Shimkus said the bill strikes the right balance.
“We share the same goal as EPA: to improve protections for health and the environment,” he said in a statement. “But our bill goes a step further than EPA and breathes real-life enforcement authority into the standards. By putting states in charge of implementation, we can achieve the protections we all want and give job-creators the certainty they desperately need.”
-
Offshore Energy Means Savings and Stability
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Randall Luthi
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that American voters are incredibly smart and savvy. I know this after having spent decades in public service, both in our nation’s capital and in my beautiful home state of Wyoming. I also know this because poll after poll show voters comprehend how critical energy is to our economy.
Energy is a complicated issue, but one that is vitally important – whether it’s concerning finances or security. It directly impacts our pocketbooks, from an individual household on up to a national level, such as our military. After all, we use energy in some form or another every single day, from gas for transportation to oil for heating buildings. When energy costs rise, expenses for families and governments go up significantly.
It also directly impacts our national security, thanks to the fact that approximately 40 percent of the crude oil we consume is imported, including from chaotic areas of the world such as the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela. When a key resource is sourced from unstable regions, our supply is simply not stable.
The most efficient way to ensure stability with regards to this critical resource? Tap into our own supplies. Offshore energy reserves are abundant around the United States, and safely exploring and developing these assets would not just ensure the continued growth of our economy, it also would increase our security.
Just one example are U.S. Arctic waters, which are thought to contain an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This could heat every home in America for more than 30 years. It would also generate billions in additional revenue, create jobs nationwide, and reduce costs for households across the country.
There are resources elsewhere though too: the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and the Pacific OCS. Had robust access to all of these areas been included in the Bureau of Ocean Management’s next Five Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, the benefits to all Americans would be profound.
Studies show that opening these three areas to exploration would generate more than $200 billion in cumulative government revenue, create almost 1 million new jobs nationwide, and produce more than 3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Considering that we currently import approximately9.9 million barrels per day, this would cut our dependence on other countries in third.
Unfortunately, the federal government’s proposed offshore leasing program falls short of realizing these tremendous opportunities. For instance, off Alaska the administration chose to further reduce areas for analysis, potentially stymieing the development of these prodigious resources. As other Arctic nations enthusiastically advance Arctic offshore energy programs, the U.S. government dithers.
Minimizing our reliance on other, often unstable, countries increases our security, ensures the stability of our energy supply, and reduces expenses for households, businesses and governments alike. Even more important, bringing more of our energy supply “in house” allows us to control every facet of production from initial exploration to final delivery to the consumer. That’s a win-win for all Americans.
It’s why I’ve said many times before that we need to support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. This is the epitome of smart and savvy, and something the American voter clearly understands. The question is whether our politicians and policymakers do. We need to take our country to the next level vis-à-vis our economic and energy security. The only way to do this is to safely and responsibly explore our own offshore energy resources.
Luthi is the president of the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), America’s Offshore Energy Industry.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested