Preview Newsletter
Acc March 13
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S., Canadian Council Crafting Work Plans On Risk Assessments, New Uses of Chemicals
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Canada and the U.S. are preparing to leverage similar, but separate, efforts to assess the risks of chemicals and to develop regulations addressing new uses of chemicals already on the market, according to a recent update from an Environment Canada official. The goals of the risk assessment and new use regulatory work plans... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Congress Bill Would Ban Microbeads in Personal Care Products
Mar 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A bill introduced in the US Congress would ban the sale or distribution of personal care products, containing synthetic plastic microbeads, from 1 January 2018. The Microbeads-Free Waters Act of 2015 was introduced by Representatives Fred Upton (Republican-Michigan), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee... -
(ACC Mentioned) Will the US Ever Pass a New Chemical Safety Law?
Mar 12, 2015 | The Guardian (UK)
By Elizabeth Grossman
Two senate bills intended to give an outdated toxic substances act a much-needed revision have stoked political fires about how the US should regulate chemicals. Senators Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey introduced a bill on Thursday to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Regulations Act Gets A Major Reboot—But Not Everyone Is Applauding
Mar 11, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
On Tuesday, a pair of Senators introduced a major reform bill that would overhaul the 39-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act. The bill —called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century — was introduced by the bipartisan team of Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.). -
(ACC Mentioned) Business Briefs - Udall Faces Scrutiny Over Sweeping Chemical Bill
Mar 12, 2015 | Arizona Daily Star
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall and a Senate colleague have introduced a bill that would overhaul 40-year-old federal regulations that govern the nation’s chemical industry. The bill co-sponsored by Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, would require the Environmental Protection Agency to make its assessments about chemical... -
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Packaging Best Practices: Starting Them Young
Mar 12, 2015 | Packaging Digest
By Lisa McTigue Pierce
Industry is strengthened each year as new, ambitious professionals enter the workforce. Unfortunately, the majority of educational institutions in the United States are not using their curricula to help stimulate a thriving sustainability industry. Sustainable actions by the everyday person are often adopted into routines at a young age, so ... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Plastics Recycling
Mar 13, 2015 | Plasteurope
Stricter standards for accepting scrap in China resulted in a slight decrease in the amount of rigid plastics, excluding bottles, collected for recycling in 2013, according to a survey conducted by Moore Recycling Associates (Sonoma, California / USA; www.moorerecycling.com) on behalf of the American Chemistry Council... -
Boxer, Markey Introducing TSCA Reform Bill That Would Retain State Regulatory Authority
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation March 12 to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to review all chemicals in the marketplace, starting with those that pose the greatest concern. -
Democrats' TSCA Bill Aims To Preserve States' Role, Boost Safety Standard
Mar 12, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) are floating a counter measure to a new bipartisan bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), touting provisions the two senators say would preserve states' power to regulate chemicals and ensure a strict safety standard for substances missing from the bipartisan bill. -
IRIS Program Cancels April Meeting
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) meeting scheduled for April 29-30 is canceled, the Environmental Protection Agency announced March 11. The agency did not say which chemicals were scheduled to be discussed at that meeting, nor did it say why it was canceling the meeting. The next bimonthly meeting is scheduled... -
Senators Say FDA Should Do More to Protect Pets
Mar 12, 2015 | McClatchy DC
By Ellie Silverman
Two senators want the Food and Drug Administration to step up its oversight of pet food in the wake of a lawsuit accusing a particular dog food of containing dangerous toxins. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., sent a letter Monday asking the agency to investigate the claims, as well as to provide an update... -
CSB Keeps Offshore Investigative Power Following 5th Circuit Denial of Rehearing
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In a decision supporting government safety investigators’ authority over offshore incidents, a federal appeals court March 12 rejected a request to rehear Transocean Deepwater Drilling Inc.’s case challenging subpoenas related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster (United States v. Transocean Deepwater Drilling, 5th Cir... -
Senate Republicans Want Chemical Agency Head Removed
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Two Republican senators tasked with overseeing the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) are asking President Obama to pressure the agency’s embattled chairman to resign. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who leads the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the CSB -
2 Senate Republicans Ask Obama to Fire CSB Chairman
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Two Republican senators urged the White House today to remove Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, citing findings by the U.S. EPA inspector general and a congressional committee of personnel violations and improper records policies. The letter from Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe ... -
Senate Republicans Call for Removal of Embattled Safety Agency Head
Mar 12, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Jim Inhofe is calling on President Obama to demand the resignation of the troubled head of a troubled safety agency over management issues and charges that he violated the Federal Records Act by using personal email. In a letter to the White House obtained by National Journal... -
Greens: Data Show Keystone’s Oil Would Be Export-Bound
Mar 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Texas Gulf Coast refinery centered at the southern end of the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed path exported a growing share of the petroleum products the region processed in 2013 and 2014, according to an analysis of Energy Department data that green groups are using to defend President Barack Obama’s portrayal... -
Kerry Slams Climate Skeptics and Fossil Fuels, But Sidesteps Keystone
Mar 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Secretary of State John Kerry railed against climate change skeptics on Thursday, saying that “future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning,” though he offered no direct clues on whether he would back the Keystone XL pipeline. -
Carbon Rule Needs Power Price Stability For Low-Income Groups, McCarthy Says
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Protecting people with low incomes from increases in energy prices will be a challenge for the Environmental Protection Agency in executing its Clean Power Plan, Administrator Gina McCarthy said March 12. The EPA also is considering environmental justice concerns in other rules and in President Barack Obama's Fiscal Year... -
Inhofe’s Misleading Statements on Carbon Emissions Rule
Mar 13, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
Inhofe, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, is a vocal skeptic of scientific research that climate change is man-made. He also has been critical of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which proposes new regulations to limit coal-plant carbon emissions. Proponents of the Clean Power Plan, a flagship regulatory proposal of the Obama... -
EPA Proposes Implementation Rule For Fine Particulate Matter Standards
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed rule outlining how states will implement the current national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter. The proposed implementation rule (RIN 2060-AQ48), signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy March 10, would establish attainment planning requirements that ... -
EPA PM2.5 SIP Rule Shows Effect Of Ruling Requiring Stricter Air Controls
Mar 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's just-released proposed rule guiding states on how to implement that agency's 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air standard highlights the broad effect of an adverse appellate ruling on the policy, forcing the agency to float a range of options for states to comply under stricter Clean Air Act provisions than previous policies. -
Manufacturing Association Plans Legislative, Regulatory Push on Altering Ozone Proposal
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The National Association of Manufacturers is planning to “pursue all options available” to alter the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to set a more stringent ozone standard, association officials told reporters March 12. Aric Newhouse, senior vice president for policy and government relations at the association... -
GOP's 'Secret Science' Bill Would Cost $250M a Year -- CBO
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
House Republican legislation to force U.S. EPA to make publicly available all the scientific studies, data and models used to shape rules would cost $250 million a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO estimated that, on average, the actions called for by the bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per... -
House Unveils Draft Coal Ash Legislation to Address Implementation, Enforcement Issues
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
New draft coal ash legislation will build on an Environmental Protection Agency final rule on the management and disposal of the material, and it also will address self-implementation and enforcement concerns in the final regulation, supporters said. Environmental advocates said the draft, Improving Coal Combustion Residuals... -
Advocates Warn House Coal Ash Bill Would Weaken EPA's Disposal Rule
Mar 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are warning that House Republicans' draft coal ash disposal bill -- which aims to codify much of EPA's final ash waste rule while giving states primary enforcement authority -- would significantly weaken the agency's regulation, including depriving EPA of vital oversight, and lead to insufficiently protective ash controls. -
Legislative Limits on Coal-Fired Plant Peak NOx Emissions Debated at Hearing
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
A long-running effort to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from certain coal-fired power plants in Maryland moved into the legislative arena during a March 12 hearing on a bill that would codify rules that were halted at the last minute by Gov. Larry Hogan (R) just hours after taking office. Like the stalled regulations it mirrors, H.B. 1042 would... -
California Proposes First Efficiency Standards In Nation for Computers, Monitors
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Siciliano
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has proposed energy efficiency standards for computers that it said would cost manufacturers an estimated $2 per unit while returning $69 to consumers in the form of energy savings over the five-year life of a desktop device. The standards for computers, computer monitors and signage displays... -
Review of Yeast Production, Pulp Mill Toxics Standards Overdue, Lawsuit Says
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is overdue to review its toxic air pollutant standards for equipment at pulp mills and yeast manufacturing plants, the Sierra Club said in a lawsuit filed March 12 (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Calif., No. 3:15-cv-01165, 3/12/15). The EPA has violated the Clean Air Act requirement to review every eight... -
Wisconsin Environmental Group Challenges Expansion of Crude Oil Rail Traffic
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
An environmental advocacy group has filed a pair of legal challenges against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, objecting to environmental permits that will let the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) expand its shipments of Bakken crude oil through the Upper Mississippi River Basin... -
DeFazio Seeks GAO Review of Accident Readiness
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) is asking the Government Accountability Office to probe freight railroads' ability to handle derailments and other potentially catastrophic accidents involving trains carrying crude oil. As crude-by-rail shipments make their way from areas like North Dakota's Bakken Shale formation to coastal refineries... -
Canada Proposes New Standards For Oil Train Designs
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Canadian regulators proposed a new set of standards for trains carrying crude oil, with new shields designed to mitigate derailments. The new standard, dubbed TC-117, represents one of the major responses Canada is putting forth to stem the increasing number of major oil train disasters in North America.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Canada and the U.S. are preparing to leverage similar, but separate, efforts to assess the risks of chemicals and to develop regulations addressing new uses of chemicals already on the market, according to a recent update from an Environment Canada official.
The goals of the risk assessment and new use regulatory work plans include understanding how each country addresses these chemical oversight responsibilities, sharing best practices and helping interested parties in both countries better understand both countries' procedures and reducing unnecessary differences, Maya Berci, program coordination and regulatory measures manager at Environment Canada said March 4 at a chemical regulations conference.
“The work plans are not final yet, but they are in good shape,” she said. After her presentation, she told reporters she didn't have a time line for when the work plans would be released.
Berci offered an update on activities under way at the Regulatory Cooperation Council. Established in 2011, the council is designed to better align North American regulatory systems and boost trade and competitiveness, and it announced its first sectoral work plans in 2012 (146 DEN A-9, 7/31/12).
Berci spoke at the annual Global Chemical Regulations Conference, or GlobalChem, organized by the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA).
Work Plan Focus
The two work plans she discussed will address chemical risk assessment plans and both the significant new activities (SNAc) notices Environment Canada and Health Canada use to manage chemicals and the significant new use rules (SNURs), the Environmental Protection Agency issues.
SNAcs and SNURs are very similar tools that are implemented in somewhat different ways, Berci said.
The Regulatory Cooperation Council “wants to reduce unnecessary differences,” she said.
This and other council initiatives have been very promising so far, Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said at the meeting.
“[The council] is focusing on highly relevant issues—from discussions on nanotechnology regulations, containment standards for dangerous goods, and classification and labeling requirements to air quality standards and chemicals management,” he said.
Chemicals Volunteered as Case Studies
“ACC member companies have volunteered several chemicals as case studies in the risk assessment work plan EPA, Health Canada and Environment Canada are developing. This cooperation marks the beginning of what could become a longterm working relationship to enhance information sharing, eliminate inefficiencies like duplicative testing, and establish a framework for common approaches to risk assessment,” he added.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell P.C., told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the council's timetables for developing work plans on chemical risk assessments, SNAcs and SNURs are aggressive.
Based on a December webinar the council held, interested parties will be involved in a Web conference, face-to-face meetings and consultations beginning this year and throughout 2016, she said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Congress Bill Would Ban Microbeads in Personal Care Products
Mar 12, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A bill introduced in the US Congress would ban the sale or distribution of personal care products, containing synthetic plastic microbeads, from 1 January 2018.
The Microbeads-Free Waters Act of 2015 was introduced by Representatives Fred Upton (Republican-Michigan), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone (Democrat-New Jersey).
A similar bill died in the last Congress (CW 4 August 2014). Meanwhile, a number of states, including New Jersey and Illinois (CW 31 July 2014), have moved to ban microbeads in personal care products.
Microbeads are tiny bits of plastic, used as exfoliants in personal care products such as face wash, soap and toothpaste. They can slip through water treatment systems, after they are washed down the drain, and end up in local streams, rivers and larger bodies of water.
The American Chemistry Council welcomed the legislation. “Plastics provide many important benefits to modern life, but they don't belong in lakes, oceans or other waterways,” the group said. “ACC has supported legislation to phase out microbeads from personal care products in New Jersey and Illinois, along with environmentalists and personal care product manufacturers.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Will the US Ever Pass a New Chemical Safety Law?
Mar 12, 2015 | The Guardian (UK)
By Elizabeth Grossman
Two senate bills intended to give an outdated toxic substances act a much-needed revision have stoked political fires about how the US should regulate chemicals.
Senators Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey introduced a bill on Thursday to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), just two days after senators David Vitter and Tom Udall introduced a different bill to reform the law, which hasn’t been updated since 1976.
Boxer and Markey’s alternate TSCA reform legislation calls for the US Environmental Protection Agency to review chemicals more quickly than it does now, use a stronger standard to judge chemical safety, and prioritize action on asbestos and chemicals that accumulate in human bodies and the environment.
“This bill will help ensure that communities are protected from chemical spills and clusters of disease that are related to toxic exposures,” Markey said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Vitter and Udall’s bill outlines a new process and deadlines for the EPA’s chemical reviews. It includes a schedule for EPA chemical reviews, but begins with just 25 chemicals – and each review could take up to seven years.
“Americans are exposed to a toxic soup of more than 80,000 different chemicals, but we have no idea what the impact of those chemicals is on our bodies – or those of our children,” said Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, in a statement. “This bill represents the best opportunity to strengthen safeguards against dangerous chemicals and dramatically improve existing laws, while allowing innovation in the industry.”
While industry groups – including the American Chemistry Council, American Cleaning Institute and Toy Industry Association – largely welcomed Vitter and Udall’s bill, many environmental health advocacy groups oppose it. The Environmental Working Group, Breast Cancer Fund and Center for Environmental Health said the bill falls far short of what’s needed to protect the public from hazardous chemicals. Analysis Untested chemicals are everywhere, thanks to a 39-year-old US law. Will the Senate finally act? Many chemicals that are restricted or banned in Europe remain in use – and in some cases, untested – in the US, thanks to federal regulations that haven’t been updated since 1976. A new bill to overhaul the law is expected this spring
Read more
Meanwhile, a number of environmental advocates have welcomed the Boxer-Markey bill. “Senator Boxer’s proposal would be a clear win for public health and the environment,” said Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
But the Environmental Defense Fund supports the Vitter-Udall bill. So does the American Chemistry Council, which said the bill “creates a cohesive, effective national chemical management system that will give consumers, retailers, manufacturers, public health advocates and regulators confidence that the chemicals in commerce are being used safely”.
Environmental Working Group executive director Heather White disagrees. The bill would do nothing to change the fact that TSCA does not require all chemicals be shown to be safe before they go to market, she said. It also wouldn’t compel the US Environmental Protection Agency, which administers TSCA, to evaluate the most hazardous chemicals – those that persist in the environment and build up in human bodies, she added. Advertisement
“Our children are being born pre-polluted, with chemicals in their bodies,” White said. “This bill doesn’t require expedited investigation of these types of chemicals.”
One of the biggest problems with the Vitter-Udall bill, according to its critics, is that it would prevent the states from taking action on chemicals.
“This bill is the worst of both possible worlds,” said Environmental Health Strategies Center executive director Mike Belliveau, adding that it also won’t enable the EPA to act in a timely fashion.
Because the outdated TSCA has made it so difficult for the EPA to effectively restrict chemical use, individual US states have responded to consumer concern by passing their own chemical-regulation laws. To date, 35 different states have passed nearly 170 different bills to restrict use of hazardous chemicals. The proposed federal legislation would allow current state laws – passed before 2015 – to continue, but would restrict the creation of new state laws.
Exactly how the Vitter-Udall bill would work, if passed, is complicated. States would still be able to take action – restricting or banning a chemical – if the EPA doesn’t decide to review that chemical for possible restriction, but would no longer be able to do so once the EPA prioritizes that chemical for safety review.
Meanwhile, the Boxer-Markey bill would specifically retain state authority, allowing states to pass laws that are stricter than the federal laws. This is a growing issue given that two dozen US states are now considering roughly 85 new chemical-related bills.
As the battle of the bills rages on, it’s clear that the years-long TSCA reform debate is far from over.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Regulations Act Gets A Major Reboot—But Not Everyone Is Applauding
Mar 11, 2015 | Manufacturing.net
By Meagan Parrish
On Tuesday, a pair of Senators introduced a major reform bill that would overhaul the 39-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act. The bill —called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century — was introduced by the bipartisan team of Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
The intent is to improve consumer safety with updated laws and regulations of toxic chemicals — a move many have said the industry badly needed. And on face value, the bill seems to accomplish those goals by properly tackling a host of outdated approaches to chemical governance.
Not everyone, however, agrees on whether the provisions go far enough.
Many in the industry were quick to applaud the bill. The American Chemistry Council gave it a thumbs up, as did the American Cleaning Institute, a trade group for the cleaning products industry. Even the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group, hailed the updated regulations.
But others raised concerns, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who argued that it could actually weaken chemical regulations by undermining state laws with more lax federal rules.
“Legal experts who have examined the Udall-Vitter-Inhofe toxics bill at my request tell me this bill is worse than current law," said Boxer in a statement. "This means there will be fewer protections from the most dangerous chemicals for communities and families."
Others in the environmental community agree it’s a worse deal for consumers than the existing law.
Here are some of the key provisions in the bill and what analysts are saying about them:
Chemical Safety vs. Industry Costs — In the current law, the EPA has to include a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to ban a substance. In the new bill, the aim is to make it clear that this analysis is not required and that it shouldn’t trump safety concerns. But cost-benefit concerns can still be considered to some extent, “based on reasonably available information.” And according to one analysis, in another section of the bill that defines how the safety of a chemical will be assessed, the rules require cost analysis. The bottom line is that the provisions won’t necessarily remove the consideration of costs when deciding if a chemical should be banned or phased-out.
Asbestos — While it’s illegal to manufacture and sell asbestos, the current legislation has made the EPA unable to issue an outright ban on the chemical — a glaring deficiency in the new bill, according to one awareness group. Because exposure to asbestos claims an estimated 10,000 American lives a year, Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said, “Any ‘chemical safety’ bill that does not ban asbestos isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.”
Deadlines For Chemical Reviews — In a statement, Sen. Udall said, "Americans are exposed to a toxic soup of more than 80,000 different chemicals, but we have no idea what the impact of those chemicals is on our bodies — or those of our children."
The EPA indeed estimates that about 1,000 chemicals are in need of safety reviews, and the bill creates a new mandate to begin tackling the problem. But according to some, it won’t address many hazardous chemicals fast enough. In the new bill, the EPA can issue new deadlines to companies to submit any information it requests. But within five years, the EPA only has to list 25 high-priority and 25 low-priority chemicals to be reviewed.
New Chemicals — The new bill would give the EPA more authority to stop the production of a new chemical if it determines that it won’t meet safety regulations.
Fines — Under the new bill, fines against chemical companies who break the law would increase from $25,000 to $37,500 per violation.
Chemical Imports — According to one analysis, the bill would relax the EPA’s ability to stop imports of dangerous chemicals.
In addition to issues with specific provisions in the bill, many have turned the spotlight to Sen. Udall and his close ties to the chemical industry. According to one report, the American Chemistry Council was one of Udall’s top 20 industry donors last year and ran an ad in New Mexico in support of the politician.
Sen. Udall dismissed claims that this relationship impacted his approach to creating policy.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has a hearing planned on the legislation on March 18.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Briefs - Udall Faces Scrutiny Over Sweeping Chemical Bill
Mar 12, 2015 | Arizona Daily Star
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall and a Senate colleague have introduced a bill that would overhaul 40-year-old federal regulations that govern the nation’s chemical industry.
The bill co-sponsored by Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, would require the Environmental Protection Agency to make its assessments about chemical safety solely on risk to public health and the environment. It also would increase fines on chemical companies that break the law from $25,000 to $37,500 per violation.
The bill has drawn fire from some environmentalists and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. Boxer contends the measure would gut the role of states in protecting people and there’s no assurance that asbestos and children’s cancer clusters would be addressed. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the bill blocks state action and would clear the way for a lax EPA to deregulate hundreds of chemicals with minimal review.
Udall rejected the criticisms, saying the proposal, negotiated with stakeholders over two years, is tougher than existing law and is needed to protect the public.
The American Chemical Council — the trade group for companies such as Dow and DuPont — endorsed the bill Tuesday, as did the Environment Defense Fund. The American Chemistry Council was among Udall’s top 20 industry donors last year, according to opensecrets.org, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group.
“Never has a political contribution had an impact on what I do on public policy,” Udall said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Packaging Best Practices: Starting Them Young
Mar 12, 2015 | Packaging Digest
By Lisa McTigue Pierce
Industry is strengthened each year as new, ambitious professionals enter the workforce. Unfortunately, the majority of educational institutions in the United States are not using their curricula to help stimulate a thriving sustainability industry. Sustainable actions by the everyday person are often adopted into routines at a young age, so it’s important for schools to educate in an effective manner and for parents to share appropriate habits with their kids.
Most people learned to recycle at a young age by looking for the small number inside of the chasing arrows symbol, the Resin Identification Codes (RICs). In the packaging industry, we know that RICs are not meant to be used as a consumer communication tool, but rather they are a means of indicating plastic type. Unfortunately, no other recycling guidelines or best practices have been habitualized by consumers, so nowadays RICs are being misinterpreted, resulting in contaminated recycling streams and recyclable materials going to landfill.
Many tools and campaigns—such as the How2Recycle Label and the WRAP campaign—have been working to combat the confusion of RICs and increase recycled material. The How2Recycle Label Program presents consumers with simple on-package recycling instructions that inform them of how to dispose of their packages. Unlike RICs, the How2Recycle Label gives additional recycling information needed to make an informed decision. How2Recycle Labels help answer tough recycling questions as a consumer is physically handling a package through messages such as “Empty and replace cap” on a plastic bottle or “Recycle if clean and dry” on a plastic bag.
Another common U.S. recycling habit is taking grocery bags back to the store. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is working to expand on this behavior by encouraging consumers to recycle more packaging material along with their grocery bags. ACC has started the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) campaign to inform the public that other high- and low-density polyethylene films—such as bread bags, newspaper bags, case wraps and packaging air pillows—can be recycled along with plastic bags at grocery and retail store drop-off locations.
While U.S. households often practice environmentally friendly actions, connecting sustainability to communities is an uncommon feature of education curricula. The Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) is planning to change this for its institution, as it recently announced a new core element for its undergraduate studies: Serve-Learn-Sustain. Georgia Tech surveyed its alumni and most new graduates felt technically prepared for future careers; however, they recognized that they were less well prepared to connect their technical skills to environmental and social issues and to support sustainability efforts. The Serve-Learn-Sustain effort will help students understand how their specific discipline can play a role in fostering sustainable communities.
Georgia Tech professor and Sustainable Packaging Coalition executive committee member, Dr. Matthew Realff, states that “focusing on sustainable communities will bring together two exciting educational components of Georgia Tech: sustainability and service learning. This will create context for our curricula subjects and embed the opportunity to bring broader perspective into the classroom and bring learning out of the classroom and into communities at the local, regional and global scales.” Georgia Tech will focus on this effort for the next 10 years and believes this will enhance student learning in a tangible way.
Ideally, the Serve-Learn-Sustain effort will expose the complementary relationship between students’ fields of study and sustainability. As these students graduate, corporations will see an increased trend of the “sustainability” role shifting from one person or one department to being embedded in all departments. This would eliminate the constant internal struggle of emphasizing and defending the business case of sustainability. The value of sustainable practices would instead be highlighted in all aspects of an organization, having a huge influence on corporate decision-making.
Of course, drastic changes cannot be made overnight, so as campaigns and efforts are working to educate the younger generations, we must also focus on the current workforce and older generations. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s Essentials of Sustainable Packaging Course (ESP) is a training tool that delves into the key aspects of the life cycle of packaging. As an introductory course, the ESP helps companies understand how a holistic view of sustainable packaging applies to their organization and how an appropriate balance of tradeoffs on sustainable materials management decisions is essential for success.
Though parents and schools, from the elementary to university level, will always be important in educating new generations, brand owners also play an important consumer-facing role. The SPC has and will continue to help brand owners improve their packaging, tell their sustainability story, avoid greenwashing and educate consumers about what true sustainability really means. Focusing on the importance of sustainable values through education can make a huge impact on the way decisions are made and practices are carried out in both the corporate world and everyday life.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Plastics Recycling
Mar 13, 2015 | Plasteurope
Stricter standards for accepting scrap in China resulted in a slight decrease in the amount of rigid plastics, excluding bottles, collected for recycling in 2013, according to a survey conducted by Moore Recycling Associates (Sonoma, California / USA; www.moorerecycling.com) on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington DC / USA; www.americanchemistry.com). Approximately 1.01 bn lb (456,000 t) of postconsumer non-bottle rigid plastic was recovered for recycling, representing a 1% decline on 2012.
The decrease is most likely attributable to China’s “Green Fence” policy controlling imports of postconsumer scrap, introduced in February 2013, says the new “2013 National Postconsumer Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling Report”. Implementation of the policy resulted in significantly reduced recycled plastic exports from North America and Europe, and increased volatility in scrap pricing.
Although the Green Fence policy caused a temporary drop in postconsumer non-bottle rigid plastic recycling in 2013, it led to increased domestic processing and a focus on quality, benefiting the plastics recycling industry in the longer term, the report suggests.
“Recyclers addressed the challenges and opportunities presented by the Green Fence, and we believe that the plastic recycling industry emerged stronger as a result,” said Patty Moore, president of Moore Recycling. “Recycled plastic producers have invested in advanced separation infrastructure or taken other steps to create higher quality bales with greater yields.”About 67% of the non-bottle rigid plastics recovered in 2013 was recycled by US and Canadian processors, with the remainder exported, mainly to China. This compares with 57% recycled by US and Canadian processors in 2012.
PP was the most collected material, accounting for 39.3% of the total in 2013. HDPE accounted for 35.5%, followed by PET (8.4%), PS (1.8%) and LDPE (1.1%). There were modest increases in the amount of HDPE and PP collected but the recovery of other types of resin decreased. -
Boxer, Markey Introducing TSCA Reform Bill That Would Retain State Regulatory Authority
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation March 12 to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to review all chemicals in the marketplace, starting with those that pose the greatest concern.
Neither Boxer nor Markey posted a copy of the legislation on the Web, nor did Boxer's office respond to requests for a copy. The legislators did issue a summary of what they described as the public health benefits the law would provide, including:
• requiring the EPA to review chemicals quickly;
• requiring the agency to take swift action on asbestos;
• requiring the agency give immediate attention to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals; and
• requiring the EPA to consider the threat a chemical substance poses to drinking water supplies, including from nearby storage, when prioritizing substances for review.
No Preemption of State Laws, Regulations
The Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act (no bill number available), would not allow the EPA to preempt state authority over chemicals, Boxer's summary said.
The legislation also would allow states to enforce federal chemical restrictions, the summary said.
The question of whether or not states could enforce federal chemical regulations was raised by Brian Nelson, general counsel for California's Attorney General, in a letter criticizing legislation that Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced March 10 (47 DEN A-19, 3/11/15).
The Udall-Vitter bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), says that “no state or political subdivision of a state” may establish or enforce laws or regulations that would replicate or conflict with regulations issued by the EPA to implement the law.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a March 18 hearing on TSCA reform legislation.
Praise Offered; Further Work Anticipated
Environmental and health advocacy groups, the American Sustainable Business Council and the American Association for Justice, formerly called the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, which includes attorneys involved in toxic tort litigation, immediately praised the measure.
“Senator Boxer's proposal would be a clear win for public health and the environment. It would require EPA to take expedited action on the worst substances, like asbestos and the broad class of chemicals that build up in the food chain. It would also establish a more aggressive schedule for reviewing the remaining chemicals,” Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in a statement. Safer Chemicals consists of more than 450 environmental, health and labor organizations around the country.
David Levine, president and chief executive officer of the Sustainable Business Council, also issued a statement: “The Vitter-Udall bill as introduced falls short in delivering meaningful reform that benefits downstream businesses and innovative entrepreneurs. The Boxer-Markey bill goes much further.”
As senators continue to work on TSCA modernization, the business council will encourage legislation that would promote safer alternatives and increase transparency, he said.
Vitter on S. 697: ‘Only Realistic Model in Sight.’
In a statement his office issued, Vitter said: “Reforming TSCA is absolutely necessary, and our best bet moving forward is to regulate the safety of chemicals based on the latest science, provide greater regulatory certainty to the chemical manufacturing industry, and strike a balance between state and federal roles in chemical safety management.”
“The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act does just that and has the momentum to move forward, unlike some outlier proposals,” Vitter said. Earlier in the week, he described the Udall-Vitter bill as “the only realistic model in sight for the EPA to address issues like asbestos.”
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has joined other 16 other senators in supporting S. 697. As of March 12, the Udall-Vitter bill was cosponsored by nine Republicans and eight Democrats.
Vitter's office issued a list of comments on the bill, including a statement from Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and former EPA assistant administrator overseeing chemical and pesticide regulations. Goldman is now dean of George Washington University's School of Public Health.
“While work remains to be done, this draft reflects major improvements over the bill that was introduced last year, which in itself was a major step forward,” Goldman's statement said. She referred to the 2013 Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009) and a subsequent draft revision of that bill, which was withdrawn in September 2014 after TSCA reform talks collapsed (182 DEN A-13, 9/19/14).
Origin of Reinstein-Schaefer Bill's Name
The Boxer-Markey bill is named for Alan Reinstein, who died in 2006 from mesothelioma, which results from exposure to asbestos, which the EPA was unable to ban after its 1989 rulemaking was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 33 ERC 1961 (5th Cir. 1991)).
The legislation also is named after Trevor Schaefer, a survivor of childhood brain cancer whose foundation points to pollutants as contributing to cancer and other childhood diseases.
-
Democrats' TSCA Bill Aims To Preserve States' Role, Boost Safety Standard
Mar 12, 2015 | IndsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) are floating a counter measure to a new bipartisan bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), touting provisions the two senators say would preserve states' power to regulate chemicals and ensure a strict safety standard for substances missing from the bipartisan bill.
In a March 12 press release, Boxer -- ranking member on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee -- and panel member Markey said their bill, known as the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, “provides critical safeguards to protect children and communities from the dangers of toxic chemicals.”
The bill, according to a copy obtained by Inside EPA, largely appears to mirror a bill Boxer first floated late last year in the form of a red-lined version of a draft bipartisan TSCA reform measure that EPW members Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) had worked on to revise an earlier reform bill introduced in 2013 by Vitter and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
The Boxer-Markey legislation comes shortly after Vitter, Udall and several Democratic and GOP senators March 10 introduced a new draft TSCA reform bill they say addresses a host of controversial issues that have led to a stalemate on moving reform legislation. But the bill could create new hurdles by raising questions about its fee structure, safety standard and other provisions including preemption of state chemicals programs.
In response, Boxer and Markey say their reform bill would better protect states' rights to regulate chemicals and also provide better safety standards over chemicals. Specifically, they point to provisions in the bill they say provide a stronger safety standard by which EPA would review chemical safety, require EPA to more quickly assess chemicals, broadly preserve state authority to manage risks from chemicals, and others.
On preemption of state programs, their bill specifies that nothing in the reform bill would affect rights of states to “adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, standards of performance, safety determination, scientific assessment” or public health protection if it is in addition to or different from any action taken under TSCA.
The Democrats' legislation also contains language some say could preempt toxic tort claims in state courts for harms caused by chemicals that EPA has deemed to be safe.
Boxer strongly opposed the preemption provisions in the latest bill introduced Vitter and Udall on March 10, S. 697, saying it would “devastate” the role of states in TSCA, though the bill somewhat narrowed the scope of preemption from the earlier version of the legislation.
Additionally, Boxer's counter proposal would change the “unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment” safety standard language, which is in current TSCA and in S. 697, to state that a chemical must not pose “harm to human health or the environment.”
The bill also requires EPA to take action on asbestos, which the agency tried unsuccessfully to ban under existing TSCA in what is widely viewed as one of the major failings of the chemical safety law.
Though it is not clear whether the bill has additional cosponsors, a number of activist groups have issued statements supporting the Boxer bill over S. 697, backing what they say are stronger safety standard and preemption provisions and stronger deadlines for EPA action. For example, the Environmental Working Group said in a March 12 statement comparing the two bills that the S. 697 proposal “would make it effectively impossible for states get a waiver to set more protective standards than EPA’s” and that the Boxer-Markey bill preserves a role for states.
-
IRIS Program Cancels April Meeting
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) meeting scheduled for April 29-30 is canceled, the Environmental Protection Agency announced March 11. The agency did not say which chemicals were scheduled to be discussed at that meeting, nor did it say why it was canceling the meeting. The next bimonthly meeting is scheduled for June 17-18. The IRIS program said it would post materials for that meeting in the near future. The agency also rescheduled its Sept. 2-3 meeting to Aug. 26-27.
-
Senators Say FDA Should Do More to Protect Pets
Mar 12, 2015 | McClatchy DC
By Ellie Silverman
Two senators want the Food and Drug Administration to step up its oversight of pet food in the wake of a lawsuit accusing a particular dog food of containing dangerous toxins.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., sent a letter Monday asking the agency to investigate the claims, as well as to provide an update on how it is implementing previous laws that require contamination prevention measures in pet food.
“To put it frankly, the food safety system Congress fought to develop has not been put in place by the FDA,” the senators wrote in the letter addressed to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
A lawsuit filed Feb. 5 claims Nestlé Purina PetCare Company’s Beneful dry kibble dog food may contain toxins that cause harm and death for dogs.
Nestle Purina PetCare issued a statement last month dismissing the lawsuit as “baseless.”
“Like other pet foods, Beneful is occasionally the subject of social media-driven misinformation. Online postings often contain false, unsupported and misleading allegations that cause undue concern and confusion for our Beneful customers,” according to the statement on the brand’s website.
The lawsuit, by pet owner Frank Lucido in the U.S. District Court in Northern District of California, alleges that this pet food contains dangerous material such as propylene glycol, used in automotive antifreeze, and mycotoxins, a group of toxins produced by grain fungus.
The court documents state that consumers made more than 3,000 online complaints in the past four years about the harm Beneful caused their pets, such as internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloat and kidney failure.
“To our knowledge, the FDA has not issued any investigations, warnings, consumer guidance, or product recalls to address these alarming issues,” the senators wrote.
The letter cites legislation that Congress passed in 2007 in response to thousands of dogs and cats dying from “tainted pet food.” The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 required various changes such as improving regulations for pet food safety, strengthening labeling requirements, establishing an early warning system for contaminated products and setting ingredient and processing standards.
“However, eight years later, most provisions of the pet food safety law have not been implemented and protections Congress enacted are not in place, amid allegations of contaminated Beneful dry kibble,” the senators wrote.
The eight kinds of dry Beneful food scrutinized in the lawsuit are Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, Healthy Fiesta, Healthy Growth for Puppies, Healthy Radiance, Healthy Weight, Incredibites, Original and Playful Life.
The Purina statement said the company intends to “vigorously defend ourselves and our brand” and Beneful food is safe for pets to consume.
“Bottom line: Consumers can continue to feed Beneful with total confidence,” according to the statement.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/12/259559/senators-say-fda-should-do-more.html#storylink=cpy -
CSB Keeps Offshore Investigative Power Following 5th Circuit Denial of Rehearing
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
In a decision supporting government safety investigators’ authority over offshore incidents, a federal appeals court March 12 rejected a request to rehear Transocean Deepwater Drilling Inc.’s case challenging subpoenas related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster (United States v. Transocean Deepwater Drilling, 5th Cir. , No. 13-20243, request for en banc review denied 3/12/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Transocean's bid for en banc review on a 9-6 vote, preserving the court's September 2014 decision that backed the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's offshore jurisdiction in the Deepwater Horizon probe.
“This latest federal appeals court decision clearly affirms the CSB's statutory authority to investigate fires, explosions, and releases from fixed offshore facilities, including drilling units like the Deepwater Horizon,” Daniel Horowitz, the agency's managing director, told Bloomberg BNA March 12.
The last remaining recourse for Transocean to challenge the decision would be to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. Transocean spokeswoman Pam Easton told Bloomberg BNA March 12 that the company has no comment.
Eleven workers were killed, 17 were seriously hurt and nearly 5 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April 2010. The CSB's investigation of the incident was the agency's first foray offshore.
Long-Running Legal Fight
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas first upheld the CSB's authority to issue subpoenas in its investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in a March 2013 ruling. The agency obtained the requested documents after the 5th Circuit denied Transocean's request to stay the lower court decision in July 2013 (64 DEN A-10, 4/3/13)(143 DEN A-11, 7/25/13).
A divided circuit court panel upheld the district court's ruling. Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents found the CSB has subpoena authority because the agency was investigating the chemical release and explosion that preceded the oil spill rather than the spill itself.
The judges also pointed to the fact that the drilling rig was a stationary source and not a vessel and that the National Transportation Safety Board wasn't authorized to investigate (183 DEN A-6, 9/22/14).
A Republican-appointed judge dissented.
There was a partisan cast to the denial to rehear the case en banc, as well. All five of the circuit's active judges who were appointed by Democrats voted to reject the rehearing petition.
Four of the circuit's 10 active judges appointed by Republicans voted to deny the petition, while the remaining six voted to grant it.
CSB Investigation Nearing Completion
“Although the Deepwater investigation has severely taxed the CSB's limited resources, the agency's independent investigation has had unique benefits, since it was the first to provide a complete explanation for why the Deepwater Horizon's blowout preventer failed and why the large oil spill occurred,” Horowitz, the agency's managing director, said.
The CSB issued a June 2014 report finding that the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig's blowout preventer failed to seal the well because the drill pipe buckled (109 DEN A-12, 6/6/14).
The agency has drafted the final two volumes on its Deepwater Horizon investigation, Horowitz said. The reports are going through an expedited review process in the hopes of presenting them to the board in June.
-
Senate Republicans Want Chemical Agency Head Removed
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Two Republican senators tasked with overseeing the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) are asking President Obama to pressure the agency’s embattled chairman to resign.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who leads the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the CSB, wrote to Obama Thursday expressing their concerns with Rafael Moure-Eraso.
The letter came a week after a hearing in the House Oversight Committee, the third in a year on Moure-Eraso’s alleged shortcomings.
Inhofe and Rounds joined House members from both parties who have called for Moure-Eraso’s resignation amid allegations that he’s retaliated against whistleblowers, used a personal email account for government work, impeded watchdog investigations and created a hostile workplace for employees.
The senators wrote that investigations by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General and by Congress show that Moure-Eraso “is incapable of executing the important functions for which he was appointed.”
They singled out Moure-Eraso’s private email use as one of the most egregious violations of his tenure, but also said he’s been hostile toward colleagues, leading the agency to be ranked last among places to work in the federal government.
Moure-Eraso’s term at the CSB expires in June, and Obama has nominated Vanessa Sutherland, an attorney at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to replace him.
But Inhofe and Rounds said that’s not enough and said Obama should ask the chairman to resign immediately.
“Based on the aforementioned findings and statements, there is ... no doubt that Chairman Moure-Eraso has lost the confidence of CSB staff, the EPA OIG, and members of both parties in Congress,” they said.
“He has violated his oath of office. He has violated the law. The CSB can no longer continue to operate credibly under this leadership, and it is therefore our recommendation that you ask for Chairman Moure-Eraso’s immediate resignation.”
-
2 Senate Republicans Ask Obama to Fire CSB Chairman
Mar 12, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson
Two Republican senators urged the White House today to remove Chemical Safety Board Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, citing findings by the U.S. EPA inspector general and a congressional committee of personnel violations and improper records policies.
The letter from Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who leads the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight, said Moure-Eraso's leadership had failed the agency.
"The Chemical Safety Board plays an important role in investigating and working to prevent industrial incidents," the senators wrote. "Unfortunately under the leadership of chairman Moure-Eraso, the agency has been a dysfunctional mess and it is clear that until new, competent leadership is in place, the CSB's ability to conduct meaningful reviews along with its credibility are non-existent."
EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins found Moure-Eraso and other top officials had used personal email accounts, the senators say. The findings were "merely the latest development in what Members of Congress from both parties have acknowledged is a record of failed CSB leadership," they wrote.
The White House has said it is reviewing Elkins' report. Earlier this month, President Obama nominated Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel for the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to chair the agency, but the Senate hasn't yet confirmed her nomination.
Several House lawmakers on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have previously called for Moure-Eraso's resignation, but the chairman has said he intends to stay until his term ends in June.
"As my time as chairman draws to a close, we will be leaving behind a stronger agency," Moure-Eraso told lawmakers last week (Greenwire, March 4).
Inhofe and Rounds, though, said in the letter the agency can't afford to wait that long.
"He has violated his oath of office," the letter said. "He has violated the law. The CSB can no longer continue to operate credibly under his leadership, and it is therefore our recommendation that you ask for Chairman Moure-Eraso's immediate resignation."
A spokeswoman for the agency couldn't be reached for comment this afternoon.
-
Senate Republicans Call for Removal of Embattled Safety Agency Head
Mar 12, 2015 | National Journal
By Jason Plautz
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Jim Inhofe is calling on President Obama to demand the resignation of the troubled head of a troubled safety agency over management issues and charges that he violated the Federal Records Act by using personal email.
In a letter to the White House obtained by National Journal, the Oklahoma Republican and Republican Sen. Michael Rounds of South Dakota say that Chemical Safety Board chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso should be removed before his term ends in a few months because of a "record of failed CSB leadership."
The letter comes a week after members on both sides of the aisle at a House Oversight Committee called for Moure-Eraso's resignation at a testy hearing. It marks the first time that the Senate has weighed in on CSB management.
Moure-Eraso's term ends in June, but the senators write that "it is our strong view that restoring the public's confidence in the CSB cannot wait that long, saying the agency "can no longer continue to operate credibly under this leadership."
"There is no doubt that the CSB serves a critical public safety role," the letter states. "However, based on the aforementioned findings, there is also no doubt that Chairman Moure-Eraso has lost the confidence of CSB staff, the EPA [Inspector General], and members of both parties in Congress."
The White House has not commented on Moure-Eraso's status, but did last week nominate a new chairman for the CSB for a term starting in June.
Oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and other committee members called on Moure-Eraso to step down last week at a hearing that focused on the use of personal email accounts for official business, a violation of the Federal Records Act
A report last month from the EPA Inspector General, which oversees CSB, found that Moure-Eraso and two top officials used personal accounts to evade other CSB employees. Documents revealed at the Oversight Committee hearing found that the practice had continued even after Moure-Eraso had assured Congress it had stopped.
Moure-Eraso's tenure also has been dogged by charges of mismanagement, intimidation, and dysfunction within the agency. Several senior investigators have left in recent years citing a toxic work environment and CSB consistently has among the lowest morale in surveys of federal agencies. Last week's hearing also touched on revelations that an employee may have been demoted after working with an outside firm on a management evaluation and speaking to congressional staff.
-
Greens: Data Show Keystone’s Oil Would Be Export-Bound
Mar 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Texas Gulf Coast refinery centered at the southern end of the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed path exported a growing share of the petroleum products the region processed in 2013 and 2014, according to an analysis of Energy Department data that green groups are using to defend President Barack Obama’s portrayal of the pipeline as questionably beneficial to U.S. consumers.
According to the data from DOE’s Energy Information Administration, refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas, exported upward of 55 percent of the Texas Gulf Coast region’s total refinery production in 2013, a share that leaped to 60 percent in 2014. Environmentalists initially provided the data to POLITICO, which later obtained a fuller version from the EIA.
Keystone developer TransCanada and other project supporters repeatedly assert that the $8 billion pipeline is not designed for export, saying it instead would boost the U.S. economy by giving Gulf Coast refiners access to a stable source of heavy crude that the U.S. continues to import, even as domestic production of light crude swells. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce rapped Obama this week for “spinning tales” after he described Keystone on Friday as a project that would be built for “Canadian oil that’s then going to go to the world market.”
Before Obama’s latest pipeline remarks, Keystone backers in the GOP and the oil industry circulated a Washington Post “Fact Checker” article that gave the president a “four Pinocchio” rating for his claim that the 700,000-plus barrels per day of Canadian fuel bound for the pipeline “bypasses the U.S.”
That “Fact Checker” piece, however, largely addressed the export prospects of Keystone’s unprocessed heavy crude. On the question of whether the refined products generated by the pipeline’s oil would be sold overseas, it cited only a report by IHS, a consulting firm frequently hired by the industry.
Environmentalists are seizing on the EIA data as evidence that the Texas refineries where Keystone would terminate stand to export even more product if the pipeline is approved — even though most of the processed petroleum produced in the broader Gulf Coast region is not exported.
“President Obama was right to call Keystone an export pipeline because that’s exactly what it is,” Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International, said by email. “The pipeline would supply the very refineries that are leading the refinery export boom on the Gulf Coast and looking at the exports from those refineries, rather than the entire Gulf Coast region, shows they export the majority of their production.”
Houston and Port Arthur refineries exported an average of 1.9 million barrels per day for all of 2014, a figure that spiked to a daily average of 2.3 million barrels in December, according to the data. The latter number represents more than two-thirds of that month’s total Texas Gulf Coast refinery production. The EIA’s definition of the Texas Gulf Coast extends beyond those two cities to include places like Corpus Christi.
It’s also not clear that all of the crude oil that Keystone would transport is necessarily bound for Houston and Port Arthur. Last month’s IHS report looked at a broader swath of Gulf Coast refineries believed to have agreements to import heavy crude from Venezuelan and Mexican producers that Keystone could back out of the market, including those in Lake Charles, La., and Pascagoula, Miss.
Houston and Port Arthur are at the end of the Houston Lateral, a short $600 million project that would connect to Keystone XL’s southern leg near the Texas-Louisiana border. TransCanada is already operating the southern leg, which links the Gulf Coast to Cushing, Okla., but it is still waiting for the Obama administration to render a verdict on the pipeline’s far more controversial northern link, which would bring heavy Canadian crude into the U.S.
-
Kerry Slams Climate Skeptics and Fossil Fuels, But Sidesteps Keystone
Mar 12, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
Secretary of State John Kerry railed against climate change skeptics on Thursday, saying that “future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning,” though he offered no direct clues on whether he would back the Keystone XL pipeline.
Kerry’s speech was the latest warning from the administration about the threat of carbon pollution from fossil fuels and the need to reach a strong long-term international pact to combat global warming at the upcoming U.N. summit in Paris in December.
“It is time, my friends, for people to do real cost accounting,” Kerry said. “The bottom line is that we can’t only factor in the price of immediate energy needs. We have to include the long-term cost of carbon pollution. We have to factor in the cost of survival. And if we do, we will find that pursuing clean energy now is far more affordable than paying for the consequences of climate change later.”
But left unsaid by Kerry was whether he or President Barack Obama would need forgiveness from those future generations should they ultimately approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which the State Department has been reviewing since 2008. The project’s application has only formally been on Kerry’s desk since early February, and his recommendation will go to Obama, who has said he will make the final call, but is under no timeline to come to any decision.
Kerry’s most passionate words were saved for a basic call for climate action, a warning that if nations fail to act quickly, history will judge harshly.
“Rest assured — not a threat, but a statement of fact — if we fail, future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning,” he said. “Future generations will judge our effort not just a policy failure, but a collective moral failure of historic consequence.”
Kerry said it’s time for all nations to embrace green energy and move beyond fossil fuels, and he warned about the long-term costs of climate change, including threats to agricultural yields and increased public health crises.
“Coal and oil are only cheap ways to power a nation in the short term,” he said. “The costs of those outdated energy sources actually pile up very quickly.”
Kerry also took a shot at Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who was the subject of news reports this week alleging that his environmental department has barred state employees from using the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in emails and other documents.
“We literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say ‘climate change,’” Kerry said, referring to the incident but not naming the Republican governor directly. “We have to talk about how we can solve climate change.”
Scott told reporters on Monday that the reports about the alleged ban are “not true.”
Keystone XL’s foes quickly latched on to Kerry’s rhetoric as another sign he is leaning toward rejecting the project that would link Canada’s oil sands in Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
“While Kerry didn’t bring up Keystone, he sure brought up more and more reasons why it should be rejected,” said Sierra Club Legislative Director Melinda Pierce. “And he’s absolutely right: Burning fossil fuels has long-term costs that have to be at the front of our minds when evaluating both the pipeline project and development of the tar sands.”
Kerry and other national leaders “all see the writing on the wall,” anti-Keystone activist Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska wrote in an email.
“Sec. Kerry’s words are right and gives us a path for rejecting the risky Keystone XL as well as focusing on the much bigger fight that we simply can not produce tar sands [oil],” she added.
Also heartening for climate activists was Kerry’s criticisms of the broader costs of fossil fuels — including natural gas, which Kerry said burns more cleanly than coal, but still releases large amounts of carbon.
Those comments could spell trouble for Keystone if Kerry applies that carbon argument to his consideration of the pipeline. The State Department’s formal environmental review last year concluded there would be little environmental risk from the pipeline, which would have “no significant impact” on the development of Canada’s oil sands petroleum.
In comments submitted to State on the Keystone pipeline, EPA said the environmental analysis was based on oil prices that were far higher current market rates. Lower oil prices could boost the importance that the pipeline has on the economics behind developing the oil sands petroleum, thus increasing the greenhouse gas impacts, EPA argued.
“Anyone doing ‘real cost accounting’ would certainly see the Keystone pipeline for the absurdity that it is,” 350.org founder and anti-Keystone activist Bill McKibben wrote in an email. “So let’s hope he means it.”
But the pipeline’s supporters maintain that Kerry’s choice is clear.
“The decision on KXL should be based on the facts and the science and both have concluded the pipeline is safe to build. The State Department’s five reviews all point to a yes on Keystone,” American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Sabrina Fang said. “We stand by the State Department’s conclusions that KXL will create 42,000 jobs and that it will have minimal impact on the environment. Politics should be left out of this decision.”
In recent months Obama has publicly questioned the benefits of Keystone XL. Just last week, Obama called oil sands production “extraordinarily dirty” and said there are risks to moving the crude through the U.S. heartland.
“I haven’t made a final determination on it,” Obama said at a town hall in South Carolina, “but what I’ve said is, we’re not going to authorize a pipeline that benefits largely a foreign company if it can’t be shown that it is safe and if it can’t be shown that, overall, it would not contribute to climate change.”
Keystone XL opponents are hoping the the international climate talks could put the pipeline in jeopardy.
“Development of the tar sands and approval of Keystone, that would aid the development of that tar sands, is fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. going to Paris with a commitment to make meaningful reductions in carbon pollution,” Sierra’s Pierce said.
Kerry never came close to mentioning the pipeline during his remarks on Thursday morning. But he was clear that there is already a straightforward fix for climate change.
“The solution is not a mystery. It’s staring us in the face. It’s called energy policy. Energy policy. That’s the solution to climate change. And with the right choices at the right speed you can actually prevent the worst effects of climate change from crippling us forever,” he said.
-
Carbon Rule Needs Power Price Stability For Low-Income Groups, McCarthy Says
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Protecting people with low incomes from increases in energy prices will be a challenge for the Environmental Protection Agency in executing its Clean Power Plan, Administrator Gina McCarthy said March 12.
The EPA also is considering environmental justice concerns in other rules and in President Barack Obama's Fiscal Year 2016 budget request, McCarthy said.
These efforts cumulatively reflect the agency's commitment to addressing these issues for vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, McCarthy told federal staff and environmental justice advocates at the National Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program.
Clean Power Plan
The EPA is working to ensure states can design their plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in a way that won't require energy rate increases for vulnerable communities and won't threaten reliability, McCarthy said.
“We want to follow the energy world so that reliability happens and energy prices stay within the prices that people have been able to afford,” McCarthy said.
“We are not going to hurt the very people we are trying to protect,” McCarthy said.
Under the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, the agency would set carbon emission rates that are specific to each state (RIN 2060-AR33) (106 DEN A-1, 6/3/14). The states then would be responsible for crafting their own plans to meet the rates (48 DEN A-1, 3/12/15).
The plan “must” and “will” be finalized this summer, McCarthy said.
Other ongoing EPA rulemakings would also have major implications for environmental justice communities. Some of these include the farmworker protection proposal (RIN 2070-AJ22) and the proposed ozone standard (RIN 2060-AP38), McCarthy said.
McCarthy also highlighted the fence line monitoring provisions within the agency's proposed refinery rule (RIN 2060-AQ75). Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, noted the environmental justice component of the same rulemaking March 11 (48 DEN A-1, 3/12/15).
FY 2016 Budget Request
Additionally, the administrator emphasized the importance of Obama's budget request for the EPA, highlighting some of its key benefits for environmental justice communities (46 DEN A-14, 3/10/15).
McCarthy touted the funding request for the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center, which lets municipal utilities and others seek financing for water or wastewater infrastructure. She called it “an opportunity to think differently about how we bring private sector dollars to the table [and] create public-private sector partnerships.”
The center, launched in January, would garner attention for rural areas’ needs that currently aren't visibly on the table, McCarthy said (12 DEN A-7, 1/20/15).
“This is our opportunity to start making progress, not just in the urban areas, but in areas that have no wastewater facilities, where they do not have access to drinking water,” McCarthy said.
“This is a way for us to partner with USDA [the Agriculture Department], who has lots of resources, to point out opportunities to bundle all of those rural communities’ issues and find new financing mechanisms that will give them the power to actually get the work done and finance it,” she said.
-
Inhofe’s Misleading Statements on Carbon Emissions Rule
Mar 13, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
Inhofe, chair of the Senate Environment Committee, is a vocal skeptic of scientific research that climate change is man-made. He also has been critical of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which proposes new regulations to limit coal-plant carbon emissions.
Proponents of the Clean Power Plan, a flagship regulatory proposal of the Obama administration, say it will improve public health and the United States would set an example for other countries to curb carbon emissions. Opponents say the plan will have minimal impact on the environment while driving up costs for consumers. The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on the proposal.
Inhofe said 32 states oppose the EPA’s proposal, and that it will result in double-digit electricity price hikes in 43 states. He repeated the 32-state figure in a subsequent hearing. Is he correct on these two points? The Facts
The Clean Power Plan was introduced in June 2014 as a part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. It proposes to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Inhofe’s staff provided a list by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity of states where governors, attorneys general, legislatures, public utility commissions and departments of environmental quality oppose the rule. The list comprises 32 states, but the actual number of “official” opponents in those states is smaller. There are 15 governors who wrote a September 2014 letter to Obama that the EPA is overstepping its authority. Of the 22 attorneys general in this list, 13 have joined a federal lawsuit against the EPA challenging the rule. State lawmakers in 18 states passed laws or non-binding resolutions against the rule. State officials opposing the rule have expressed frustration that they do not have enough flexibility to comply with the proposal, or that it would burden states.
The 32-state figure does not capture the split in some states, where officials are working on a compliance plan despite broader efforts in their states to challenge the rule. In Kentucky, for example, the attorney general is suing the EPA but the Democratic governor, utilities and environmental groups are are working on a plan to meet EPA requirements while keeping electricity rates low.
Here’s a breakdown: States with opposition from all five agencies: 4States with opposition from either the governor or attorney general: 20States with opposition from both the governor and attorney general: 11States with no stance from public utility commission or departments of environmental quality, but with opposition from governor, attorney general and/or state legislature: 10
Much of the opposition against the Clean Power Plan is along party lines, and it is difficult to find prominent sitting Republican state leaders who support it. But rule-making agencies are less likely to vocally oppose it, in part because they are responsible for carrying it out if the legal and political challenges fail.
As for price hikes, Inhofe’s staff cited a study commissioned by industry groups that oppose the Clean Power Plan. It found that if every state complied, energy prices would increase between 9 to 18 percent in every state (with double-digit increases in 43 of them), partly because of up-front utility costs from investing in energy efficiency programs. Inhofe’s aides noted that this study, unlike the EPA’s analysis, considers broader impacts beyond the energy sector.
Clean Power Plan proponents criticize that study, saying it inflates the cost of energy efficiency programs by at least 63 percent, and as high as 150 percent. They say it ignores long-term benefits of energy efficiency programs that ultimately could drive actual energy bills down. It may cost more to produce cleaner energy, but consumers would pay less in bills because less energy would be generated, proponents say. (The Fact Checker previously gave Four Pinocchios to a claim by the National Mining Association that electricity prices will “nearly double” due to clean coal technology.)
The EPA says the benefits ($76 billion) by 2030 will far outweigh the costs of complying with new regulations ($9 billion). The agency estimates electricity bills decrease by 8 percent and Americans would save about $8 on average on their monthly residential bills. (Clean energy advocates say the EPA’s calculations are actually conservative.)
It’s impossible to make accurate cost projections because the rule is not yet final, and states will decide how to meet their emissions goal. Costs can vary depending on state, regional or local policymakers’ decisions.
Resources for the Future, an independent environmental research group, found that electricity prices can range from double-digit increases to as modest as one to two percent on average. “Considerable uncertainty surrounds the structure of future regulations for existing power plants under the (Clean Air Act), but it is possible that a market-based and reasonably cost-effective approach will emerge,” its study says.
Emissions and power plants can cross state boundaries, so states can coordinate with each other to lower costs. “The plan’s considerable flexibility regarding how and where emission reductions can occur is an important feature because it promotes cost-effectiveness. Whether states will fully capitalize on this flexibility is an open question,” a group of environmental economists wrote in an article published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Pinocchio Test
The Clean Power Plan is a highly politicized issue, and Inhofe’s claim reflects views of many Republican lawmakers and industry groups opposing the plan. There are many competing studies, and whether one is more credible than another largely depends on where one stands on climate change or the Clean Power Plan.
Inhofe’s count of 32 states is an aggregate count of the various governors, attorneys general, state legislatures, public utility commissions and departments of environmental quality that have expressed opposition. When you break it down by states, the 32-state figure is not as dramatic as it sounds — there are smaller groups of governors and attorneys general who have banded together to challenge the proposal.
His claim that electricity prices will increase by double digits comes from a study commissioned by industry groups that oppose the Clean Power Plan. But the claim is misleading. It assumes the worst-case scenario, and does not consider how states would adopt emissions regulations individually or as a region. A lot of the costs can be driven down by state, local and regional policymakers, and some of them already are working with the EPA to figure out cost-effective plans. This is a highly technical topic with many caveats yet to be sorted out.
-
EPA Proposes Implementation Rule For Fine Particulate Matter Standards
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed rule outlining how states will implement the current national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter.
The proposed implementation rule (RIN 2060-AQ48), signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy March 10, would establish attainment planning requirements that state air agencies must meet for moderate and serious nonattainment areas.
The proposed rule also outlines requirements for state new source review permitting in fine particulate matter nonattainment areas and the process for reclassifying moderate nonattainment areas to serious nonattainment areas if an area fails to demonstrate attainment with the particulate matter standards by the applicable deadline.
The EPA in 2012 revised the annual, health-based standard for fine particulate matter from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 12 µg/m3. At that time, the agency also decided to retain the existing daily primary standard for fine particulates of 35 µg/m3 and the daily standard for coarse particles of 150 µg/m3 for coarse particles (241 DEN A-6, 12/17/12)
The revised annual fine particulate standard is projected by the EPA to result in as much as $9.1 billion in annual health benefits from reduced exposure to fine particulates, a pollutant linked to premature death, heart attacks and asthma attacks.
14 Nonattainment Areas Designated
The EPA in December designated 14 areas in six states, including the San Joaquin Valley in California, as being in nonattainment of the 2012 fine particulate matter standards. All of those areas were initially designated as moderate nonattainment areas, effective in April (244 DEN A-1, 12/19/14).
Under the proposed implementation rule, the affected states will have until October 2016 to submit state implementation plans on how they intend to attain the standards. The EPA would then have until April 2018 to use discretionary authority to reclassify any areas that the agency determines won't be able to come into compliance with the standards by December 2021.
The proposed implementation rule also includes options to revoke the 1997 primary annual standard of 15 µg/m3 because the revised 2012 standard of 12 µg/m3 is more protective of public health.
States Reviewing Proposal
Officials with national organizations representing state air regulatory agencies were still reviewing the proposal and were unable to comment on its contents.
Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA in a March 12 e-mail that the association has a webinar with EPA officials on the proposal scheduled for the week of March 16.
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, also was unable to comment on the proposal, but he said it is “extraordinarily important” for the EPA to issue its implementation rules as soon as possible after a revised national air standard is finalized.
Becker told Bloomberg BNA March 12 that it is “regrettable” that the implementation rule for the 2012 fine particulate matter standard is being proposed more than two years after the rule was finalized in December 2012.
It's more difficult for state air agencies to let industry and other affected parties know of the potential effects of a revised standard when states don't know what the ground rules for implementation will be, Becker said.
EPA Urged to Issue Proposed, Final Rules
NACAA has requested that the EPA issue a proposed implementation rule alongside its anticipated final rule (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the ozone standards, which are expected by Oct. 1. The agency has “pledged to do a better job” on the implementation regulation for the 2015 ozone standards, Becker said.
The EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days after the document is printed in the Federal Register.
-
EPA PM2.5 SIP Rule Shows Effect Of Ruling Requiring Stricter Air Controls
Mar 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's just-released proposed rule guiding states on how to implement that agency's 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air standard highlights the broad effect of an adverse appellate ruling on the policy, forcing the agency to float a range of options for states to comply under stricter Clean Air Act provisions than previous policies.
In the proposed rule signed March 10 by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, but not yet published in the Federal Register, EPA details a lengthy list of requirements for states when crafting state implementation plans (SIPs) for meeting the annual 2012 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), set by EPA at 12 micrograms per cubic meters (ug/m3) annually. The 2012 rulemaking tightened the standard from the prior 2006 NAAQS of 15 ug/m3.
The proposal grapples with how to regulate PM2.5 under stricter air law provisions mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its 2013 ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, in which it faulted the agency for using weaker provisions of the air law in prior implementation rules.
In the case, the court agreed with NRDC and other environmentalists that EPA had wrongly applied softer Clean Air Act “subpart 1” provisions to implement PM2.5 standards, which apply to the NAAQS program in general, rather than the more stringent “subpart 4” provisions that apply to coarse particulate matter (PM10).
The court rejected EPA's argument that PM2.5 was a “new” pollutant, and hence not subject to subpart 4, finding instead that PM2.5 is a subset of the larger PM10 and must therefore be subject to the tougher terms of subpart 4. EPA's new implementation rule shows that decision has multiple implications for PM2.5 SIP planning.
One implication of the ruling is that EPA must now reexamine the SIP requirements for regulation of PM2.5 precursors, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and ammonia. These chemicals react in the air to form PM2.5, rather than being directly emitted as particles from pollution sources.
Subpart 4 sets specific requirements for EPA's treatment of precursors, requiring a more detailed consideration than the more general Subpart 1. EPA had under previous implementation policies, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, allowed nationally applicable presumptions that states did not have to consider some precursors, such as ammonia, for particular regulatory purposes such as new source review permitting requirements.
Proposed Rule
In the new proposed rule, EPA is saying it would abolish such presumptions in favor of state-specific exemptions that must be justified by local regulators, under three options the agency invites comment on.
“This rule does not propose any national presumption that would simply allow a state to exclude sources of emissions of a particular precursor from further analysis for control requirements. However, the EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 4 requirements -- with respect to precursors in attainment plans for PM10, as set out in the General Preamble -- contemplates that the state may develop an attainment plan that regulates only those precursors that are necessary to control for purposes of timely attainment in the area, i.e., states may determine that only certain precursors need to be regulated for attainment purposes,” according to the rule.
The agency says that courts have supported such an approach for regulation of PM10 emissions. The livestock industry has recently expressed concern that EPA might require regulation of ammonia.
Agriculture groups say although ammonia is unquestionably part of the overall air pollution mix that leads to fine PM2.5 formation, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that ammonia, and specifically ammonia produced from manure generated in intensive animal husbandry, is to blame for ill health. There has "never been a serious look at the fact that certain species of PM2.5 cause no health effects," one industry source has said, citing studies that have failed to show adverse health effects from breathing ammonia emitted by farming sources.
Industry sources prefer voluntary approaches to reducing ammonia emissions, and EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks recently touted efforts within his region to voluntarily cut agricultural ammonia.
But EPA's implementation rule includes options that appear to offer a way for the industry in specific states, such as California, to avoid direct regulation of the livestock sector as a way to reduce PM.
Option one requires two analyses: an attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment, and a technical demonstration showing that major stationary sources of a particular precursor do not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the PM2.5 standard. Option two calls for a single analysis demonstrating that all emissions of a particular precursor from within the area do not significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard.
Option three calls for an attainment planning analysis demonstrating that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment.
Implementation Changes
Other changes EPA contemplates in the rule include altered submission deadlines for various SIP-related documents, and how to adapt to Subpart 4's two-step system classifying the severity of nonattainment areas.
Subpart 4 initially places all areas in “moderate” nonattainment, then bumps them up to “serious” status if they fail to attain the NAAQS by applicable regulatory deadlines. Subpart 1 does not divide areas into different nonattainment levels. Serious status requires the application of stringent control measures under best available control technology and best available control measures provisions -- tougher than “reasonably available” control technology or measures that are required for “moderate” nonattainment areas to reduce their emissions levels.
The proposed rule would also revoke the agency's prior “primary,” or health-based, annual PM2.5 NAAQS set at 15 ug/m3 in 1997, although again EPA floats options for how to achieve this goal.
Option one would revoke the NAAQS “for all purposes in attainment areas for that NAAQS 1 year after the effective date of the designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS,” while option two would revoke the NAAQS for all purposes in both nonattainment and attainment areas. Revoking old NAAQS standards has in the past led to legal fights between environmentalists and EPA over which measures to combat air quality “backsliding” EPA must retain from the revoked NAAQS.
-
Manufacturing Association Plans Legislative, Regulatory Push on Altering Ozone Proposal
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The National Association of Manufacturers is planning to “pursue all options available” to alter the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to set a more stringent ozone standard, association officials told reporters March 12.
Aric Newhouse, senior vice president for policy and government relations at the association, described a strategy to seek legislation that would delay the EPA from finalizing its revised ozone standard, while also talking to the White House about the potential cost of an ozone standard as low as 65 parts per billion, which is the low end of the range proposed by the EPA. Newhouse and Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at NAM, spoke to reporters at a March 12 breakfast on the ozone standard hosted by Bloomberg.
The agency is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to finalize its decision (RIN 2060-AP38) on whether to retain or revise the current national ambient air quality standards for ozone of 75 ppb. The EPA estimates a more stringent standard would provide billions in public health benefits, but industry is concerned about the cost of compliance and the possibility of more areas being subjected to stricter permitting requirements if they are unable to meet a revised standard.
“The question will be answered over the next six to eight months,” Newhouse said. “We'll know who our real advocates and our real friends are.”
Newhouse said the association hopes that a recent study prepared by NERA Economic Consulting, which projected that a 65 ppb standard would cost exponentially more than the EPA's own cost estimates, will “make clear to policy makers on both sides of the aisle that something's got to be done here.”
That study, which was commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, projected that a 65 ppb standard could impose about $1.1 trillion in compliance costs on industry from 2017 through 2040, much higher than the EPA's annual cost estimate of around $16.6 billion (39 DEN A-14, 2/27/15).
Call for Regulatory Relief
When asked about their preferred result, Eisenberg said the manufacturers association would like to see the current 2008 standards retained to give states and industry more time to come into compliance. The agency proposed to set a more stringent standard, but also is accepting comments on retaining the current 75 ppb standard.
The idea of a more stringent ozone standard is “absolutely terrifying” for manufacturers when combined with the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan and other environmental regulations that affect industry, according to Eisenberg.
Manufacturers would take “any relief at this point” to avoid a revised standard in 2015, including various legislative proposals that would block the EPA from finalizing its review of the ozone standards, according to Eisenberg.
Eisenberg highlighted legislation introduced in September 2014 by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) that would block the EPA from revising its current ozone standard until 85 percent of the counties currently in nonattainment with that standard are able to demonstrate compliance. That bill also would require the EPA to consider the cost and feasibility of setting a more stringent standard, which the agency currently is not permitted to do under the Clean Air Act (181 DEN A-10, 9/18/14).
Eisenberg said there are “reasons for hope” that a measure to delay final action on the ozone standard could receive bipartisan support, pointing to the recent passage of legislation to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (S. 1) and the introduction of a bill (S. 697) to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“I think there is an art to it, but you can get consensus in this Congress,” Eisenberg said.
Newhouse said industry will try to gain support for a legislative fix by having local manufacturers and other businesses explain to their representatives and senators how a more stringent ozone standard would negatively affect their constituents.
Litigation a ‘Last Resort.'
Eisenberg said the manufacturers association wants to effect changes to the EPA's proposal before it is finalized, but is “prepared” to litigate the final ozone standard if necessary.
“We look at litigation as a last resort always,” he said. “We would prefer not to litigate.”
Eisenberg acknowledged that litigating on national ambient air quality standards does “pose challenges” given the deference that the EPA has historically received from the courts on its decision making on health-based air quality standards.
The Supreme Court in 2001 upheld the EPA's 1997 national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, ruling that the agency is not permitted under the Clean Air Act to consider the cost of compliance when setting the standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (U.S. 2001); 40 DEN AA-1, 2/28/01).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2013 upheld the current primary, health-based 75 ppb standard, rejecting industry arguments that the standard was more stringent than necessary to protect public health and public health organization arguments that the EPA did not listen to recommendations from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that a more stringent standard was necessary (Mississippi v. EPA, 723 F.3d 246, 2013 BL 194344 (D.C. Cir. 2013); 142 DEN A-1, 7/24/13).
-
GOP's 'Secret Science' Bill Would Cost $250M a Year -- CBO
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
House Republican legislation to force U.S. EPA to make publicly available all the scientific studies, data and models used to shape rules would cost $250 million a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
CBO estimated that, on average, the actions called for by the bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per scientific study used to develop a regulation. Because of the high cost, CBO estimated that EPA would likely cut by half the amount of studies it relies on to shape environmental regulations.
The total cost of the GOP "secret science" bill would "ultimately depend on how EPA adapts to the bill's requirements," CBO said. The agency noted that its $250 million estimate lay in "a broad range of possible outcomes."
House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced the "Secret Science Reform Act of 2015" last month. Along with compelling EPA to make all scientific information publicly available, H.R. 1030 would prohibit EPA from finalizing rules that are based on science that isn't "transparent or reproducible."
The House had been expected to take up the legislation last week but postponed consideration due to the snowstorm in Washington, D.C., last Thursday. It is one in a pair of bills set to be considered on the House floor that target EPA science; the second bill would reform the science advisory board that advises the agency on rules (Greenwire, Feb. 26).
Similar versions of both pieces of legislation passed the House last November along party lines.
Democrats have raised concerns about the potential costs of the new version of the secret science bill, and the new CBO report is likely to add fuel to the fire. The legislation this year includes a new section that stipulates EPA cannot spend more than $1 million a year in carrying out the requirements.
CBO said it expected the costs of the potential bill would fall after the first few years.
"CBO expects that the additional costs to implement the legislation would decline over time as EPA became more adept and efficient at working with authors and researchers to ensure that the data used to support studies are provided in a standardized and replicable form," the office said.
-
House Unveils Draft Coal Ash Legislation to Address Implementation, Enforcement Issues
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
New draft coal ash legislation will build on an Environmental Protection Agency final rule on the management and disposal of the material, and it also will address self-implementation and enforcement concerns in the final regulation, supporters said.
Environmental advocates said the draft, Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015 unveiled March 11, has “major deficiencies” that include stripping the EPA of future regulatory authority over the material, providing the states with overly broad discretion for tailoring their programs, extending deadlines for compliance and removing a federal “backstop” for enforcement.
Utility industry representatives said the bill would result in a “much better system” that would take the burden off of citizen groups to be primarily responsible for enforcing the federal EPA rule. They also disputed whether the bill would significantly alter compliance time frames and said it would provide regulatory certainty that the EPA wouldn't revisit its decision not to regulate the material as a hazardous waste sometime in the future.
The bill, authored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), will be the subject of a legislative hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy March 18, the committee announced.
Several other coal ash bills authored by McKinley have passed the House previously, but the Senate has never considered legislation.
“The EPA's regulations offer more confusion and no reassurances that President Obama won't change his mind later,” McKinley said in a statement. “We can finally solve this problem.”
The EPA didn't respond to requests for comment on the bill. Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are working on similar legislation in the Senate (47 DEN A-4, 3/11/15).
Rule Released in December
In December, the EPA unveiled the first-ever management standards for the residue of coal-fired power generation, opting to regulate the material under the nonhazardous waste Subtitle D provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The final rule, which would initiate a series of compliance and litigation deadlines, hasn't yet been published in the Federal Register and won't be until late March or early April, the EPA said (43 DEN A-5, 3/5/15).
The final rule establishes a number of requirements for landfills and impoundments currently receiving the material, including location restrictions, inspections, groundwater monitoring and fugitive dust controls, but it contains no federal EPA enforcement provision. States will be “strongly” encouraged to adopt the federal standards, but enforcement will be left to citizen lawsuits.
Environmental groups appear likely to challenge the rule for not being strong enough, while industry groups expressed concern about inconsistent application of the rule by district court judges lacking technical expertise in the issue and the fact the regulation doesn't guarantee the EPA wouldn't revisit regulating the material as a hazardous waste in the future.
Builds on Previous Bills
McKinley's draft bill builds on previous efforts by requiring states to develop their own permitting programs for managing coal ash but allowing the EPA to implement one if a state refuses.
Supporters say that will allow state regulatory agencies to directly enforce programmatic requirements but leaves citizens and public interests groups the possibility to pursue lawsuit enforcement as well.
Another provision in the bill would bar the EPA from revisiting its decision to regulate coal ash under Subtitle D of RCRA, effectively locking in the nonhazardous waste designation.
“You get a rule that is more predictable, more evenly enforced than is a self-implementing rule that is enforced through a federal district court judge,” Jim Roewer, executive director of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, told Bloomberg BNA March 12. “We see this as solving a number of problems that we saw with implementation and enforcement in the EPA rule.”
Ultimately, the McKinley legislation is the “most appropriate, most practical way” to deal with enforcement challenges associated with the EPA regulation, Roewer said.
Environmental Groups Strongly Disagree
Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, said the draft legislation continued numerous flaws. Among the worst, she said, was the lack of a federal requirement to protect human health and the environment.
The bill wouldn't restrict the ability of states to change definitions, corrective action requirements or waive other components of the rule, potentially enabling states to adopt significantly weaker programs.
“It's especially discouraging because EPA bent over backwards to address the concerns of states and industry in the final rule,” Evans said. “They're raising a false problem in order to substantially weaken the rule.”
Evans said the federal EPA rule was “absolutely” too weak and said McKinley's bill is disappointing given the “generous concessions” made by the EPA to industry and states in the final rule.
Coal ash recycling groups and state organizations were not available to comment on the draft legislation.
-
Advocates Warn House Coal Ash Bill Would Weaken EPA's Disposal Rule
Mar 12, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are warning that House Republicans' draft coal ash disposal bill -- which aims to codify much of EPA's final ash waste rule while giving states primary enforcement authority -- would significantly weaken the agency's regulation, including depriving EPA of vital oversight, and lead to insufficiently protective ash controls.
The draft bill, released March 11 by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), has been touted by Republicans on the House Energy & Commerce Committee as largely replicating EPA's final rule governing disposal of coal ash, which the agency signed in December but has yet to publish in the Federal Register -- a necessary step for the policy to take effect.
But an environmentalist attorney says that while the McKinley bill includes many of EPA's technical standards, it would give the agency little power to enforce them.
“This bill would give states more discretion than they have with any solid or hazardous waste in the universe, and they can feel free not to impose some very important provisions, and with the language they're using, I don't see what EPA could do about it. This is really smoke and mirrors,” the attorney says.
McKinley's draft echoes much of the content of legislation he unsuccessfully pushed in 2013 that would generally apply Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D solid waste standards for coal ash, but under a new enforcement track where states would craft standards for ash disposal that would be reviewed and approved by EPA, without citizen suit provisions.
The 2013 bill cleared the House but failed to gain traction in the Democratic-led Senate last year, although the White House did not threaten a veto and instead offered ways to revise the bill to win President Obama's support, signaling that Obama could be open to signing the current bill if it clears the legislature.
EPA's rule regulates ash as a solid waste under subtitle D as industry and states sought. That move rejected calls from environmentalists for regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA subtitle C that they argued that would lead to stricter disposal controls, though industry said solid waste rules are just as protective as subtitle C.
However, the attorney says the bill appears not to include a standard for EPA to apply in reviewing state submissions, unlike the disposal rule which requires state-crafted standards to show “no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from disposal” of the waste.
“This bill has the same problem that all of Mr. McKinley's bills have had, which is that there's no standard of protection. . . . It's a very, very important omission, and it's one that we've pointed out before. We know how to put together a protective delegated program. If McKinley is touting this as a federal floor, the bill did not accomplish that,” the attorney continues.
The bill would also extend compliance timelines -- which unlike in the regulation would be tied to the issuance of state-crafted permits -- for as long as seven years for some technical and siting requirements, if facilities seek and receive extensions for permit application deadlines. By contrast, provisions of EPA's rule would take between six months and three years after publication to become effective.
Environmentalists' Concerns
“EPA’s final rule was less than we had hoped for, but provides at least some of the standards that we are now counting on. We cannot afford to lose that certainty, or take even more time getting these protections in place,” says a March 6 letter reacting to early reports of the bill from over 50 individuals and environmentalist groups to House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) and ranking member Paul Tonko (D-NY).
The letter seeks a committee hearing to gather communities' input on a coal ash bill. It was sent before the committee scheduled a March 18 hearing on McKinley's draft.
Monitoring provisions that required facility operators to publicly disclose groundwater contamination data and other potential indicators of environmental risk are also absent from McKinley's bill, environmentalists say.
“Among other things, McKinley’s bill would eliminate a requirement for electric utilities to publicly disclose information when their coal ash dumps leak and contaminate local drinking water supplies,” says a spokesperson for the Environmental Integrity Project.
Like the agency's disposal rule, McKinley's bill would regulate some “legacy” sites -- facilities where ash is still stored but is no longer actively deposited -- as well as fugitive dust emissions. But environmentalists say the timeline for closing legacy sites that do not comply with subtitle D standards has been drastically lengthened in part because such sites would only have to seek permits, rather than immediately begin closure, if they do not achieve compliance by an initial deadline.
“The timeline is not only way too long and attenuated, it's uncertain. Everything will depend on the permit conditions,” the attorney says.
Environmentalists are also pushing back against new exemptions from restrictions on “beneficial reuse” included in the draft bill. Alongside engineering requirements for ash disposal sites, EPA's rule set first-time criteria for distinguishing disposal from "beneficial reuse," in which coal ash is used as a component in manufactured products such as wallboard or as an engineering material. Ash reuse projects that fail to meet the listed criteria would be categorized as "disposal" and subjected to RCRA subtitle D standards. McKinley's draft bill includes those restrictions but adds new exemptions for many categories of “structural fills,” including use as a “building site or foundation; a base or embankment for a bridge, roadway, runway, or railroad; or a dike, levee, berm, or dam that is not part of a structure.” Such projects would not have to show a lack of environmental harms to be categorized as beneficial.
-
Legislative Limits on Coal-Fired Plant Peak NOx Emissions Debated at Hearing
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
A long-running effort to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from certain coal-fired power plants in Maryland moved into the legislative arena during a March 12 hearing on a bill that would codify rules that were halted at the last minute by Gov. Larry Hogan (R) just hours after taking office.
Like the stalled regulations it mirrors, H.B. 1042 would target NOx emissions from smaller units generally used only during peak demand and require them to optimize the use of existing pollution control equipment during the May 1 to Sept. 30 ozone season—a period of greater concern because NOx is a precursor of ozone.
Hours after being inaugurated, Hogan put a hold on an environmental regulation crafted by his predecessor that would have placed limits on coal-burning power plant nitrogen oxide emissions (15 DEN A-8, 1/23/15).
H.B. 1042 also would give owners of those facilities a June 1, 2020, deadline to install selective catalytic reduction technology, to convert from coal to natural gas or to permanently retire the noncompliant units. The third option wasn't favored by the bill's opponents during the House Economic Matters Committee hearing.
Seeks Prompt Implementation
Del. Dana Stein (D), sponsor of H.B. 1042, told lawmakers that Maryland is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action on NOx emissions because it has three areas not in attainment with the federal ozone standard, including the Baltimore area, the worst of the three.
Maryland missed a July 2014 EPA deadline to update its reasonably available control technology requirements in the state's clean air implementation plan. The stalled NOx regulations were to have been a part of that effort.
Stein cited a letter from the Maryland Department of the Environment saying the agency intends to “move forward quickly with a regulation that either adopts the most recent proposal or makes revisions and clarifications that result in comparable or greater pollutant reduction benefits.”
“If MDE plans to revise the regulations, that will take months,” Stein said, noting that the first round of regulations was hammered out over 15 months of lengthy meetings with interested parties.
“We can't wait that long,” Stein said. “We've already missed EPA's deadline, and smog season is just around the corner.”
Others supporting H.B. 1042 included representatives of the Maryland Sierra Club, one of the groups heavily involved in negotiating the rules, joined by witnesses from several public health organizations.
NRG Wants Matter Sent Back to MDE
Witnesses opposing the bill included representatives of NRG, one of two companies whose plants would be affected by the legislation.
The other company, Raven Power, is said to have been on board with MDE's earlier regulations and didn't send a witness to the hearing on H.B. 1042.
A spokesman for Raven didn't return a message seeking comment.
Steve Arabia, director of government affairs for NRG East Region, told lawmakers the company “does not oppose new NOx regulations. In fact we have put forth proposals designed to achieve MDE's stated objective of complying with the ozone standard and reducing peak day NOx emissions.”
But he said both the regulations and H.B. 1042 “go way beyond what's necessary to achieve air quality goals and would result in power plant shutdowns, extensive job losses and reduced property tax payments.”
Arabia Questions Bill's Flexibility
Arabia said it's inaccurate to describe the bill's post-June 2020 requirements as offering flexibility.
“The bill says you have three options, but converting to natural gas and putting on new controls are not economically feasible at this time. The power market outlook just does not support that,” he said.
“The only choice you're left with is shutting down. I don't think that's a choice,” Arabia said.
He noted that “70 percent of the power we generate goes through the very type of controls this bill would require for the plants that currently don't have them,” attributing that to Maryland's Healthy Air Act of 2006.
But unlike the approach currently under consideration, Arabia said the 2006 act “allowed us to average among all our plants—a very effective, proven way to achieve air quality objectives, and that's what we would be looking to do going forward” in further negotiations with MDE on this matter.
Several NRG employees, including representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1900, testified against the bill, expressing concern about job losses if plants closed in 2020 and citing effects not only on NRG employees but on management, contractors and suppliers in the power, railroad, mining and service sectors.
-
California Proposes First Efficiency Standards In Nation for Computers, Monitors
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Siciliano
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has proposed energy efficiency standards for computers that it said would cost manufacturers an estimated $2 per unit while returning $69 to consumers in the form of energy savings over the five-year life of a desktop device.
The standards for computers, computer monitors and signage displays are the first of their kind to be proposed in the nation. The CEC said the devices are responsible for 5 percent of electricity use in both the commercial and residential sectors.
The commission said in a March 12 statement that the proposed standards vary by computer type and “allow industry flexibility to choose how to comply with standards for notebooks, small-scale servers, and workstation computers.” They would go into effect Jan. 1, 2017.
Standards for desktop computers and “thin-clients” would begin Jan. 1, 2018. Thin-clients, according to the CEC, “are like ‘terminals' where most of the computing is done in a separate location.”
The CEC staff report detailing the standards said the “core opportunity” for savings in computers is the reduction of energy spent during “idle mode,” when the computer isn't in use.
The staff report said the proposed regulations for notebooks require “modest” reductions of computer idle consumption for items manufactured in 2018 and beyond. The proposed desktop standard would cut idle mode consumption by half in computers manufactured after 2018.
For computer monitors and signage, the best opportunities for energy consumption reduction are when they are in the “on mode,” according to the CEC.
Roughly Matches Energy Star Version 7.0
The proposed standards for computer monitors “roughly match the new Energy Star Version 7.0,” which 20 percent of monitors on the market currently meet, according to the staff report.
Doug Johnson, vice president for technology policy at the Consumer Electronics Association, told Bloomberg BNA in a March 12 interview that the industry has been working to reduce consumption through the Energy Star program, and other efforts, for almost two decades.
He questioned the viability of “static regulations” that apply to fast-evolving technology products but said the CEA shares the energy commission's goals of savings in energy consumption.
The standards could serve as a blueprint for national standards by the U.S. Energy Department, Pat Remick, senior energy communications strategist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA March 12.
Could Become ‘De Facto' National Standards
Given the population of California, he said, the standards could become “de facto national energy standards” since manufacturers are unlikely to pay for the production of a separate line of products exclusively for the California market.
The Consumer Federation of America said the standards “appear to be consumer and industry friendly, will save energy and lower total pocketbook costs.”
The CEC has scheduled a public comment workshop for April 15.
-
Review of Yeast Production, Pulp Mill Toxics Standards Overdue, Lawsuit Says
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency is overdue to review its toxic air pollutant standards for equipment at pulp mills and yeast manufacturing plants, the Sierra Club said in a lawsuit filed March 12 (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Calif., No. 3:15-cv-01165, 3/12/15).
The EPA has violated the Clean Air Act requirement to review every eight years and, if necessary, update its national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for nutritional yeast manufacturing and for chemical recovery combustion sources at Kraft, soda, sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills, the Sierra Club and California Communities Against Toxics said in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the EPA to conduct the required reviews.
The EPA issued the hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act for both yeast manufacturing (66 Fed. Reg. 27,876) and chemical recovery combustion sources at pulp mills (66 Fed. Reg. 3180) in 2001.
The EPA hasn't yet conducted the required review or determined whether any risk from the facilities' emissions remains after the required controls have been installed, the Sierra Club said.
Pulp mills emit toxic pollutants such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, mercury and hydrogen chloride, while yeast production emits acetaldehyde, the Sierra Club said.
-
Wisconsin Environmental Group Challenges Expansion of Crude Oil Rail Traffic
Mar 13, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Bologna
An environmental advocacy group has filed a pair of legal challenges against the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, objecting to environmental permits that will let the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) expand its shipments of Bakken crude oil through the Upper Mississippi River Basin (Freeland v. Wisconsin DNR, Wis. Cir. Ct., No. 15-cv-117, 3/9/15).
Midwest Environmental Advocates (MEA), on behalf of nine Wisconsin residents, filed a petition for judicial review against the DNR in La Crosse County Circuit Court March 9. The petition objects to the agency's final decision to issue a wetland and bridge permit to BNSF.
MEA alleged the DNR failed to perform the proper environmental analysis, as required under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, when it issued the permits. The petition calls on the DNR to reverse the permit decision and conduct a proper environmental impact analysis as required under WEPA.
MEA simultaneously filed a petition for a contested case hearing directly with the DNR. The petition contains similar objections to the BNSF permit and calls on the agency to void the wetland and bridge permit.
BNSF currently plans to construct a second railroad track, adjacent to existing tracks, crossing the La Crosse River Marsh and La Crosse River east of the city of La Crosse, Wis. BNSF was issued a permit, which will allow the railroad to fill 7.2 acres of wetlands.
The Wisconsin DNR didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment on the legal challenges.
Potential Environmental Impacts
The plaintiffs in the circuit court action asserted that the DNR failed to consider a wide range of potential environmental impacts that could result from additional rail traffic.
A key concern is whether the public and the environment will be harmed in light of recent safety problems linked to rail cars carrying highly volatile crude oil from the Bakken formation.
The plaintiffs specifically pointed to a BNSF derailment near Galena, Ill., on March 5, which resulted in the release of thousands of gallons of oil and an intense chemical fire (45 DEN A-15, 3/9/15).
“As we have seen with recent derailments like the one that happened in Galena, IL last Thursday today's rail traffic is much riskier than a few years ago,” plaintiff Ralph Knudson said in a statement. “The marsh project being considered is one of a series of projects intended to facilitate even more traffic flow. An environmental impact statement would compel a thorough look at all aspects of construction and operation of rail lines for opportunities to minimize risk and protect the marsh environment and public assets.”
-
DeFazio Seeks GAO Review of Accident Readiness
Mar 13, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) is asking the Government Accountability Office to probe freight railroads' ability to handle derailments and other potentially catastrophic accidents involving trains carrying crude oil.
As crude-by-rail shipments make their way from areas like North Dakota's Bakken Shale formation to coastal refineries, they pass through "very rural areas" in a number of states, said DeFazio, the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in a letter yesterday requesting the review.
"I have significant concerns that emergency responders in those states, particularly in the most remote and environmentally sensitive areas, may not be sufficiently prepared to respond to a serious rail accident," he added. His request follows several recent mishaps in the United States and Canada, including last week's derailment of a 105-car oil train in rural Illinois (EnergyWire, March 6).
Specifically, DeFazio asked GAO to scrutinize: How railroads have prepared to respond to potential crude-by-rail accidents, including steps to coordinate with state and local emergency responders, and what more could be done when it comes to training, sharing oil spill response plans and "prepositioning" critical resources to keep crude from getting into rivers and other water bodies. What federal funds and other resources are available to emergency responders, whether they are enough and, if needed, what options exist for augmenting them. What the Transportation Department has done to bolster emergency response and what more could be done.
In an email, GAO spokesman Chuck Young said DeFazio's request will go through a standard review process -- usually taking about two weeks -- before the agency takes any action.
-
Canada Proposes New Standards For Oil Train Designs
Mar 12, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Canadian regulators proposed a new set of standards for trains carrying crude oil, with new shields designed to mitigate derailments.
The new standard, dubbed TC-117, represents one of the major responses Canada is putting forth to stem the increasing number of major oil train disasters in North America.
Regulators said Wednesday they want tanker cars carrying oil to have new shields to protect pressure release valves, mandatory shields to protect the ends of the cars, new thermal shields and thicker steel shells around the cars, the Globe and Mail reported.
Transport Canada said it would soon announce new braking requirements as well.
Older vehicles would be banned from carrying crude on Canada’s rails by 2025.
Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, the top two cargo railroads in Canada, welcomed the proposal, as did the Railway Association of Canada.
Canadian regulators and their counterparts in the United States have been looking into new railcar rules for years, spurred largely by an oil train explosion in Quebec that killed 47 in 2013.
The U.S. Transportation Department is due within months to make final its own new rules for oil train tank cars, which are likely to include thicker shells and better braking.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested