Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Mar 18
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Housing Starts Plummet 17% in Feb, Down 3.3% From Year Earlier
Mar 17, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
By Joe Kamalick
US new home construction plummeted in February, the Commerce Department said on Tuesday, with housing starts down by 17% from January and 3.3% below the pace seen in February 2014. In its monthly report, the department said that housing starts in February were at a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 897,000, down by 17% from the... -
(ACC Mentioned) Boxer, Udall Argue Merits of Respective Proposals That Would Overhaul TSCA
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The prospects of reaching middle ground on two recently introduced bills to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act during the 114th Congress seemed dim March 17 as competing news conferences were held by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) on one side and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on the other. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Toxic Substances Control Act Needs the Right Reform
Mar 18, 2015 | The Hill
By Elizabeth Glass Geltman
Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The bill is hailed as bipartisan. The American Chemistry Council... -
(ACC Mentioned) Boxer: Udall-Vitter TSCA Is Work Of Chemical Industry
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Barbara Boxer asserted again today that the chemical industry predominately wrote a bill from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. “To be a hundred percent candid and direct, their bill has been generated by the chemical industry itself,” she said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Boxer: Chemical Bill Came From Industry
Mar 18, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she recieved a copy of the chemical reform bill that Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced last week by email that proves the legislation was created by the chemical industry. "It was clear from the computer coding that the final draft originated at the American Chemical Council itself,” she... -
(ACC Mentioned) Udall: Lots Of People Suggested Edits To TSCA Bill
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Sen. Tom Udall’s office is picking apart Sen. Barbara Boxer’s assertion that she has proof that the chemical industry essentially wrote the New Mexico Democrat’s update with Sen. David Vitter of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Boxer is using a proposed redlined edit distributed by the American Chemistry Council to allege the industry’s... -
(ACC Mentioned) Vitter Sponsors Overhaul of Toxic Chemicals Law
Mar 17, 2015 | Daily World
By Nicole Gaudiano
A nearly 40-year-old law designed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals and substances in consumer products would get a major overhaul under legislation by Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana. Some environmental and health groups say the bipartisan legislation that Vitter introduced last week with Democratic Sen... -
(ACC Mentioned) Putnam County Bans Polystyrene In Its Government Facilities
Mar 17, 2015 | WAMC Northeast Public Radio
By Allison Dunne
A ban on plastic foam for government facilities in New York’s Putnam County takes effect in a few months. Environmentalists are applauding, but a trade association expresses disappointment. The Putnam County Legislature has unanimously approved a ban on the use of polystyrene, or plastic foam, for all food service establishments... -
(ACC Mentioned) Interior Secretary Jewell to Attend Oil, Gas Lease Sale of 41.2M Acres in Gulf
Mar 17, 2015 | Bayou Buzz Louisiana
On Wednesday, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell will attend and open bids at an oil and gas lease sale offering 41.2 million acres for exploration and development in the Central Planning Area offshore Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The event will be held in New Orleans. -
(ACC Mentioned) Oregon Officials Want to Ban Toxins from Children’s Products. A Federal Bill Could Stop Them.
Mar 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Amanda Frank
Leaded gasoline. Lead-based paint chips. Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. These are a few things parents no longer have to worry about, thanks to government standards and safeguards. But we still have a long way to go in protecting our children from hazardous chemicals. Manufacturers can still use toxins in children’s products... -
Markey: Some Elements of Our Bill Will Make it in Final Chemical Reform
Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said he and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) feel confident that they can get some of the elements in their legislation included in whatever chemical reform bill ultimately passes. “Our objective is to make sure that a good bill passes through the Congress and what we’re doing today is the beginning of our efforts in... -
Full House Approves Legislation Revamping Selection of EPA's Science Advisory Board
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House March 17 approved legislation modifying the operations, scope and selection process for members of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board. The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1029), sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), passed the full chamber on a 236-181 vote. Just two... -
House Passes Bill to Reform Agency's Science Advisory Panel
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
The House yesterday passed legislation aimed at correcting what critics perceive as a bias in the scientific panel that advises U.S. EPA in rulemakings. The lower chamber approved the bill in a 236-181 vote along mostly party lines. Two Democrats -- Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Brad Ashford of Nebraska -- broke from their party to vote... -
How Best to Strengthen Chemical Regulations
Mar 18, 2015 | The New York Times - Op-Ed
Two bills were introduced in the Senate last week to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, which by most accounts has been a miserable failure at ensuring the safety of chemicals used in consumer products. The bills take vastly different approaches and raise the troubling question of whether to settle for a reasonable compromise... -
NGOs Develop Nano Policy Recommendations for Food Industry
Mar 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A coalition of NGOs has released policy recommendations for food-related industries that it says will help them reduce the risks of nanomaterials in food products and packaging. The groups want companies to adopt a detailed public policy, viewable on their website, that explains their use of the... -
US Obesogen Research Programme to Deliver New Data
Mar 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The US National Institute of Environmental Health (NIEHS) is funding a programme of 57 studies on chemical exposures affecting obesity and diabetes, a workshop heard at an environmental health sciences roundtable on 2 and 3 March. Dr Jerry Heindel, health scientist administrator at the Institute of Medicine hosting the event, said that 32... -
At Stake in the Senate TSCA Fight: The Fate of Asbestos
Mar 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Tina Sigurdson
Many Americans probably believe asbestos was banned years ago, consigned to the trash bin of history, never to be seen again. Not so. This notorious human carcinogen is still legal for use in the U.S. In 1989, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the federal Environmental Protection Agency attempted to ban... -
(ACC Mentioned) Revised Ozone Standard Would Be Delayed Under Bills Reintroduced in Senate, House
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Legislation reintroduced March 17 in the Senate and House would block the Environmental Protection Agency from setting more stringent ozone standards until most of the country comes into compliance with the current standards. The Clean Air, Strong Economies Act (S. 571), introduced in the Senate by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and ... -
(ACC Mentioned) Indiana Among States Opposing Proposed EPA Ozone Standards
Mar 17, 2015 | Indiana Public Media
By Alexander McCall
Gov. Mike Pence is among 11 governors who say they oppose proposed changes to the EPA's ozone standards. Gov. Mike Pence joined 10 other governors who sent a letter Monday to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency opposing its proposed tougher ozone standards. The agency wants to lower the federal ozone clean air standard... -
Fracking Rule Imminent for Federal Lands, With More Regulations to Follow, Jewell Says
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said March 17 a final rule updating regulations on hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas well practices on federal lands will be released “in the coming days.” The final rule, still at the White House Office of Management and Budget, will update 30-year-old regulations with “baseline prudent standards,” Jewell said in... -
Jewell Expects ‘the Right Balance’ From Fracking Rule — But Maybe Not Applause
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
The Interior Department’s long-awaited rule for fracking on federal lands may not win cheers from greens, Secretary Sally Jewell acknowledged Tuesday — but she said it will strike “the right balance.” The fracking rule, which the department controversially delayed in 2013, is one of two much-anticipated regulations the department is gearing... -
JEWELL: Fracking Rule in 'Coming Days'
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on Tuesday that the Interior Department will release its long-delayed final rule for fracking on public lands in the "coming days." "The rule will include measures to protect our nation’s groundwater — requiring operators to construct sound wells, to disclose the chemicals they use, and to safely recover and handle... -
Activists Urge Cuomo to Clarify Fracking Ban In New York, Say Public Policy Unclear
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Three months after New York essentially banned the natural gas drilling practice known as hydraulic fracturing, some of the state's antifracking activists are now concerned about whether a true ban is really in place. Hundreds of activists have signed an open letter to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), asking him to clarify the state's policy... -
House Foreign Affairs Committee to Mark Up Legislation to Repeal Crude Oil Export Ban
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A House bill that would repeal the 40-year-old ban on most crude oil exports will receive a markup in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) told Bloomberg BNA. The markup will be held “in the next couple of weeks,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the bill's author, said in an interview. Royce, a supporter of the bill... -
District By district, Study Builds Case for Exports
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jenny Mandel
The economic benefits of exporting domestically produced oil range far beyond where drilling takes place, boosting economic activity in every state and nearly every congressional district, according to a new, industry-funded study geared to sway Capitol Hill decisionmakers. -
Dems to Reintroduce 'Frac Act,' Other Drilling Bills
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Mike Soraghan
Democrats are reintroducing four bills that would increase federal regulation of oil and gas drilling, though passage remains unlikely. House Democrats are calling the bills the "Frack Pack." They would increase federal regulation of the effects of drilling and hydraulic fracturing on water and air. -
Lawmakers Urge Interior Officials to Go Further, Faster on Offshore Energy Leasing
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
House Republicans gave Interior Department officials another push March 17 to allow more oil and gas exploration and production in offshore waters, including the Atlantic offshore, while Democrats defended the Obama administration's record. An important first step in exploration is seismic surveying, which generates maps of rock... -
Frank Murkowski Weighs on Keystone XL, Pebble Mine With Swipe at Obama
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Former Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) is blasting the Obama administration's moves over two of the most controversial energy and environment projects under consideration right now -- the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the Pebble mine project. Murkowski, former chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee... -
House Republican Budget Aims to Increase Oil, Gas Output, Rescind Clean Energy Funds
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House Republican fiscal year 2016 budget plan would “double-down” on domestic energy production and single out restrictions on the oil and natural gas industry, according to a budget resolution made public March 17. The document also calls for “reforming or outright eliminating” a number of Department of Energy programs... -
Oil Boom Swells North Dakota Town; What Now?
Mar 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Eliot Brown
Shale oil turned this sleepy county seat surrounded by wheat fields into a boomtown, drawing developers to build housing for a population that has more than quadrupled in five years. But with crude prices less than half of what they were nine months ago, land-rush euphoria is giving way to concerns that projects will stall and Manhattan-level... -
Ninth Circuit Upholds EPA Approval Of Offsets for California Power Plant
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A federal appeals court has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of new source emissions offset credits that Southern California air quality regulators sold for construction of a new natural gas-fired power plant near Desert Hot Springs (Communities for a Better Env't v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 13-70167, petition for review denied 3/16/15). -
House Launches New Enhanced Oil Recovery Caucus
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bipartisan group of House members launched an informal caucus March 17 aimed at promoting the economic and environmental benefits of enhanced oil recovery from carbon dioxide. Reps. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), and Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) will co-chair the Congressional Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Caucus. -
Resolution From House Republicans Targets Economic Impact of EPA Clean Power Plan
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
House Republicans introduced a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year that takes direct aim at the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33). The 146-page resolution, which sets broad federal spending guidelines for the next 10 fiscal years, contains a section criticizing the plan for its potential... -
3-Judge Panel Picked to Hear Arguments on Clean Power Plan
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Two Republican-appointed judges and one chosen by President Obama will hear the first challenges to his administration's proposed greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants next month. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit this morning posted the three-judge panel for the lawsuits... -
Scholars Debate Constitutional Concerns Over Clean Power Plan at House Hearing
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to seek emissions reductions from beyond power plants themselves as part of its proposed Clean Power Plan is a “radical change” in its use of Clean Air Act authority, a constitutional scholar told a House subcommittee. The EPA's interpretation of its Clean Air Act authority in its proposed... -
House FY16 Budget Cites EPA Climate Rules In Bid For Regulatory Reform
Mar 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Republicans' proposed fiscal year 2016 budget cites EPA's pending power plant climate rules as justification for lawmakers to approve a slew of regulatory review bills to tighten Congress' oversight of agency regulations and mandate stricter cost-benefit analysis of rules in order to curb major rules such as the climate policies. -
Tribe Lays Out Legal Attack on EPA Power Plant Rule
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Erica Martinson
Opponents of the President Barack Obama’s climate change plan brought out the heavy artillery Tuesday, turning to a former hero of the green movement to lay out a legal plan to bring down EPA’s upcoming rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Legal lion Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor who taught constitutional law... -
Coal-Fueled Clectric Co-Ops Push Back on EPA Power Plan
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
What impact will U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan have on the country's coal-dependent electric cooperatives? During today's OnPoint, Kirk Johnson, senior vice president for government relations at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, discusses his organization's opposition to the rule, citing reliability and affordability... -
Comments Show Split in State Support For EPA Proposal to Revise Ozone Standards
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Comments submitted by state environmental agencies show a lack of consensus for the Environmental Protection Agency proposal to set more stringent national ozone standards, with several state agencies urging the EPA to retain the current 75 parts per billion standard set in 2008. State environmental agencies in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky... -
Kansas Emissions Plan Doesn't Satisfy Good Neighbor Duties Under Air Act, EPA Argues
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm
Kansas failed to satisfy the Clean Air Act's good neighbor requirements when it submitted a plan to control emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, the Environmental Protection Agency argued in a brief filed in federal appellate court on March 13 (Westar Energy, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1333, brief filed 3/13/15). -
Republicans ‘Will Have to Change' Approach To Addressing Climate Change, Obama Says
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Too many elected Republicans are “shills” for oil and fossil fuel companies and the fact that someone who denies climate change runs the Senate environment committee is “disturbing,” President Barack Obama said in an interview posted March 16. “I guarantee that the Republican Party will have to change its approach to climate change... -
Industry Assails Obama’s Ozone Regulations
Mar 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Business groups are waging war on the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce ozone pollution, arguing the regulations would cripple the U.S. economy. In order to comply with the proposed rule, many areas of the country would have to all but shut down land development and oil and natural gas drilling, industry groups charged on the... -
GOP Lawmaker Argues EPA Ozone NAAQS Science Justifies 'Reform' Bills
Mar 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House science committee, is arguing that EPA's proposed tightening of its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is based on flawed scientific data and justifies pending legislation to “reform” the process through which EPA collects such data and receives advice from scientific experts. -
DOT Should Alter Crude Oil Order, Use Newer Tank Car Model, Oil Alliance Says
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
An alliance of oil sands developers wants the Transportation Department to rethink crude oil classification and to limit its requirements for rail transport to those that would deliver “meaningful” safety improvements. These requests by the In Situ Oil Sands Alliance would require the Transportation Department to alter a February 2014 emergency... -
Replace Unapproved Tanker Car Valves For Hazmat Transport, Authorities Say
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Railroad tank cars equipped with certain unapproved valves are prohibited from transporting hazardous materials until the valves are replaced under a Transportation Department directive. The Federal Railroad Administration March 13 issued a Railworthiness Directive calling on tank car owners to replace three-inch McKenzie UNNR threaded ball... -
N.Y., U.S. Inspectors Cite Defects in Rail Cars, Tracks
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Inspectors from the Federal Railroad Administration and New York state found seven “critical” safety defects that needed immediate attention during inspections of crude oil tank cars and rail tracks in the state, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced March 17. Inspectors discovered 93 total defects in examination of 453 tank cars and 148 miles... -
Canadian Safety Board Call for Speedier Timeline for Rail-Car Standards
Mar 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bob Tita
Canadian crash investigators called for accelerated implementation of tougher standards for railroad tank cars hauling flammable liquids, adding to disagreement over how to respond to fiery crashes recently involving trains hauling crude oil. Canada’s main transportation agency last week had proposed a 10-year timetable for retrofitting...
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Housing Starts Plummet 17% in Feb, Down 3.3% From Year Earlier
Mar 17, 2015 | ICIS Chemical Business
By Joe Kamalick
US new home construction plummeted in February, the Commerce Department said on Tuesday, with housing starts down by 17% from January and 3.3% below the pace seen in February 2014.
In its monthly report, the department said that housing starts in February were at a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 897,000, down by 17% from the upwardly revised January figure of 1.08m units.
Housing starts in January initially had been estimated at 1.05m.
The February tumble in housing starts marks the second month of declines.
Last month’s pace of new home construction was 3.3% lower than the February 2014 rate of 928,000, also seasonally adjusted and annualised.
Within the overall housing figures, work on new single-family homes fell by 14.9% in February from January, dropping to a rate of 593,000 compared with the prior month pace of 697,000 units.
Single-family home construction is the core of the US housing industry.
The decline in construction of multi-family apartment projects was even more pronounced, down by 21.6% in February from January.
The department’s report also suggested that a turnaround in construction of single-family homes does not appear to be on the horizon.
The report said that in February, local governments issued building permits for new home construction at a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 1.09m, an increase of 3% from the January figure of 1.06m permits.
But that increase was wholly due to new permits issued for multi-family apartment projects. In the core market for construction of single-family homes, permits in February were 6.2% below the January rate.
Building permits are issued by local governments when contractors are ready to break ground and begin construction of a residential structure, so monthly permitting data are seen as a real-time indicator of the housing sector’s near-term prospects.
The housing market is a key downstream consumer sector for the chemicals industry, driving demand for a wide variety of chemicals, resins and derivative products such as plastic pipe, insulation, paints and coatings, adhesives, roofing materials and synthetic fibres, among many others.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates that each new home built represents some $16,000 worth of chemicals and derivatives used in the structure or in production of component materials.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boxer, Udall Argue Merits of Respective Proposals That Would Overhaul TSCA
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The prospects of reaching middle ground on two recently introduced bills to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act during the 114th Congress seemed dim March 17 as competing news conferences were held by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) on one side and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on the other.
“We are here today to rally for S. 725, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act and against S. 697, the Udall-Vitter bill,” Boxer said. She referred to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), which Sens. Udall and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced March 10 (47 DEN A-19, 3/11/15).
“Nothing less than the health and safety of people is at stake,” Boxer said, describing S. 697 as a bill crafted by the American Chemistry Council that would eviscerate the rights of states to protect their residents through laws covering chemicals, air pollution and other pollution issues.
Udall on Challenge of Compromise
In his news briefing, Udall countered such claims with his view of the Lautenberg bill.
“This is the best chance we have—posssibly for the next 40 years—to protect our children,” Udall said.
“I'm not used to working with Vitter,” he said, adding, “negotiations nearly fell apart twice.”
But the bill he and Vitter have drafted, and which is co-sponsored by nine Republicans and nine Democrats, is the only reasonable path forward to fix “the sham that is this law,” Udall said—the “sham” law being TSCA.
“We have a moral obligation to pass a law now that protects future generations,” Udall said.
Lynn Goldman, who was appointed under President Clinton to run the Environmental Protection Agency's chemicals and pesticides offices and previously worked at California's Department of Health Services, said S. 697 could still be improved. Goldman is now the dean of the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.
For example, Goldman said she would support S. 697 being amended to allow states to adopt federal chemical regulatory standards and then enforce compliance with them.
The bill Udall and Vitter have crafted, however, has removed many of the limits on EPA's ability to regulate chemicals that have persisted ever since TSCA became law in 1976, she said.
Goldman recalled testifying in support of TSCA reform about 21 years ago and said she is saddened that the law has never been updated.
“Compromise is needed,” Goldman said.
“An entire generation has elapsed since the last time serious TSCA reform was under serious consideration,” Goldman said. “We should not inflict this law on the next generation.”
Attorneys General Weighing In
Some state attorneys general and lawyers, however, aren't convinced that S. 697 is the solution.
Attorneys general from eight states—California, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Washington—have sent Boxer letters objecting to S. 697, the senator said. The letters are posted on the minority website of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Opposition to S. 697's preemption of state laws and regulations continues to be the chief rallying point of its critics.
The Udall-Vitter bill would preempt fewer state laws and regulations than the bill from which S. 697 evolved, the 2013 Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009).
Nonetheless, “S. 697 discards the notion that states are laboratories of innovation and reform that create thoughtful and effective solutions to protect people within their borders and across the nation. In its place, S. 697 erects sweeping preemption provisions that would bar or at minimum impede new and existing state protections, and inappropriately eliminates states’ authority to enforce federal safeguards,” wrote Matthew Rodriquez, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection, in a March 17 letter analyzing the Udall-Vitter bill.
Aides for EPW staff who support S. 697 have said the only regulations that S. 697 would preempt are “TSCA-like” ones that affect the manufacture, distribution or sale of chemicals.
According to Rodriquez's letter, however, S. 697 could also preempt state laws regulating greenhouse gases, California's Safer Consumer Products program, air toxics controls and other regulations.
Staff for Udall and Vitter, who met with reporters to address questions on S. 697, said much of the reaction to the Udall-Vitter bill suggests people have not read it but are voicing concerns they have heard from others.
Markey told reporters he sees the TSCA reform debate in this Congress as in its early stages.
Many more voices will weigh in and become more familiar with the various perspectives and concerns being raised, he said.
Markey said he will work to encourage middle ground and passage of a TSCA reform bill in the 114th Congress.
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Toxic Substances Control Act Needs the Right Reform
Mar 18, 2015 | The Hill
By Elizabeth Glass Geltman
Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a bill introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The bill is hailed as bipartisan. The American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical and the Environmental Defense Fund immediately sent out press releases touting the benefits of the bill. The coalition is not a surprise, as all received funding from the chemical industry.There are a lot of good reasons to reform TSCA, but Vitter-Udall bill does not take TSCA reform in the right direction. A better approach is outlined in the bill introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act.
The Vitter-Udall proposed TSCA amendment has three fatal flaws that need to be corrected. First, the bill dramatically reduces state authority and interferes with the democratic process of states as laboratories of reform. Second, the bill creates what one coalition of public health, labor, environmental and business calls a "low priority loophole" that effectively ends regulations of a majority of chemicals. Third, the inability to regulate chemicals in products made overseas not only allows the flood of dangerous products to continue to flow in from abroad, but the provision may further encourage companies currently manufacturing in the United States to move jobs overseas.
In 1976, when TSCA was enacted, scientific understanding of chemical effects on human health and the environment was less evolved. Concern about chemical exposure in the 1970s was focused primarily on cancer. Scientific inquiry explored what levels of exposure would avoid population spikes in cancer.
Scientists now know low levels of chemical exposure can have a medicinal effect changing human biochemistry. Just as taking the wrong medicine or the wrong dosage can make people sick, persistent low-level chemical exposures can also have negative impact on human health and the environment. Sometimes the epigenetic impacts of chemical are trans-generational, altering the body chemistry not just in the exposed individual, but in future generations as well.
Certain states have taken the lead to add greater protection from chemical exposure. California has long identified and examined "emerging chemicals of concern," and in 2013, the state enacted the Safe Consumer Products program to implement portions of the 2008 Green Chemistry Law. California's program is an innovative approach to regulation of chemicals in consumer products. Rather than ban chemicals with documented negative health impacts, California requires manufacturers that sell "priority products" perform a detailed analysis that either justifies current formulation or uses a safer alternative.
California is not alone in requiring chemical manufacturers to consider the safe use of chemicals in consumer products. Under the Children's Safe Products Act, Washington state requires manufacturers to report children's products sold in state that contain a "chemical of high concern to children." Washington state attempted to limit the amount of lead, cadmium and phthalates allowed in children's products, but had those provisions struck down in the courts as preempted by federal law. The federal Consumer Products Safety Commission is only now engaged in rule-making to consider the adoption of the protections Washington state wanted to afford children.
The Vitter-Udall proposed TSCA amendment is designed to end state innovations, such as those in Washington and California. By shifting all regulation of chemicals to the dramatically defunded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), industry can avoid the reporting requirements in Washington state and the alternative chemical analysis in California. Furthermore, once a chemical earns the coveted designation as a "low priority chemical," then inquiry as to the safety of that low priority chemical is effectively ended — even if the scientific understanding of the chemical impact on human health and the environment changes.
In contrast, the Boxer-Markey bill proposes TSCA reform without preempting advances made by the states and while preserving the EPA's authority to regulate chemical imports. The Boxer-Markey bill allows citizens to challenge a low priority designation and allows states to continue to enforce federal standards — an extremely important factor as Congress continues to undermine the enforcement authority of the EPA by reducing funding.
There is no question that TSCA is in need of reform, but the Vitter-Udall bill is not the right reform.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Boxer: Udall-Vitter TSCA Is Work Of Chemical Industry
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member Barbara Boxer asserted again today that the chemical industry predominately wrote a bill from Sens. Tom Udall and David Vitter to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“To be a hundred percent candid and direct, their bill has been generated by the chemical industry itself,” she said.
She pointed to a draft of their bill emailed to them that included “computer coding” showing it originated at the American Chemistry Council. “Now maybe I’m old fashioned, but I don’t believe that a regulated industry should be so intimately involved in writing the bill that regulates them,” Boxer said.
“It is shocking, reprehensible and unacceptable that the chemical industry has their fingerprints all over” the Udall and Vitter bill, said Linda Reinstein, who co-founded of an asbestos disease awareness group with her late husband.
Udall and Vitter have said they incorporated input from many parties, including EPA, chemical companies, trial lawyers and public health and environmental groups, as they moved the bill to the left since the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Vitter first proposed a plan in spring 2013.
“We followed a very open and transparent process [and] there were many times we felt out effort would collapse,” Udall told reporters today, adding that his talks with Vitter fell apart twice. “But we always came back to the table.”
Lautenberg’s widow, Bonnie, has endorsed the Udall and Vitter bill. -
(ACC Mentioned) Boxer: Chemical Bill Came From Industry
Mar 18, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she recieved a copy of the chemical reform bill that Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) introduced last week by email that proves the legislation was created by the chemical industry.
"It was clear from the computer coding that the final draft originated at the American Chemical Council itself,” she said.
Her comments come a day before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee is expected to discuss the legislation at a hearing.
“Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I do not believe that a regulated industry should be so intimately involved in writing a bill that regulates them.”
Boxer unveiled her competing bill, the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) at a press conference with celebrity environmental advocate Erin Brockovich.
Unlike the Udall-Vitter bill, Boxer said her bill will guarantee action from the Environmental Protection Agency on hundreds of dangerous chemicals and explicitly direct the agency to address asbestos.
“The Udall-Vitter bill only provides for the assessment of just 25,” she said.
Later adding, “Their bill doesn’t even mention the word asbestos.”
Udall and Vitter's bill, introduced last week, comes after repeated attempts, led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), faltered in the divided Congress.
“I loved Frank Lautenberg very much and it is with very deep respect and a heavy heart that I make these statements about the bill that has been named after him,” Boxer said. “But I remember when Frank said this, ‘It’s time to take action on TSCA reform and put an end to the chemical companies’ political games.’”
Udall has said that his bill – the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act - is a compromise between Democrats, Republicans, industry and environmental groups that comes after two years of negotiations.
In a statement last week, he said his bill doesn’t single out any specific chemical because it gives the EPA the authority to regulate any of the 84,000 chemicals in commerce.
“Our bill gives EPA the strongest possible authority to protect Americans from harmful substances like asbestos, BPA, styrene and other threats to public health,” he said.
But the Environmental Defense Fund, a proponent of the Udall-Vitter bill, said Boxer ' intentionally hand picked' the draft of the bill that the American Chemical Council gave input on.
“I think there were many, many drafts of the bill that were shared over the course of two years with industry, environmental and health advocacy groups,” said Jack Pratt, the group's chemicals campaign director. “There was plenty of input from plenty of different stakeholders, plenty of stakeholders who don’t even support the bill at this point.”
Udall’s Spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said the document Boxer is circulating is a draft of the legislation that a number of groups gave input on.
"This bill was written by Sen. Udall and Sen. Vitter in one of the most open and inclusive processes for a major piece of legislation to ensure all sides got a chance to be heard -- environmental advocates, industry, public health NGOs and others all were involved,” she said.
“ACC had no more input than environmental groups, and as a result of the input from many stakeholders, the bill has moved further toward what environmental groups and others said they wanted to see."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Udall: Lots Of People Suggested Edits To TSCA Bill
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode
Sen. Tom Udall’s office is picking apart Sen. Barbara Boxer’s assertion that she has proof that the chemical industry essentially wrote the New Mexico Democrat’s update with Sen. David Vitter of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Boxer is using a proposed redlined edit distributed by the American Chemistry Council to allege the industry’s dominating fingerprints on the Udall and Vitter bill.
But Udall’s staff shared with POLITICO other suggested edits provided by critics of the bill, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, to underscore that they reached out to and received input from a lot of interested parties.
"This bill was written by Sen. Udall and Sen. Vitter in one of the most open and inclusive processes for a major piece of legislation to ensure all sides got a chance to be heard — environmental advocates, industry, public health NGOs and others all were involved,” Udall spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm emailed. “ACC had no more input than environmental groups, and as a result of the input from many stakeholders, the bill has moved further toward what environmental groups and others said they wanted to see."
Suggested redlined edits from stakeholders are a normal part of the process of writing legislation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Vitter Sponsors Overhaul of Toxic Chemicals Law
Mar 17, 2015 | Daily World
By Nicole Gaudiano
A nearly 40-year-old law designed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals and substances in consumer products would get a major overhaul under legislation by Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana.
Some environmental and health groups say the bipartisan legislation that Vitter introduced last week with Democratic Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico would weaken current law and undermine efforts to protect the public's health.
Vitter counters that the bill would strengthen chemical safety protections while promoting innovation and economic growth. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the bill Wednesday.
"Our legislation is a solid, balanced, bipartisan compromise that will provide the necessary reforms to our nation's most important chemical safety law," Vitter said in a statement.
The current Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate chemicals in consumer products. But the 1976 law, which doesn't even ban even asbestos, a known carcinogen, is widely considered outdated.
The Vitter-Udall bill aims to boost chemical safety by:Ensuring that cost can't be considered in safety evaluations.Mandating safety reviews for all chemicals in commerce.Strengthening protections for vulnerable populations.Strengthening deadlines for EPA evaluations.Adding new requirements for confidential business information.Mandating that new chemicals can't be manufactured until the EPA approves them.
The proposal would allow states to restrict a chemical — but only until EPA evaluates it. EPA standards for chemical substances would be applied across the nation.
Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is among 15 lawmakers — seven Democrats and eight Republicans — to sign on as original cosponsors of the Vitter-Udall bill.
Groups opposing the bill say it would block states from restricting use of a chemical in cases where the EPA has said it plans to merely initiate a review of the chemical's safety. At that point, the agency is still years away from taking action to protect the public.
"That gap in time creates a 'regulatory void' where harm will go unaddressed," Safer Chemicals, Health Families, a coalition of public health, labor, environmental and green businesses, wrote in a letter to senators last week asking them to withhold support for the bill.
Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group wrote in a blog post that chemical company costs will still trump health under the bill because of seemingly conflicting language.
Faber also said that under the bill's deadlines, it would take "hundreds of years" to review roughly 1,000 chemicals the EPA says need immediate attention. In addition, the bill's health standards for toxic industrial chemicals are weaker than standards applied to pesticides on produce and food additives, he wrote.
Faber's group and Safer Chemicals, Healthy families support competing legislation by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that would set up a rapid schedule for reviewing chemicals and would apply tougher health standards.
The Vitter-Udall bill "would fail to ensure that chemicals are safe, fail to set meaningful deadlines for safety reviews, fail to provide EPA with adequate resources and deny states the ability to protect public health and the environment," Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said in the March 10 blog post.
But the bill's backers point to support from the Environmental Defense Fund as well as from labor, health and industry groups.
"With lawmakers coming together from both sides of the aisle, this is the best chance in a generation for us to move past an obsolete and badly broken law to provide strong protections for all Americans," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said the bill reflects input from industry, environmental, public health, civil justice and labor groups, and represents "the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation."
"This legislation will offer the kind of predictability, consistency and certainty that manufacturers and the national marketplace need, while also strengthening oversight and providing consumers with more confidence in the safety of chemicals," he said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Putnam County Bans Polystyrene In Its Government Facilities
Mar 17, 2015 | WAMC Northeast Public Radio
By Allison Dunne
A ban on plastic foam for government facilities in New York’s Putnam County takes effect in a few months. Environmentalists are applauding, but a trade association expresses disappointment.
The Putnam County Legislature has unanimously approved a ban on the use of polystyrene, or plastic foam, for all food service establishments serving county government facilities. Polystyrene is commonly referred to as Styrofoam, a trademarked brand. County Legislator Barbara Scuccimarra of Garrison chairs the Health, Social, Educational & Environmental Committee and spearheaded the resolution.
“It never goes away. A Styrofoam cup has a useful life of 10 minutes and it’s in our environment for hundreds of years,” says Scuccimarra. “So let’s wake up and start thinking about what we’re using every day that is detrimental to our environment.”
She says in putting together her resolution, which she worked on for a year, she turned to other counties and states, including New York City and Albany County, which enacted a polystyrene ban for certain restaurants in late 2013. Scuccimarra says she started taking a closer look at such a resolution after attending a program from the county’s Office of Senior Resources.
“And the amount of Styrofoam they were using is like, Styrofoam cups, Styrofoam trays, Styrofoam plates, Styrofoam bowls,” says Scuccimarra. “And then after the event was done they were all in the trash. It’s like, what are we doing here?”
She says other county facilities that are part of the ban include the jail and the Mahopac Golf Course. And she hopes to lead by example.
“Right now we’re limited to county facilities, but I’m making a plea to each municipality in Putnam to follow our lead and also ban this substance,” says Scuccimarra.
Peter Iwanowicz is executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York.
“I think it’s another important step towards the pathway of getting rid of Styrofoam/foam altogether in New York State, the less the better. And Putnam County sort of putting a standard in place where government agencies under the county will be getting rid of it is a good step in the right direction,” says Iwanowicz. “We’ve seen other actions up and down the Hudson River Valley, in Albany and New York City, and other towns in Westchester that are moving in this direction. And it’s all good news for us.”
It’s not good news for the American Chemistry Council, which had sent a representative to a Putnam County legislature meeting to lobby against the ban. A spokesman for the council, in an emailed statement, says, “We are disappointed Putnam County will no longer use polystyrene foam foodservice products in county government facilities, even though the county has used polystyrene foam lunch trays and other products safely and economically for many years.”
Scuccimarra says there is a cost for replacing polystyrene products with paper, roughly $3,000.
“But when you look at what this substance does to our environment and to our health, what’s $3,000?” asks Scuccimarra.
Again, Iwanowicz.
“It takes up to 500 years for Styrofoam to break down. It causes huge problems with sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants. We’re already under tons of pressure to upgrade their systems and fix leaky pipes,” Iwanowicz says. “So removing Styrofoam from the environment is a good step in the right direction. We really applaud what Putnam County has done.”
The statement from the American Chemistry Council also says that polystyrene recycling is a success story, with 68 communities in California accepting polystyrene foodservice for recycling, and that more cities should follow suit, like Yonkers has. The Putnam County ban goes into effect June 1. Meanwhile, Hastings-on-Hudson became the first Westchester municipality to ban polystyrene, effective January 1.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Interior Secretary Jewell to Attend Oil, Gas Lease Sale of 41.2M Acres in Gulf
Mar 17, 2015 | Bayou Buzz Louisiana
On Wednesday, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell will attend and open bids at an oil and gas lease sale offering 41.2 million acres for exploration and development in the Central Planning Area offshore Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
The event will be held in New Orleans.
BOEM estimates the sale could result in the production of 460 to 890 million barrels of oil, and 1.9 trillion cubic feet to 3.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When bidding closed today, 35 companies had submitted 195 bids on 169 blocks offered in the sale. A map of the location of tracts receiving bids will be available tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. CDT on the BOEM website at: www.boem.gov/Sale-235/.
Lease Sale 235 is the seventh offshore sale under the Administration’s Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 (Five Year Program). The previous six sales offered 60 million acres and garnered $2.4 billion in high bids and awarded 877 leases. The Five Year Program makes available all offshore areas with the highest resource potential and includes 75 percent of the nation’s undiscovered, technically recoverable offshore oil and gas resources.
BOEM oversees 160 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. About 28.5 million acres (5,279 blocks) are leased for oil and gas development; and 4.6 million of those acres (924 blocks) are producing oil and natural gas.
American Chemistry Council The American Chemistry Council (ACC) today expressed strong support for S. 751, The Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act, reintroduced by Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) The bill establishes a number of requirements before U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) are introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.
“We applaud Senators Thune and Manchin and Congressmen Olson and Latta for reintroducing the CASE Act. Their bill will help ensure that manufacturers eager to invest in the U.S. have a clear regulatory process and cost-effective, feasible standards. It’s a common-sense approach that lets local economies grow even as air quality continues to improve.
“Emissions of common air pollutants and their precursors have fallen substantially, according to EPA. Between 1980 and 2013, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants fell 62 percent and ozone concentrations fell 33 percent, even as U.S. gross domestic product grew 145 percent. Voluntary and regulatory programs will continue to reduce ozone concentrations through 2030.
“The current ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion is the most stringent ever and hasn’t been fully implemented across the country. Parts of 26 states still don’t meet it. EPA should assist them before pursuing new regulations that could slow or stop manufacturing growth.”
Under the CASE Act, 85 percent of the counties unable to meet the current standard would have to do so before EPA lowers the level yet again. The Agency would be required to use direct air quality monitoring, resulting in a more accurate assessment of nonattainment areas. And EPA would have to consider cost and feasibility when setting lower ozone standards. -
Mar 17, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Amanda Frank
Leaded gasoline. Lead-based paint chips. Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. These are a few things parents no longer have to worry about, thanks to government standards and safeguards. But we still have a long way to go in protecting our children from hazardous chemicals. Manufacturers can still use toxins in children’s products – without disclosing them to consumers. A new bill in Oregon would keep toxins out of children’s products sold there.
Under the proposed legislation, the Oregon Health Authority would create a list of chemicals of high concern. Any manufacturer of children’s products using these chemicals would have to report to the Health Authority and eventually phase out the use of those substances.
Here’s what makes this a strong bill: It creates a priority list of chemicals that manufacturers are required to report. This includes toxins like cadmium, a heavy metal linked to learning disabilities in children, and bisphenol A (BPA), which can affect children’s developing brains. The Oregon Health Authority would add additional hazardous chemicals to the priority list every three years.
It establishes a searchable database of chemicals. Parents, child care workers, and other concerned citizens will be able to learn what chemicals are dangerous, how they affect children, and which manufacturers use them.
It broadly defines “children’s product” to include any product designed for, or marketed to, children under 12. Manufacturers have previously skirted limits on toxic chemicals in products like children’s jewelry by successfully arguing they don’t qualify as “children’s products.” Oregon’s bill specifically covers children’s jewelry and several other categories like clothing and kitchen accessories.
It gives the Oregon Health Authority the authority to penalize manufacturers who do not comply with the law. This includes fines up to $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for subsequent offenses.Oregon’s bill is modeled on similar legislation in neighboring Washington State. Maine, Minnesota, and California also have laws restricting toxic chemicals in children’s products. And this January, Albany County, New York enacted a law that bans seven toxic chemicals from children’s products. The scary truth is that our primary federal chemical safety law is ineffective and inadequate in testing and restricting thousands of high risk chemicals in commercial use today.
The law that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate chemicals – the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – is almost 40 years old. In that time, EPA has reviewed about 250 of the 20,000 new chemicals being used in commercial products, and restricted a mere nine. (There are over 84,000 chemicals registered for use on the TSCA inventory.)
TSCA was poorly written; public agencies have to show “substantial evidence” of “unreasonable risk” in order to regulate a chemical. Thus safety assessments and rules are routinely challenged by big chemical companies, and conservative courts have allowed them to endlessly delay restrictions on the most dangerous chemicals. By way of example, an EPA rule in 1989 called for a complete phase-out of asbestos , but the industry took EPA to court, arguing that the rule was too costly to businesses, and the ban was overturned. Today the U.S. is one of the only industrialized nations without a complete ban on asbestos – a deadly substance with no safe level of exposure. Congress is divided on how to reform TSCA; two opposing reform bills were introduced last week.
A bill to revise TSCA introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA) on March 10 threatens to undermine state chemical policies. Whenever EPA identifies a new chemical to review, states would be prevented from taking action on the same chemical. Vitter and Udall claim this is needed to prevent duplicate efforts by state and federal authorities. But it takes EPA seven or more years to issue regulations on a chemical. Blocking state action during this long delay would put people in harm’s way and benefits no one except chemical companies. This bill is supported by the American Chemical Council, the trade association and lobbying arm of big chemical companies. What would passage of the Udall-Vitter bill mean for Oregon?
The 2015 Udall-Vitter bill would grandfather in some state chemical regulations enacted prior to Jan. 1, 2015. Most state chemical laws passed after this date would be at risk of being overturned. This means that Oregon’s new proposed regulations could be at risk even if they are in effect before the TSCA reform bill is enacted. The Albany County law mentioned above, which prohibits certain toxic metals and benzene (a cancer-causing chemical) in children’s products and apparel, would also be at risk.
States like Washington and California would retain their current chemical restrictions, but they would be unable to add any chemicals to their priority “chemical of concern” lists once EPA decides to review them. This would prevent states from taking action on toxic chemicals and leave the public at risk for several years while awaiting EPA review.
Finally, Oregon and other states would be prohibited from co-enforcing any state violations if they also violate federal law. In these instances, states would be prevented from collecting fines from manufacturers that ignore restrictions, which also cuts a source of funding for their chemical programs. A bill that would improve chemical safety in the country, without undermining state standards, awaits action in the Senate.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced the Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act on March 12. The Boxer-Markey bill would correct major weaknesses in TSCA and preserve the ability of state and local officials to continue to protect their residents by adopting and enforcing stronger laws and rules. Significantly, the bill would require all chemicals be proven to pose “a reasonable certainty of no harm” – the same standard required for pesticides on fruits and vegetables and chemicals used in food.
After almost 40 years of largely failing to address the impact of toxic chemicals, and more than a decade of effort to address this problem, it’s time for Congress to act and adopt a bill that advances the public’s interest, not industry’s interests, and protects people and the environment from the risks of toxic chemicals.
-
Markey: Some Elements of Our Bill Will Make it in Final Chemical Reform
Mar 17, 2015 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said he and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) feel confident that they can get some of the elements in their legislation included in whatever chemical reform bill ultimately passes.
“Our objective is to make sure that a good bill passes through the Congress and what we’re doing today is the beginning of our efforts in that process,” Markey said.
Boxer and Markey held a press conference Tuesday to rally against competing legislation from Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), which appears to have gained enough bi-partisan support to pass a Republican-led Congress. Both bills aim to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Boxer said there are a number of amendments that could be made to make the Udall-Vitter bill acceptable.
“I can think of seven changes right now that would make their bill look like our bill,” she said.
Her list of changes includes giving states the authority to take action, setting deadlines for action and directing the EPA to assess hundreds of chemicals, and take action on asbestos and persistent chemicals.
“They ought to take all those changes because the people deserve that kind of legislation,” Boxer said. For the record, we have met with them on many of these and we have been unsuccessful thus far.”
-
Full House Approves Legislation Revamping Selection of EPA's Science Advisory Board
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The House March 17 approved legislation modifying the operations, scope and selection process for members of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1029), sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), passed the full chamber on a 236-181 vote. Just two Democrats joined with all but one Republican to back the legislation.
According to the committee report, the bill would expand public comment opportunities, limit nonscientific advice from the board, clarify industry members could serve on the board as long as their potential conflicts of interest are disclosed, require greater acknowledgment of dissenting views and reform the selection process of advisory members, among other provisions.
“We aren't telling the Science Advisory Board what to say,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on the House floor. “We aren't telling the EPA what to do. But we are demanding that the Board be transparent and independent, as it was originally intended. True science demands clarity and impartiality. The Science Advisory Board lacks both, and that needs to change.”
Similar legislation passed the House in 2014. A companion measure (S. 543) has been introduced in the Senate by Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), though the White House has threatened to veto the measure if it reaches President Barack Obama.
According to the EPA, the Science Advisory Board provides science advice as requested by the administrator, reviews research programs, reviews the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for regulations and advises the agency on broad scientific matters.
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee approved the legislation on a 17-12 party-line vote Feb. 25 just one day after its introduction (38 DEN A-6, 2/26/15).
Measure Would Cost $500,000 Annually
Implementing the changes in the bill would cost the EPA less than $500,000 annually and about $2 million over the 2015-2020 period, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Those funds would be used for additional personnel and administrative expenses, according to the estimate.
Supporters of the legislation include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, while opponents include the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and the League of Conservation Voters.
Three amendments were adopted on the bill. One, from Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), would explicitly prohibit board members from any advisory activities when there is evidence that suggests the agency action may involve a specific party in which the member has an interest. It passed by voice vote.
Another, from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), would require the EPA administrator to solicit nominations to the board from higher education and research institutions with interests relevant to the board's work. It passed by voice vote.
The other amendment, from Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would prevent persons from serving on the board if they are currently receiving contracts or grants from the EPA and would bar an individual from seeking EPA contracts or grants for three years after serving on the board. It passed on a 242-175 vote.
Substitute Text Rejected
The other, by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), which would have served as a substitute text for the entire bill, was rejected by voice vote.
A second bill related to EPA science activities, the Secret Science Reform Act, will be considered by the full House March 18, according to the office of House Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
-
House Passes Bill to Reform Agency's Science Advisory Panel
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
The House yesterday passed legislation aimed at correcting what critics perceive as a bias in the scientific panel that advises U.S. EPA in rulemakings.
The lower chamber approved the bill in a 236-181 vote along mostly party lines. Two Democrats -- Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Brad Ashford of Nebraska -- broke from their party to vote in favor of it. Rep. Chris Gibson of New York was the only Republican to oppose the bill.
H.R. 1029 targets EPA's Science Advisory Board, an approximately 50-member panel that advises the agency on the science that goes into air, water and other environmental rulemakings.
The "Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015" would add new peer-review requirements when it comes to balance and independence on the advisory board. It would also set a quota for state and local officials to be included on the panel, allow corporate interests to serve after disclosing conflicts of interest and add requirements for board members to respond in a written format to public comments.
Before voting on passage, the House approved an amendment to the bill that would block any person who has received a grant from EPA in the past from sitting on the advisory panel, as well as bar a person from receiving EPA funding for three years after leaving the SAB.
Supporters of the bill said that it would promote scientific integrity at EPA.
The bill "ensures that the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science," said Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), who introduced the bill with Peterson last month.
Democrats strongly objected to the legislation yesterday during debate on the House floor. The bill "will limit the quality of scientific advice that EPA receives," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said.
Democrats also slammed the Republican majority for taking up the bill, which President Obama has threatened to veto, instead of focusing on reauthorizing transportation infrastructure funding and the Export-Import Bank. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) called the legislation a "typical go-nowhere-do-nothing pet project."
Today, the House is poised to take up a second piece of legislation aimed at EPA's scientific practices. H.R. 1030, or the "Secret Science Reform Act of 2015," would prohibit EPA from finalizing rules that are based on science that isn't "transparent or reproducible." The bill would also compel EPA to make publicly available all the studies and data that go into its rulemakings.
House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) sponsored the legislation.
The White House has also threatened to veto that bill, charging that it would impose "arbitrary, unnecessary and expensive requirements" on EPA. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the legislation would cost EPA $250 million a year and force the agency to greatly scale back the amount of scientific studies it relies on in shaping environmental rules.
In a hearing yesterday, Smith said that EPA's proposal to make the national ozone standard more stringent was an example of why Congress should support both the science advisory act and his "secret science" bill.
"During earlier stages of this rulemaking, EPA relied on studies with data that was not publicly available. This raises a lot of suspicions," Smith said. "Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzled dissenting voices."
EPA's Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, whose chairman serves on the SAB, recommended last year that the agency lower the current ozone standard of 75 parts per billion to between 60 and 70 ppb. EPA ended up proposing a new standard in the range of 65 and 70 ppb.
Public health advocates and environmentalists have opposed both science bills, while industry groups have called for their passage. The House last year passed versions of both pieces of legislation, but the Senate did not take them up.
-
How Best to Strengthen Chemical Regulations
Mar 18, 2015 | The New York Times - Op-Ed
Two bills were introduced in the Senate last week to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act, which by most accounts has been a miserable failure at ensuring the safety of chemicals used in consumer products. The bills take vastly different approaches and raise the troubling question of whether to settle for a reasonable compromise or strive instead for a stronger reform.
The problem with the old law, enacted in 1976, is that it allowed thousands of untested chemicals to remain in consumer goods without evidence of safety. The law is so weak that it kept the Environmental Protection Agency from even banning asbestos, a known carcinogen, and other known hazardous materials. The law also forced the E.P.A. to navigate a costly, cumbersome process if it wanted safety tests of a potentially dangerous chemical.
Senator Tom Udall, a Democrat of New Mexico, and Senator David Vitter, a Republican of Louisiana, have introduced a bill that has bipartisan backing from nine Republicans and eight Democrats. A competing bill with stronger health protections was introduced by two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, but it has no Republican support.
The Boxer-Markey bill uses a tougher, more desirable safety standard — chemicals must show “reasonable certainty of no harm” to remain in commerce. The Udall-Vitter bill uses a lesser standard — chemicals can be regulated only if they pose “unreasonable risk” to health or the environment. Ideally, it would be best to require “reasonable certainty of no harm,” but that language has been repeatedly introduced in reform bills dating back to 2008, without ever attracting a single Republican vote.
Under the Udall-Vitter bill’s “unreasonable risk” approach, the E.P.A. would no longer have to consider costs when deciding whether a substance is unduly risky as it does under current law; that judgment would be based solely on health effects. The agency would have to consider costs when deciding how to regulate a substance, but it would no longer have to prove that it picked the least burdensome approach. Professional organizations concerned with maternal and child health, such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have praised the bipartisan efforts to protect vulnerable populations.
Still, the bill has flaws that ought to be corrected. Going forward, it would weaken the ability of states to regulate chemicals under state law. Once the E.P.A. designates a chemical as a “high priority” for assessment of dangers, the bill would block states from taking action even though E.P.A. is years away from actually doing anything about it. That is an invitation for manufacturers to try to stave off regulation indefinitely. Surely, the time to pre-empt state actions is only when the E.P.A. finally acts.
The Udall-Vitter bill is scheduled to be discussed at a hearing of the Senate environment committee on Wednesday. (Senator Boxer is the ranking Democrat on the committee, so her bill is sure to be discussed as well.) Two additional improvements might garner further bipartisan support. The bill does not allow states to enforce restrictions that are identical to federal ones. It should. The more enforcement the better. The bill also requires the E.P.A. to start reviewing a minimum of 25 chemicals within five years. That number surely is too low given thousands of chemicals worth examining.
-
NGOs Develop Nano Policy Recommendations for Food Industry
Mar 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
A coalition of NGOs has released policy recommendations for food-related industries that it says will help them reduce the risks of nanomaterials in food products and packaging.
The groups want companies to adopt a detailed public policy, viewable on their website, that explains their use of the substances. They also want them to publish safety analyses, issue supplier standards and label all products that contain nanoparticles smaller than 500nm. Businesses, they say, should also adopt hazard control measures to prevent employees' exposure.
The recommendations are accompanied by a factsheet to inform companies and consumers on the potential risks.
They were developed by the following organisations: As You Sow, Center for Food Safety, Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), Environmental Working Group, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International Center for Technology Assessment and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF).
-
US Obesogen Research Programme to Deliver New Data
Mar 17, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
The US National Institute of Environmental Health (NIEHS) is funding a programme of 57 studies on chemical exposures affecting obesity and diabetes, a workshop heard at an environmental health sciences roundtable on 2 and 3 March.
Dr Jerry Heindel, health scientist administrator at the Institute of Medicine hosting the event, said that 32 of the projects involved human cohorts, while 20 of the remainder were animal studies and five in vivo exercises.
“We can expect a huge increase in the amount of data over the next four-five years,” he said. He explained that the obesogen field is only ten-years-old, and there is a long list of unanswered questions and data gaps to be filled.
“Weight control is an endocrine issue,” Dr Heindel said. “It is a complex, interrelated and highly orchestrated endocrine system with hormones like leptin and insulin, ghrelin and adiponectin going back and forth, controlling appetite, reward and food cravings … If weight gain is controlled by hormones, that sets the stage and the plausibility for endocrine disrupting chemicals to affect that system.”
The obesogen hypothesis, Dr Heindel said, is that the obesity epidemic is due, in part, to environmental exposures during development. A subset of endocrine disruptors, called obesogens, act to increase the number of fat cells and/or alter food intake metabolism via effects on the pancreas, adipose tissue, liver, gastrointestinal tract and brain.
Obesogens, which include many well-known endocrine disruptors, such as bisphenol A and phthalates, are believed to alter the programming of the ‘setpoint’, or sensitivity for developing obesity in later life.
There is an increasing volume of evidence, linking chemical exposures to obesity and diabetes (CW 29 May 2012, 20 March 2012). Dr Heindel pointed to studies showing a link between mothers’ smoking and overweight and obesity of their children at school age. Experiments also show prenatal exposure of mice to the synthetic oestrogen diethylstilboestrol (DES) can lead to morbid obesity as the animals age, he said.
Studies presented during the workshop included the effect of perinatal bisphenol A (BPA) exposure on obesity and metabolic disease, carried out by Dr Beverly Rubin of Tufts University.
Mice exposed to BPA in early life showed increased body weight and an increased proportion of body fat. Their glucose metabolism was also altered, showing excess levels of insulin and insulin resistance. On a high fat diet, the treated animals showed severe hyperglycemia – excessive levels of blood glucose – and other disorders including adipose tissue inflammation.
This work suggests that early BPA exposure may not only be related to human obesity and diabetes but also metabolic syndrome – a condition affecting an increasing number of people, marked by obesity, high blood pressure and blood glucose, high serum triglyceride and low high-density cholesterol levels, which may lead to heart attacks and stroke in later life.
One of the event organisers, Professor Lynn Goldman, vice chair of the roundtable and dean of the George Washington University school of public health, commented that the workshop was not designed to answer whether the obesogen hypothesis was convincing but to put it in perspective.
She said: “I would say this was about not just obesity, but also metabolic syndrome. How important is it? I think there is some exciting new science and it does raise a lot of questions.”
-
At Stake in the Senate TSCA Fight: The Fate of Asbestos
Mar 17, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Tina Sigurdson
Many Americans probably believe asbestos was banned years ago, consigned to the trash bin of history, never to be seen again. Not so. This notorious human carcinogen is still legal for use in the U.S.
In 1989, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the federal Environmental Protection Agency attempted to ban asbestos, but its efforts were thwarted. EPA’s attempted ban grew out of a 10-year, $10 million study that generated 100,000 pages of evidence.
The industry went to court and succeeded in blocking the ban. In 1991 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit threw out most parts of EPA’s regulation, on grounds that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 says EPA must prove that a ban is the “least burdensome alternative” for controlling the public’s exposure to the “unreasonable risks” posed by asbestos.
Today, the nation faces two alternatives for reforming the broken federal chemicals law —a chemical industry-backed bill proposed by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.), or a bill proposed by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) backed by the majority of the environmental and public health groups.
As the U.S. Senate considers these two measures, the key question is, would this bill ensure that EPA could ban asbestos, even in the face of legal challenges from industry? Any proposal that does not lay the groundwork for a ban is wholly inadequate. If a “chemical safety” bill leaves any uncertainty as to whether EPA can protect Americans from a known killer like asbestos that has devastated tens of thousands of families for decades, what will it do to keep any other chemicals of concern out of our bodies and the bodies of our children?
The fate of any new effort to ban asbestos depends on how courts apply a combination of three parts of TSCA: the safety standard, a weighing of the costs and benefits of protecting public health, and the judicial standard of review.
Here are the scenarios we anticipate under each bill: Safety Standard:
Industry bill: This bill uses a modified version of the "unreasonable risk" safety standard in current law. This term has already been interpreted in the courts to mean that some risks are reasonable and not worth preventing. But the industry bill also says regulators should not consider any question other than the health hazards of asbestos. How would courts interpret these conflicting instructions? We don’t know.
Boxer-Markey Bill: The Boxer-Markey bill says the safety standard should be "reasonable certainty of no harm." This is the same standard EPA applies to pesticides on fruits and vegetables. Unlike the industry-backed bill, which proposes an untested and unpredictable new safety standard, the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard would ensure that EPA’s focus is where it belongs, squarely on the health risks of asbestos.
Costs and Benefits:Industry bill: This bill sets up a series of hurdles in the form of calculations EPA would have to make before banning asbestos or anything else. The agency would have to weigh the costs and benefits of a ban, including the costs and benefits of alternatives to asbestos. Then it would have to calculate the costs and benefits of at least one alternative regulatory scheme. Because the industry bill’s “unreasonable risk” standard could be interpreted to mean that some risks are acceptable, a court could end up forcing EPA to issue a regulation restricting asbestos but not banning it entirely, even though that option wouldn't save as many lives.
The requirement in current law, which was applied in the case that struck down the 1989 asbestos ban, is that EPA must use the "least burdensome” means of addressing risk. This is a very onerous type of cost-benefit analysis. Although the industry bill improves upon this requirement by removing the “least burdensome” language, the bill does not resolve the problem of factoring in costs instead of focusing on human health. It is the bill’s untested safety standard and the required cost-benefit analysis of addressing that “unreasonable risk” to different degrees, operating together, that are problematic for public health.
Boxer-Markey bill: This proposal would require a cost-benefit analysis only for rules that would cost industry $100 million or more. The EPA would need to consider alternatives less sweeping than a ban only if other regulatory actions would also meet the safety standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm." Since scientists have concluded that any exposure to asbestos, no matter how small or brief, can cause cancer, a court would most likely find that nothing short of a ban can solve the nation’s asbestos problem.
Standard of Review:Industry bill: In 1991, when the chemical industry won the court fight and overturned EPA's ban of asbestos, it had an unusually strict standard of judicial review on its side. The "standard of review” is a federal statute’s instruction to the court on how closely to scrutinize an agency’s decision-making process. It tells the court how much evidence the agency must provide to back up its decision and how much to defer to the agency’s reasoning as the expert on the subject at hand. The TSCA law says that courts must throw out any EPA rule “not supported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record.” The court that struck down EPA’s asbestos ban said in its decision that this "substantial evidence" standard “imposes a considerable burden on the agency.” Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201, 1214 (5th Cir. 1991). This burden made it harder for EPA to defend its asbestos ban in court and ultimately contributed to its failure.
Boxer-Markey bill: The Boxer-Markey bill would replace the "substantial evidence" standard with a more common standard, called "arbitrary and capricious" review, which means a court can reject only those decisions that the agency did not make rationally or that resulted from an abuse in the agency’s discretion. In effect, this standard tells the court to apply less intense scrutiny to EPA’s decision-making process and defer to the agency's expertise when it comes to chemicals and public health.
The bottom line:
The Udall-Vitter bill, blessed by the chemical industry, fails to fully eliminate the legal obstacles that prevented EPA from banning asbestos. It could generate wasteful, expensive and time-consuming litigation that would distract EPA from its real work to protect public health.
In contrast, the Boxer-Markey proposal would make it possible for the EPA to make an asbestos ban stick. It would do much to bring the decades-long American asbestos epidemic to an end.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Revised Ozone Standard Would Be Delayed Under Bills Reintroduced in Senate, House
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Legislation reintroduced March 17 in the Senate and House would block the Environmental Protection Agency from setting more stringent ozone standards until most of the country comes into compliance with the current standards.
The Clean Air, Strong Economies Act (S. 571), introduced in the Senate by Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would require 85 percent of areas that currently do not meet the 2008 ground-level ozone standards of 75 parts per billion to demonstrate compliance before the EPA could move ahead with plans to revise the standard.
Reps. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) introduced a companion bill (H.R. 1388) in the House.
Similar legislation was introduced in 2014 but failed to pass either chamber before the end of the 113th Congress.
The bills would delay the EPA's rulemaking (RIN 2060-AP38) on whether to revise or retain the current 75 ppb standard, which the agency must finalize by Oct. 1 under a court order. The agency has proposed to revise the standard to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, a proposal that is opposed by industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its national ambient air quality standards every five years to ensure that the standards are supported by the most current scientific data, a deadline that the agency typically fails to meet.
The Senate and House bills also would require the EPA to take into consideration the feasibility and cost of implementing a more stringent ozone standard. The Supreme Court held in 2001 that the EPA is not permitted under the Clean Air Act to consider the cost of compliance when setting national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 51 ERC 2089 (U.S. 2001)).
‘Staggering' Proposal for the Economy
The EPA's proposal to lower the ozone standard would be a “staggering blow” to the U.S. economy, Thune said in a March 17 statement. He said the EPA should focus its regulatory efforts on areas that still are struggling to attain the 2008 standards, rather than move forward with a “job-killing regulation.”
Manchin said in a statement that subjecting states to a new ozone regulation when they have not had sufficient time to comply would not be fair.
“I've always said we need to strike a balance between the environment and the economy, which is what this bill does,” he said.
Olson and Latta also issued a March 17 statement highlighting the potential economic effects of a more stringent ozone standard, which likely would place additional areas of the country into nonattainment, a designation that requires states to take action to reduce emissions of pollution that contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and triggers more stringent permitting requirements under the new source review program for new and modified industrial facilities.
Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA in a March 12 interview on the EPA's review process that while it “does present challenges to some areas” when the agency revises a national air standard in the middle of the implementation period, efforts to reduce emissions will help areas move towards attaining both standards.
“Whatever you do to comply with the 2008 standard will bring you closer to the 2015 standard,” Becker said. “As long as that standard if based on strong science, you aren't going to see much opposition from state and local regulators.”
The American Chemistry Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers all issued statements in support of the Clean Air, Strong Economies Act.
Latest Attempt to Revise Process
The bill is similar to legislation introduced March 4 by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), which also would block the EPA from revising the ozone standards as planned in 2015.
Flake's bill (S. 640) takes a different approach, simply blocking the EPA from revising the ozone standards until Feb. 1, 2018, and amending the Clean Air Act to require the EPA to review its national air standards every 10 years instead of every five (43 DEN A-23, 3/5/15).
John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA after the Flake legislation was introduced that the way to fix the current review process it to give the EPA the resources it needs to complete reviews in a timely fashion, not to alter the deadlines. Under the current process, the EPA already typically takes anywhere between eight and 13 years to complete a review, Walke said.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Indiana Among States Opposing Proposed EPA Ozone Standards
Mar 17, 2015 | Indiana Public Media
By Alexander McCall
Gov. Mike Pence is among 11 governors who say they oppose proposed changes to the EPA's ozone standards.
Gov. Mike Pence joined 10 other governors who sent a letter Monday to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency opposing its proposed tougher ozone standards.
The agency wants to lower the federal ozone clean air standard from 75 parts per billion to between 65-70 parts per billion.
Ozone, a ground-level pollution, can cause difficulty breathing and can trigger asthma attacks, especially on hot days when air quality is worsened.
The EPA issued a rule in late 2014 proposing changes to the standard.
The current ozone standard was established in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration, and, though the EPA advised the administration to establish a standard between 60-70 parts per billion, the standard was set at 75 parts per billion.
Ninety-one of Indiana’s 92 counties meet current federal ozone clean air standards, but Pence says the proposed new standards would harm Indiana.
“Once again, the EPA continues its relentless pursuit of harmful federal regulation,” Pence said in a statement. “The proposed ozone standards come at the worst possible time. Just as our economy appears to be turning a corner, particularly in Indiana, here comes the EPA with yet another, more stringent standard that will limit economic expansion and impair the ability of Hoosier businesses to create new jobs.”
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management has also sent a letter to the EPA opposing the new standards.
As Politico reports, environmental advocates and those in the manufacturing industry have often sparred over the standard:
Environmentalists maintain that 60 is the right number. “The scientific record clearly shows that a standard of 60 ppb would provide the most public health protection,” American Lung Association President Harold Wimmer said Wednesday, though he called EPA’s new proposal “long overdue.”
But industry groups said a 60-parts-per-billion rule would instantly put much of the country out of compliance, bringing a lot of new manufacturing to a halt. The American Chemistry Council said in October that chemical companies alone have announced 211 shale-related projects in the works, representing $135 billion in capital investment, which they argue could be at risk under a tightened ozone rule.
Business groups maintain that the proposed standards would be too costly and too difficult to adopt, saying it would halt expansion of the manufacturing industry.
-
Fracking Rule Imminent for Federal Lands, With More Regulations to Follow, Jewell Says
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said March 17 a final rule updating regulations on hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas well practices on federal lands will be released “in the coming days.”
The final rule, still at the White House Office of Management and Budget, will update 30-year-old regulations with “baseline prudent standards,” Jewell said in a speech hosted by the think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“The rule will include measures to protect our nation's groundwater, requiring operators to construct sound wells, to disclose the chemicals they use and to safely recover and handle fluids used in the process,” Jewell said.
She acknowledged that some industry critics have labeled the proposed fracking rule overly burdensome. Environmental advocates have suggested it will not be strong enough if it follows the pattern of the two proposed versions of the rule (RIN 1004-AE26).
States already regulate oil and gas drilling and production within their borders, including on federal lands. Jewell has said the Interior Department will defer to states on regulatory elements wherever the state regulations are as protective or more protective than the federal regulations.
‘Drill Everywhere Doesn't Work.'
Jewell treated the rule on hydraulic fracturing as only one of many elements of a vision for energy policy. Interior's task by the end of the Obama administration is to put in place reforms that will define how public lands will be used for energy production, Jewell said.
She said the preceding administration had demonstrated that a “drill everywhere plan doesn't work,” partly because it was tied up in litigation that targeted nearly half of the oil and gas leases.
Now, with up-front environmental analyses before leasing decisions, the litigation has declined. But more reforms are coming in the next two years, she said.
Interior in the coming months will propose methane control regulations for oil and gas development on federal lands, Jewell said. The goal is to reduce venting, flaring and leaking of natural gas, as the department explained in December when it released its spring 2015 regulatory agenda (245 DEN A-7, 12/22/14).
More Regulations Lined Up
A proposed rule on well control, including improved standards for blowout preventers, is due out this year, Jewell said. She noted that it builds on the improvement the oil and gas industry itself has made in technologies.
That rule is undergoing OMB review (RIN 1014-AA11).
Just published in February is a proposed rule on standards for Arctic offshore oil and gas drilling (RIN 1014-AA21). The proposed standards would be tailored to coping with a rough environment where, for example, sea ice can cover a drilling area and prevent ships from reaching the site of an oil spill (35 DEN A-3, 2/23/15).
Jewell said Interior policies on leasing, both onshore and offshore, should be based on carefully reviewing possible locations and identifying not only places to drill but places that are “too special” to drill, referring to environmental and other values.
She added that she did not like the idea of drilling on “the doorsteps” of national parks, a remark suggesting that drilling not only would be kept out of parks—a point of no disagreement—but that it might be kept out of some buffer zone around a park, effectively expanding the reach of the park's restrictions.
-
Jewell Expects ‘the Right Balance’ From Fracking Rule — But Maybe Not Applause
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
The Interior Department’s long-awaited rule for fracking on federal lands may not win cheers from greens, Secretary Sally Jewell acknowledged Tuesday — but she said it will strike “the right balance.”
The fracking rule, which the department controversially delayed in 2013, is one of two much-anticipated regulations the department is gearing up to unveil, along with a rule on blow-out preventers meant to limit the risks of offshore drilling disasters.
Jewell said in a speech Tuesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the department would release its final fracking rule in the “coming days,” and the blow-out preventer rule “in the coming weeks.”
Jewell offered few details on the final fracking rule, except to say it will build on the 1 million-plus comments the department received on a draft version. Asked if the regulation will please environmentalists, she responded: “I’m not sure that environmental groups will ever be pleased with fracking regulations. That might be a high bar — to say pleased.”
But she added: “I think that the public, environmental organizations and industry will recognize that we’ve struck the right balance. We want to protect groundwater, we want to reassure the public that the rules we put in place will do just that: protect groundwater resources while also unlocking the energy potential that we have,” she said.
Oil and gas industry supporters have also expressed dismay about the fracking rule, which would represent Washington’s most concrete step yet toward establishing oversight of one of the main technologies at the heart of the U.S. oil and gas boom. The fracking rule would not apply to state and private land, where most fracking occurs. But industry supporters say the Obama administration is needlessly meddling in an arena that state governments are already regulating adequately.
Jewell pre-emptively rebutted industry criticism.
“Some have already labeled these baseline, proven standards as overly burdensome to industry,” she said. “I think most Americans would call them common sense.”
Interior’s Bureau of Land Management originally said the rule would be final by the end of 2012, but then withdrew its proposal in January 2013 before issuing a new proposal four months later. Environmental groups panned the draft released in 2013, in part because it would allow companies to use the industry-backed website FracFocus to disclose their fracking chemicals instead of submitting the data to a government agency.
“I don’t think you’re going to see radical changes, but well-bore integrity, the sound construction of those wells, chemical disclosure and flow-back fluids and management of those flow-back fluids are what you can expect to see,” Jewell said Tuesday. “So, you’re going to have to wait a few days to get the exact language.”
As for the blow-out preventer rule, a response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Jewell said to expect its release in the coming weeks.
The rule “raises the bar on blow-out preventers and well control measures based on technological progress advanced by industry,” Jewell said, adding that “operators will be required to use best practices to protect against and effectively respond to any loss of well control.”
In her speech Tuesday, Jewell outlined an ambitious agenda for the last two years of the Obama administration that will focus on “safe and responsible energy development, good government and encouraging innovation.”
Among other things, she said Interior will begin taking comment in the coming weeks on a proposal that would give BLM “the flexibility to adjust royalty rates on the oil and gas resources that belong to all of us.”
And she said it’s “time for an honest and open conversation” about reforming the federal coal program.While she offered few details on the department’s plans, she told reporters the department is examining royalty rates for coal in response to criticism from the Government Accountability Office.
Meanwhile, the department is preparing to issue a controversial rewrite of a Bush administration rule regulating coal mining near rivers and streams. Jewell said she expects to release that rule, which has been the subject of a years-long House GOP investigation, “in the coming months.”
Jewell said the department is also working on methane regulations for wells on federal and tribal lands. She stressed that Interior is coordinating with the EPA, which is also developing methane rules. “We want to make sure the regulations are complementary and not in conflict in any way,” she said.
-
JEWELL: Fracking Rule in 'Coming Days'
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on Tuesday that the Interior Department will release its long-delayed final rule for fracking on public lands in the "coming days."
"The rule will include measures to protect our nation’s groundwater — requiring operators to construct sound wells, to disclose the chemicals they use, and to safely recover and handle fluids used in the process," Jewell said during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
And Jewell preemptively rebutted industry criticism of the rule.
"Some have already labeled these baseline, proven standards as overly burdensome to industry. I think most Americans would call them common sense," she said. "The standards only apply to activity on public and tribal lands, where, as a matter of geology, about 25 percent of America’s unconventional oil and gas sits. You can do the math: that means that three-quarters of the resources are found on state and private lands."
She did not offer any other details on the rule.
-
Activists Urge Cuomo to Clarify Fracking Ban In New York, Say Public Policy Unclear
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Three months after New York essentially banned the natural gas drilling practice known as hydraulic fracturing, some of the state's antifracking activists are now concerned about whether a true ban is really in place.
Hundreds of activists have signed an open letter to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), asking him to clarify the state's policy on fracking. The web-based letter was originated by Toxics Targeting, an Ithaca, N.Y.-based environmental database company.
“While we applaud your administration's landmark public health review conclusion, it is unclear how it will be translated into public policy,” the letter, which is dated March 14, said.
“Please make clear whether your administration plans to ban permanently all high volume hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shale in New York through a legally-binding prohibition or adopt some other form of shale fracking prohibition,” it said.
The state Department of Health released a 184-page report in December that said, “until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from [high volume hydraulic fracturing] and whether the risks can be adequately managed, HVHF should not proceed in New York State” (243 DEN A-2, 12/18/14).
At the time of the report's release, State Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joseph Martens said the fracking decision would be formalized in an environmental impact statement released in early 2015. He said the statement, which is called a supplemental generic environmental impact statement (SGEIS), would be followed by a legally binding findings statement.
Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemical additives into geologic formations to create fractures through which hydrocarbons can flow to a well. The practice has become a focus of concern recently because of fears that drinking water might become contaminated.
‘Trust, but Verify.’
The letter expressed concern that the SGEIS might actually permit fracking sometime in the future. It asked Cuomo to provide a written public notice of the scope of the SGEIS and to hold public hearings on the statement before its approved.
In a letter to antifracking activists, Walter Hang, president of Toxics Targeting, said “it is a huge mistake in politics to declare victory before you are absolutely certain that you have won.”
“The applicable rule is: Trust, but verify,” he said.
Thomas Mailey, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), told Bloomberg BNA that there is no date yet for release of the supplemental impact statement. He cited the department's December news release, which said the “DEC will incorporate the findings of the public health review into the Final SGEIS, which will be released with a response to public comments early next year.”
“A minimum of 10 days later, Commissioner Martens will issue the findings statement prohibiting HVHF. This action will conclude the State Environmental Quality Review Act process for HVHF.”
Thomas S. West of The West Firm PLLC, an attorney who represents oil and gas companies, said, “We, too, are looking forward to how Commissioner Martens intends to accomplish this regulatory sophistry.”
“Two prior drafts of the SGEIS have documented how high volume hydraulic fracturing can be done safely and avoid adverse environmental impacts if regulated appropriately,” West told Bloomberg BNA in a March 17 e-mail.
“Now, based upon studies that have been shown to be biased and without scientific foundation or any real conclusions, the New York DEC has been charged with finalizing the [State Environmental Quality Review Act] process in a manner that reverses the well-documented conclusions that high-volume hydraulic fracturing can be conducted safely and without adverse environmental consequences.”
West said the DEC will have to do a “regulatory about-face in a manner that complies with the legal requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Oil and Gas Solution Mining Law.”
-
House Foreign Affairs Committee to Mark Up Legislation to Repeal Crude Oil Export Ban
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
A House bill that would repeal the 40-year-old ban on most crude oil exports will receive a markup in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) told Bloomberg BNA.
The markup will be held “in the next couple of weeks,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the bill's author, said in an interview. Royce, a supporter of the bill, said he had yet to set a markup date.
In addition to repealing the prohibition on domestic crude oil exports, put in place after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the bill (H.R. 702) would bar the federal government from imposing or enforcing any similar restrictions and would require an Energy Department report on the appropriate size and makeup of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Upton ‘Open' to Bill
Barton introduced the bill in February, but Republican leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the legislation, have indicated they are in no rush to lift the ban, which was put in place in 1975 and instead have called for a “thorough review” of the issue (42 DEN A-2, 3/4/15).
Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) “is open” to moving the bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee if Barton can gain enough support for it, Barton said. The measure is co-sponsored by 14 Republicans.
“I've encouraged Joe [Barton],” Upton told Bloomberg BNA. “We need to see support beyond Oklahoma and Texas. And see we're the bipartisan support. He knows what he has to do.”
Proponents of lifting the prohibition, which include major oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and independent producers such as Dallas-based Pioneer Natural Resources Co., argue that the export ban is an anachronism of the 1970s that doesn't make sense now that advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led U.S. oil production to rise to near-record levels.
Ban Causing U.S. Crude Discount, Study Says
But the issue is tricky for lawmakers, who are concerned that future gasoline price increases could be linked to a vote to lift the ban. Opponents of changing the law, including independent refiners, such as Delta Air Lines's refining subsidiary Monroe Energy LLC, argue that such a move would raise domestic oil prices and render them unable to compete with refineries overseas.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a proponent of lifting the ban and the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has scheduled a March 19 hearing to examine the policy.
Separately, consulting firm IHS released a study March 17 funded by the oil industry that found the ban forces U.S. light crude to be sold at a sharp discount when compared to international crude.
Benefits of lifting the ban include adding $26 billion a year to the nation's gross domestic product, the creation of 394,000 jobs annually and lower U.S. gasoline prices by an average of 8 cents per gallon, according to IHS.
“The decline in global oil prices provides further need to remove the market distortions created by the ban on U.S. crude oil exports and avoid the additional disruption to investment in oil and gas production and its associated economic benefits and jobs growth,” Kurt Barrow, IHS vice president of downstream energy, said in a statement.
-
District By district, Study Builds Case for Exports
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jenny Mandel
The economic benefits of exporting domestically produced oil range far beyond where drilling takes place, boosting economic activity in every state and nearly every congressional district, according to a new, industry-funded study geared to sway Capitol Hill decisionmakers.
The report, by the Colorado-based consultancy IHS, calculates the benefits of lifting a decades-old ban on exporting crude oil at $26 billion in gross domestic product through 2030, thanks both to direct industry-related work and to increased activity in the oil and gas supply chain that "radiates out to the economy," according to IHS Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin.
"States that don't think that they're part of this are part of it," Yergin said in a call with reporters this morning.
The study -- sponsored by more than a dozen companies active in the oil and gas industry, including big names like Baker Hughes Inc., Halliburton Co. and Chevron Corp., as well as voices for labor and equipment manufacturers -- quantified benefits of exporting oil from the perspectives of GDP, jobs, labor income and government revenues, and found strong benefits over the coming five years and somewhat weaker benefits over the following 10 years as the economy recalibrates to higher oil production.
The analysis found that exporting oil would create 124,000 additional jobs per year and increase labor income by $158 per household while adding $429 billion to government coffers from corporate and personal taxes associated with supply chain industries.
Taking the analysis a step further, the paper breaks those benefits down by congressional district, showing the economic benefits of oil production under "free trade" and "restricted trade" scenarios.
The report comes as some stakeholders have marveled at the speed with which the oil export debate has moved in Washington.
The proposition of repealing the ban on exports, which dates back to the 1970s oil embargo, was raised by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) at an IHS-sponsored conference in Houston last year (EnergyWire, March 4, 2014).
At the time, she said the United States should export both ultra-light condensate and heavier forms of crude, both to extend U.S. leverage in world affairs and to stabilize and further participate in world energy markets.
Since then Murkowski, who leads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has pushed to advance that debate on the Hill, sometimes in the face of opposition from colleagues who see little benefit or harm from expanded domestic oil production.
The IHS report underlines the broad-based nature of economic benefits from exports and points to a new difficulty that the ban poses for industry.
With world oil prices today about half of what they were a year ago, the study says, it is more important than ever for domestic producers to see exports permitted. That is because the glut of domestic crude has led to a growing spread between U.S. and world oil prices, with the difference ranging from $7 to $12 per barrel at the time of publication, according to IHS.
That difference, while significant when spread over a $100 barrel of oil, is multiplied with oil trading at $50 per barrel, the report says, cutting into already thin profit margins and potentially pushing some producers over the line from profit to loss.
The result is a double hit to the industry that makes exports "a much more urgent issue now" than they were a year ago, IHS Vice Chairman Yergin said.
-
Dems to Reintroduce 'Frac Act,' Other Drilling Bills
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Mike Soraghan
Democrats are reintroducing four bills that would increase federal regulation of oil and gas drilling, though passage remains unlikely.
House Democrats are calling the bills the "Frack Pack." They would increase federal regulation of the effects of drilling and hydraulic fracturing on water and air.
On the other side of the Capitol today, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) is to reintroduce one of the four bills, called the "Frac Act." It would repeal a provision environmentalists call the "Halliburton Loophole" and allow U.S. EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) is introducing the bill in the House.
"These bills," Democrats said in a news release, "will close loopholes and hold the energy industry to the same standards that apply to everyone."
The reintroductions come as the Obama administration prepares to release new rules for drilling and fracking on Interior Department lands (E&ENews PM, March 17).
The House bills will be touted in a press event tomorrow featuring DeGette and the three other House Democrats sponsoring the legislation.
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) is to reintroduce the "Fresher Act," which increases regulation of drilling under the Clean Water Act, including provisions on stormwater runoff.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) is handling the "Breathe Act," which would require emissions from multiple related wells to be aggregated to determine their total pollution.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D-Ill.) "Shared Act" would require base-line testing of drinking water sources before drilling and "fracking" are begun in order to document any contamination.
Casey's co-sponsors for the Frac Act will be Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jack Reed D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
The Frac Act has not fared well since a version of it was first introduced in 2009. Even when Democrats controlled both chambers, it didn't get a hearing. With Republicans in charge, Congress is even less likely to approve increased federal regulation of drilling.
Earlier this year, the Senate rejected similar legislation to undo the "Halliburton Loophole" on a 35-63 vote (EnergyWire, Jan. 29).
It was the first congressional floor vote in years on the question of whether U.S. EPA should be able to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a controversial aspect of drilling that has driven the U.S. boom in oil and gas production.
Oil and gas producers have fought any suggestion of federal regulation of fracking for years.
The 2005 exemption has become known as the Halliburton Loophole because Halliburton Co. had lobbied for the exemption while Dick Cheney ran the company. As vice president under President George W. Bush, Cheney touted it in the energy plan he shepherded for the Bush administration.
It's not clear what repealing the exemption would do. EPA had never broadly regulated fracking before the exemption passed, though it had complied with a 1997 federal appeals court order to require Alabama to regulate it. Without the 2005 exemption, environmental groups might have been able to expand the precedent into other states through litigation.
Deep underground injection of oil and gas waste into thousands of wells across the country remains covered by the UIC provision in the law. There have been few complaints about EPA's oversight.
-
Lawmakers Urge Interior Officials to Go Further, Faster on Offshore Energy Leasing
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
House Republicans gave Interior Department officials another push March 17 to allow more oil and gas exploration and production in offshore waters, including the Atlantic offshore, while Democrats defended the Obama administration's record.
An important first step in exploration is seismic surveying, which generates maps of rock strata, and Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) gave the Interior officials a particular push on that issue. Nine proposals for seismic surveys in Atlantic coastal waters have been at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management since July, a delay Duncan termed “unacceptable.”
BOEM Director Abigail Ross Hopper, appearing before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, testified that the first permit for a seismic survey could be issued in the first half of this year.
Duncan noted that Atlantic oil and gas production is routine off the coast of Canada and has occurred in Cuban and Bahamian waters. For U.S. Atlantic waters, the seismic data is 30 years old, he said, “so I would urge you to move forward with the seismic permitting.”
Environmental advocates have warned of harm to whales, dolphins and other marine life from the sound waves generated for seismic surveys, but Hopper agreed with Duncan that there is no evidence of seismic surveys having harmed marine mammals.
Committee Debates Data
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman of the subcommittee, criticized BOEM on the number of lease sales in the draft five-year plan for 2017-2022 offshore oil and gas exploration, issued in January (18 DEN A-1, 1/28/15).
Lamborn's remarks, suggesting an unjustified decline in lease sales, kicked off a round of back-and-forth citing of different statistics between Republicans and Democrats that has become a recurrent game for the House Natural Resources Committee.
Rep. Matthew Cartwright (D-Pa.) devoted his five minutes of allowed speaking time to criticizing not BOEM but a chart put together by Lamborn's staff on offshore leasing trends.
Hopper, a former director of the Maryland Energy Administration, was not ruffled by the back and forth. She found much to agree and disagree with from both sides.
Testifying with her was Brian Solerno, director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and Gregory Gould, director of the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, agencies within Interior.
Hopper Defends Five-Year Plan
After Duncan said it was arbitrary for BOEM to propose to keep Atlantic drilling at least 50 miles offshore, she said it was a result of much analysis of environmental and commercial factors and not arbitrary at all.
Lamborn had been dissatisfied when Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told him March 5 that she could not guarantee an Atlantic lease sale actually would be included in the final version of the 2017-2022 plan. Hopper similarly would not provide any assurance on that point, noting that she could not promise the outcomes of a plan still at the draft stage.
Democrats raised a point they have made many times in the committee's data debates, arguing industry should not be clamoring for more leasing when so many offered leases have not been acquired and so many acquired leases have not been drilled.
But Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) noted that many offered leases may not hold enough promise of hydrocarbons to attract a bid. “Nobody expects that every acre will be leased,” he said.
“That's true,” Hopper replied.
-
Frank Murkowski Weighs on Keystone XL, Pebble Mine With Swipe at Obama
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Manuel Quiñones
Former Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) is blasting the Obama administration's moves over two of the most controversial energy and environment projects under consideration right now -- the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the Pebble mine project.
Murkowski, former chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and father of current Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R), is accusing President Obama of contradicting himself.
On the one hand, Obama vetoed pro-KXL legislation as a way of defending his State Department's ongoing review of the project. On the other hand, U.S. EPA is, according to the elder Murkowski, flouting the established process for mine permitting by proposing pre-emptive limits on the gold and copper venture.
"The media should examine the ways in which the offered reason for vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline is wildly inconsistent with what the administration is doing on projects in Alaska," Murkowski wrote in an op-ed published yesterday by the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
Murkowski doesn't explicitly say he supports development of the Pebble mine, a deeply controversial topic in Alaska, but he touts the mine's potential for job creation. And he worries that EPA could end up putting huge tracts of land off-limits.
Murkowski said EPA's process could affect the "potential development of 15 million acres of state land in western Alaska. For perspective, this is an area the size of West Virginia, and is approximately 15 percent of the land Congress granted to Alaska at statehood."
But mine critics point out that EPA's proposed limits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would only affect the Pebble project. They say such action is necessary to protect the Bristol Bay salmon fishery.
Lisa Murkowski has also not expressed a firm position on whether Pebble should be developed, but is against EPA proposing limits on the project prior to the permitting process.
When it comes to KXL, Murkowski has helped lead the effort to force the president's hand after more than six years of waiting for the administration to make up its mind.
Now her father says he sees the Obama administration fearing "the very process regarding the Pebble Mine it lectures Congress to follow in the case of the XL Pipeline."
-
House Republican Budget Aims to Increase Oil, Gas Output, Rescind Clean Energy Funds
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The House Republican fiscal year 2016 budget plan would “double-down” on domestic energy production and single out restrictions on the oil and natural gas industry, according to a budget resolution made public March 17.
The document also calls for “reforming or outright eliminating” a number of Department of Energy programs Republicans said were duplicative and rescinding all unobligated balances from the president's stimulus green energy programs.
The budget resolution, scheduled to be marked up by the House Budget Committee March 18, makes no change in law but rather serves as a statement of House Republicans fiscal priorities.
“In recent years, the dream of North American energy independence has increasingly become a reality. Our budget would double-down on this vibrant area of our economy by expanding the exploration and production of American energy,” a summary of the budget resolution said.
“Our budget says the Department of Energy's research and development work should focus solely on breakthrough innovations, and the Department should leave the application and commercialization of new technologies to the private sector,” the summary continued. “The federal Government is filled with energy programs that either produce little useful results or perform a task that can be better handled by the private sector. Therefore, we propose reforming or outright eliminating a number of programs.”
The legislative text of the budget resolution gives instructions to the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $1 billion from 2016 through 2025 from portions of the budget under its control, and the House Committee on Natural Resources is told to cut $100 million from programs under its control over the next 10 years and to draft legislation to do so by mid-July. The reconciliation instructions potentially give Republicans the opportunity to pass legislation that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.
Overall, the resolution, by Budget Committee Chair Tom Price (R-Ga.) aims to balance the budget by FY 2024 through spending cuts, assumed lower war spending and projected revenues from assumed faster economic growth to hit that target.
With assistance from Jonathan Nicholson in Washington
-
Oil Boom Swells North Dakota Town; What Now?
Mar 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Eliot Brown
Shale oil turned this sleepy county seat surrounded by wheat fields into a boomtown, drawing developers to build housing for a population that has more than quadrupled in five years.
But with crude prices less than half of what they were nine months ago, land-rush euphoria is giving way to concerns that projects will stall and Manhattan-level apartment rents could plunge as drillers cut production and jobs.
“A person would have to be somewhat blind to not be worried,” said Kent Roers, a Minneapolis-based investor who came to the area three years ago, and with his younger brother Brian has built 200 apartments in Watford City. The brothers were readying three more projects, but “as soon as oil pulled through $60 a barrel, we shelved those.”
U.S. benchmark crude oil prices stood at just above $43 a barrel midday on Tuesday, down from around $100 in June.
For now, Watford City and other once-tiny towns in this region of western North Dakota are still humming with construction. Developers are building thousands of apartment units and homes, hoping to see the same demand that sent rents for two-bedroom apartments soaring to $2,800 a month—more than double what landlords got before a type of oil extraction known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, took off in the area starting around 2009.
City officials expect about 1,000 housing units to be completed this year, more than enough to house all the city’s residents before the oil boom. Thousands more are planned. ENLARGE An oil-fueled building boom in Watford, City, N.D., has some worried now that the price of oil is falling precipitously. Workers there last month construct an apartment building.
If the regional economy tumbles, the developers that could be hurt are mainly small and midsized investors. One exception: private-equity giant KKR & Co. The company is in the midst of building a $150 million cluster of apartments and homes about 50 miles away on a hillside in Williston called Prairie Pines. A KKR spokeswoman said the company is “monitoring the situation.”
Already, the oil industry has started cutting back. The count of drill rigs in the state has fallen to 110 from 191 a year ago, and state officials expect it to decline further. Employers are cutting hours, and while unemployment is still low, drilling companies have said they expect to slash expenses this year.
Banks already are beginning to pull back on financing for local development projects, fearful of how the oil plunge will play out.
First Bank of Baldwin is a small Wisconsin bank that holds more than $8 million in debt on four projects in Williston and in nearby Tioga and Dickinson. Shane Bauer, the bank’s president, said rents on some projects are running lower than expected—about $2,600 a month for an apartment in one, down from a projected $3,200, although still high enough to make debt payments.
Given current oil prices, “I wouldn’t, and we’re not, investing additional dollars out there,” Mr. Bauer said. “We just want to see things level off.”
A property bust isn’t a certainty. Oil prices could rise, and many local officials believe the companies can still drill profitably at $50 a barrel or less. Even if prices remain low, there are now permanent jobs servicing all the wells that already have been built. In addition, surrounding towns have thousands of units of “man camps,” no-frills temporary housing that could be vacated in favor of the new apartments.
Watford City’s growth has been impressive even by oil-patch standards. Officials put its population between 7,000 and 10,000, compared with a census reading of 1,764 in 2010. While smaller than Williston—which has roughly 30,000 people, double its pre-oil population—Watford is growing at a faster rate and is surrounded by more oil rigs. Its low-slung Main Street, dotted with a pharmacy, a coffee kiosk and a local bank, is dominated by pickup truck-driving oil workers, and shops offering disposable covers for boots caked with mud.
Developers were so eager to build that they would “come pull me off the combine at night,” said Curt Moen, the part-time city planner and a full-time farmer, referring to his large wheat harvester.
Vedadi Corp., a Scottsdale, Ariz., company run by Jason Vedadi, is building hundreds of apartments in Watford City. Mr. Vedadi said he bought and flipped distressed properties in the Phoenix area before former colleagues suggested he take a look at North Dakota. Now he controls 400 acres with more than 750 more units planned or under construction.
“It didn’t take long to say, wow, ’I’ve never seen anything like this,’” said Mr. Vedadi, who added that he remains bullish about the region’s growth. “You’ve got little towns turning into cities ... and returns that are crazy.”
On the western edge of town, China-based Shangcheng Development LLC is working on a 237-acre project called Emerald Ridge where it has filed plans to build up to 1,500 units in apartments and townhomes. The company didn’t respond to requests for comment. ENLARGE Earth movers make way for new construction in Watford City, N.D., where a rush of people have come to work in the oil fields, swelling the city’s population.
Just north of Watford City’s downtown, New York-based Coltown Properties LLC has finished 107 units and has plans for 200 more. Steven Neuman, co-owner of the firm, said aside from the North Dakota development, the company had no projects outside New York, where it largely owns apartments. Mr. Neuman, too, said he is watching oil closely, but is confident in the town.
Some developers have already cashed out. Beryl Thorson and her husband, Gary, owned two older, low-rent apartment buildings. In recent years, Ms. Thorson said she was able to raise rents to $900 a month for two-bedroom units, up from $350 around 2010, but still well below market because she didn’t want to kick out longtime tenants. But she grew tired of maintaining the apartments, and values had soared, so the couple sold last year for a substantial profit, which they declined to disclose.
“We got a very good price,” she said.
-
Ninth Circuit Upholds EPA Approval Of Offsets for California Power Plant
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A federal appeals court has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of new source emissions offset credits that Southern California air quality regulators sold for construction of a new natural gas-fired power plant near Desert Hot Springs (Communities for a Better Env't v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 13-70167, petition for review denied 3/16/15).
The March 16 memorandum from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by environmental groups challenging the 2012 final rulemaking, which involved a source-specific revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's state implementation plan.
At issue is a credit tracking system the SCAQMD developed in response to state legislation (A.B. 1318) requiring the air district to transfer emissions offsets needed to build the CPV Sentinel Energy Project, an 800-megawatt natural gas-powered electricity generation facility.
Petitioners Communities for a Better Environment and California Communities Against Toxics argued the source-specific state implementation plan revision violated the Clean Air Act. Also, the EPA failed to properly evaluate whether the new source review emissions offset credits were quantifiable and surplus, as required under the law, the groups said.
Maya Golden-Krasner, an attorney at Communities for a Better Environment, told Bloomberg BNA March 17 the SCAQMD should have used its Rule 1315, the already EPA-approved tracking system to ensure the district's new source review program meets federal requirements.
SCAQMD May Use Another Method
The court said the EPA “reasonably determined that the district was not obligated to track to the credits transferred to the Sentinel project using Rule 1315.” The SCAQMD is allowed to use another method of showing compliance with the Clean Air Act as long as the method is written into the SIP, “as was the case here,” the court said.
Also, the court defended the EPA's determination that the credits transferred to Sentinel were quantifiable and surplus.
“EPA's conservative estimates provided an adequate margin of error to ensure statutory requirements were met,” the court said.
The two advocacy groups will likely wait for the Ninth Circuit to rule on a related petition, involving EPA approval of the SCAQMD Rule 1315, before deciding what step to take in this case, Golden-Krasner said (Communities for a Better Env't v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 12-72358, oral arguments, 10/22/14).
Company Paid for Offset Credits
Competitive Power Ventures LLC paid the SCAQMD $53.3 million for the emissions offset credits. Later the SCAQMD used $51 million of the money to fund 26 projects designed to reduce air pollution in the Coachella Valley, where the 800-megawatt power plant is now operating.
-
House Launches New Enhanced Oil Recovery Caucus
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A bipartisan group of House members launched an informal caucus March 17 aimed at promoting the economic and environmental benefits of enhanced oil recovery from carbon dioxide. Reps. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), and Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) will co-chair the Congressional Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Caucus. “This is something that's very important to our energy development going forward,” Harper said at an event launching the caucus. Enhanced oil recovery attempts to increase the amount of crude oil that can be removed from active oil fields through techniques like gas injection. The process typically occurs following primary and secondary production techniques and attempts to make the oil more mobile in reservoirs. Challenges remain to the technology's deployment, including the nation's tax structure and uncertainty over whether the federal government will continue funding projects using the technology, panelists said at the launch event.
-
Resolution From House Republicans Targets Economic Impact of EPA Clean Power Plan
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
House Republicans introduced a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year that takes direct aim at the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33).
The 146-page resolution, which sets broad federal spending guidelines for the next 10 fiscal years, contains a section criticizing the plan for its potential effects on the U.S. economy.
“The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by” the EPA, the resolution states. “These regulations are primarily targeted at the coal industry.”
To address the costs of this and other regulations, the Republicans on the House Budget Committee call on Congress to impose five changes to the federal rulemaking process:
• Establish a regulatory budget that would limit the maximum costs of federal regulations in a given year.
• Require congressional approval of all new federal regulations that are estimated to impose $100 million or more in costs.
• Ensure agencies conduct a three-year retrospective cost-benefit analysis of all new major regulations.
• Require independent agencies, not just those in the executive branch, to conduct regulatory impact analyses.
• Force all major regulations to go through a formal rulemaking process.
The resolution from the Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), also targets spending on climate change research at national security agencies.
A summary of the budget plan, in a section titled “Eliminating Waste,” states that the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency “currently spend part of their budget studying climate change.”
Overall, the House Republican resolution proposes balancing the federal budget by FY 2024, one year earlier than their previous budget proposal (63 DEN A-4, 4/2/14).
If adopted, the budget resolution would guide House appropriators in determining which specific federal programs to fund or de-fund when they begin adopting spending resolutions for the 2016 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
-
3-Judge Panel Picked to Hear Arguments on Clean Power Plan
Mar 17, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Two Republican-appointed judges and one chosen by President Obama will hear the first challenges to his administration's proposed greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants next month.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit this morning posted the three-judge panel for the lawsuits from Murray Energy Co. and more than a dozen states seeking to block U.S. EPA from finalizing the high-profile regulations this summer.
Judges Karen Henderson, Thomas Griffith and Cornelia Pillard will preside over the case when arguments are heard April 16.
Griffith was appointed by President George W. Bush, and Henderson was placed on the D.C. Circuit bench by Bush's father. Pillard, a former Georgetown Law professor, only recently joined the D.C. Circuit in late 2013 and is one of four judges Obama has appointed to the appeals court.
The Ohio-based Murray and several states are asking the D.C. Circuit to issue an "extraordinary writ" to block EPA from finalizing the rule, a critical component of the president's Clean Power Plan.
EPA's proposed rules would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, effectively shifting the country from coal-based power to renewables like wind and solar.
Two cases were filed seeking to block the regulations -- one from Murray and another from about a dozen mostly coal-producing states. They have been consolidated and will be heard and considered together by the same panel of judges.
The challengers make several arguments, including that the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from issuing the greenhouse gas rules after EPA in 2011 promulgated standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants under another section of the Clean Air Act, Section 112.
They point to conflicting House and Senate versions of a section of the Clean Air Act that were both signed into law. One version bars EPA from issuing regulations under the section for sources already regulated under the law, while the other bans new rules for pollutants that have been previously limited. So, the challengers contend that the source language blocks EPA from issuing the greenhouse gas standards for power plants, since those facilities are already covered by the Section 112 regulations.
"By the plain terms of the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and by EPA itself," Murray wrote, "this action foreclosed EPA from mandating state-by-state emission standards for these same sources" (Greenwire, March 10).
EPA contends that it deserves deference in interpreting the conflicting statutory language. It also argues that Murray and the states' claims are premature and that the court shouldn't vacate or block a rule that has yet to be finalized.
Previous attempts by states and industry groups to block other EPA climate rules before they were finalized were unsuccessful.
-
Scholars Debate Constitutional Concerns Over Clean Power Plan at House Hearing
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to seek emissions reductions from beyond power plants themselves as part of its proposed Clean Power Plan is a “radical change” in its use of Clean Air Act authority, a constitutional scholar told a House subcommittee.
The EPA's interpretation of its Clean Air Act authority in its proposed carbon dioxide standards for power plants presents significant constitutional concerns about cooperative federalism and delegation of power by Congress, Laurence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power March 17.
“Burning the Constitution of the U.S., about which I care deeply, cannot be part of our national energy policy,” Tribe said.
Despite Tribe's concerns, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, told the subcommittee that the EPA's proposal falls squarely within its Clean Air Act authority, citing three U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the act.
“The Supreme Court has not stood in the way of this kind of regulation,” he said.
Power Plants Already Regulated
Tribe, who represents Peabody Energy Corp. in litigation over the proposal, argued that the EPA can't regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because they are already regulated under Section 112 of the act as part of the agency's mercury and air toxics standards.
The proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would establish unique carbon dioxide emissions rates for the power sector in each state. State regulators would then develop their own plans to comply with the emissions rates. The EPA would issue federal plans for states that choose not to develop their own.
When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the House and Senate approved conflicting amendments to Section 111(d).
The Senate amendment would bar the EPA from regulating pollutants under Section 111(d) if they are already subject to hazardous air pollutant standards under Section 112. The House amendment can be read as barring the agency from regulating industrial sources under Section 111(d) if they are subject to standards under Section 112. Both provisions were included in the final bill.
EPA Says Provisions Ambiguous
The EPA has argued that the amendments make Section 111(d)'s provisions ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation by the agency. The agency has interpreted the act as allowing it to regulate sources but not pollutants that are already subject to standards under Section 112.
Tribe called the EPA's interpretation “sheer fantasy.”
“Congress expressly prohibited the EPA from doing exactly what it proposes to do here,” he said.
Tribe also argued the EPA's proposal violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering state resources to enforce a federal regulation. Energy policies remain the purview of state regulators and not the EPA, he said.
“It forces states to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the emperor's garb of state choice, even though in fact the policies are compelled by EPA,” Tribe said.
NAAQS Could be Barred
Revesz said Tribe's interpretation also would bar the EPA from issuing national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants, which are also implemented by state regulators who develop plans to suit the needs of their individual states.
“Nothing here is commandeered anyway.” Revesz said. “States are merely given the option to develop plans if they choose to do so.”
Allison Wood, an attorney at Hunton & Williams LLP, said the EPA exceeded its Clean Air Act authority when it proposed that states achieve carbon dioxide emissions reductions through means other than directly regulating power plants.
The EPA in its proposal identified four “building blocks” states can use to meet their emissions rates: heat rate improvements at existing power plants, expanded use of natural gas-fired generation, investment in new renewable energy projects and energy efficiency programs.
Clean Air Act rules have historically focused on the emissions reductions that are achievable at the regulated units themselves, said Wood, who represents the Utility Air Regulatory Group in a lawsuit challenging the EPA's legal authority to propose the Clean Power Plan.
“EPA's new interpretation is fundamentally flawed,” Wood said. “A system of emission reduction must begin and end at the plant itself.”
Supreme Court Decision Debated
Revesz and Tribe both cited a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found that Clean Air Act regulation displaces climate change claims raised under federal common law as evidence of their position (Am Electric Power Co. v. EPA, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 72 ERC 1609, 2011 BL 161239 (2011) ).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the majority decision, specifically cited the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act when finding that federal common law claims were displaced.
Tribe, however, cited a footnote in the opinion that said the EPA can't regulate under Section 111(d) sources that are already regulated under Section 112, such as power plants.
-
House FY16 Budget Cites EPA Climate Rules In Bid For Regulatory Reform
Mar 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
House Republicans' proposed fiscal year 2016 budget cites EPA's pending power plant climate rules as justification for lawmakers to approve a slew of regulatory review bills to tighten Congress' oversight of agency regulations and mandate stricter cost-benefit analysis of rules in order to curb major rules such as the climate policies.
The FY16 proposal, released March 17 by the House Budget Committee, includes non-binding provisions supporting an overhaul of the regulatory process, as well as backing cuts to “redundant” spending programs and measures to scale back or eliminate a series of policies and executive offices that the GOP opposes. But it only offers a top-line funding level that maintains sequestration limits on discretionary spending, making it unclear how the House might fund specific agencies such as EPA.
EPA in its own budget proposal seeks a $452 million boost above its FY15 budget, from its current $8.139 billion budget up to $8.591 billion in FY16. But that request is unlikely to become law as Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress have voiced opposition to a major funding boost for the agency.
The House proposal has a top-level federal spending target of $3.789 trillion -- a $136 billion reduction from FY15 levels -- but does not break that total down by departments or program areas.
While uncertainty lingers over the exact funding levels for EPA and other agencies that House lawmakers will pursue, the FY16 proposal does highlight their ongoing concern with EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for power plants and other policies, calling for regulatory reform to prevent similar rules in the future.
The budget says that EPA's proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS) and new source performance standards (NSPS) for power plant GHGs would lead to “a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power plants,” echoing concerns from industry, some states and others that the rules will lead to the shuttering of coal utilities.
“The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In June 2014, the EPA proposed a rule to cut carbon pollution from the Nation’s power plants. The proposed standards are unachievable with current commercially available technology,” the proposal says, referencing a carbon capture mandate proposed for the NSPS.
'Excessive Regulation'
In order to counter the ESPS and NSPS, known as the Clean Power Plan, and other “excessive regulation,” the budget urges Congress to adopt a series of regulatory reform bills, including some measures already under consideration in the 114th Congress and others that have yet to be formally announced or introduced.
For instance, one provision calls for legislation that “Reinforces the requirement of regulatory impact analysis for regulations proposed by executive branch agencies,” echoing H.R. 185 -- already approved by the House -- which would require agencies crafting new rules to conduct additional analysis, weigh alternatives and choose the lowest cost alternative within statutory guidelines. Agencies would have to consider factors such as the problem the rule would address and the risks and benefits involved when crafting new rules.
The proposal also backs bills to require congressional approval of any regulation with compliance costs of $100 million or more as a way to “keep Congress engaged as to pending regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies from being implemented and becoming effective.” Legislation to that effect has been introduced in the 114th Congress as H.R. 427 and S. 226, though both bills are still pending in committee.
The budget also calls for a mandatory retrospective cost-benefit analysis of all agency rules after three years, “to ensure that regulations operate as intended.”
It also says lawmakers should approve a bill to enact a “regulatory budget” that would limit the total compliance costs EPA and other agencies can require regulated entities to shoulder in a given year. Under a regulatory budget an agency would have to loosen existing regulations in order to tighten others or enact new rules.
House and Senate lawmakers backing those and other regulatory reform bills have already made EPA air, climate, water and other rules a major part of their push to advance “moderate” regulatory reform efforts, arguing that such bills could win support from Democrats and other opponents of past reform efforts.
However, several Democratic lawmakers that have criticized such measures in the past are also downplaying prospects for the bills to advance in the current Congress, fearing that the bills would largely be vehicles for Republicans and other critics of EPA to block regulations they oppose.
Funding Levels
The House budget proposal is a crucial first step toward setting EPA and other agencies' FY16 funding levels. Prior to drafting and passing appropriations bills for the coming year, the House and Senate must adopt and reconcile budget resolutions setting overall spending levels for FY16, which would then be divided up among executive agencies in the appropriations committees' funding bills.
Legislators could still clash over a specific funding level as House appropriators have signaled that they will push to cut EPA's budget while one GOP member of the Senate budget panel has said he would favor flat spending or even a small increase for the agency.
Along with the regulatory reform provisions, the House budget proposal also targets environmental spending on “green buildings” and renewable energy in a list of “redundant” federal spending.
While it does not specify particular programs or accounts for cuts, the draft bill includes “Ninety-four different initiatives run by 11 different agencies” for green construction and 670 renewable energy initiatives under 23 agencies in a list of redundancies, and urges “programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding levels” for listed initiatives.
Environmentalists are already criticizing the House GOP budget proposal, with the League of Conservation Voters' Deputy Legislative Director Alex Taurel saying in a March 17 statement, “The House Republican Budget is yet another stunning symbol of the influence that the oil, gas and coal industries have over this Congress. The Republican Leadership should stop doing polluters’ bidding by sacrificing protections for clean air, water and public lands that Americans and many businesses rely on.” Taurel added, “Instead of recklessly blocking efforts to curb climate change and padding the profits of the fossil fuel industry, Republican leaders should focus on the measures that put the interests of the average American first; that means promoting clean energy jobs, protecting the environment and keeping our economy growing.”
-
Tribe Lays Out Legal Attack on EPA Power Plant Rule
Mar 17, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Erica Martinson
Opponents of the President Barack Obama’s climate change plan brought out the heavy artillery Tuesday, turning to a former hero of the green movement to lay out a legal plan to bring down EPA’s upcoming rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Legal lion Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor who taught constitutional law to President Barack Obama, entered the fight against EPA’s Clean Power Plan, accusing his former student of “burning the Constitution” in the effort to combat climate change.
Since submitting scathing comments on the pending Clean Power Plan rule to EPA in December on behalf of Peabody Energy — the world’s largest private sector coal company — Tribe, who represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, has become the darling of anti-EPA Republicans.
Tribe, appearing before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee and along with prominent Hunton & Williams partner Allison Wood, laid out one legal argument after another that opponents can use in the upcoming court battles to prevent EPA from implementing the greenhouse gas rules it plans to finalize this summer.
“You know, I’ve cared about the environment ever since I was a kid. And you know, I taught the first environmental course in this country, and I’ve won major victories for environmental causes. But I’m committed to doing it within the law,” Tribe said.
“Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy,” he added.
Tribe’s appearance in the House and his dogged opposition the Obama administration’s climate plan rankled greens who have considered him part of their movement.
“Laurence Tribe must not have been sworn in over a Bible today before testifying before Congress, because if he had been, that Bible would have burst into flames after his phony testimony about EPA’s legal authority to set standards for unlimited carbon pollution from power plants,” said David DiMartino, adviser to the Climate Action Campaign.
“But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised— a wad of coal industry money burning a hole in your pocket can make you do strange things,” he added.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), one the EPA’s fiercest critics, lauded the “iconic” Tribe’s appearance in the House in a Facebook post late Tuesday, saying it proves that “the legal basis for this regulation is flimsy at best.”
Democrats on the panel turned to Richard Revesz, director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, to counter Tribe and Wood.
One key legal issue centers on EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from the nation’s existing power plants under Clean Air Act section 111(d). Opponents argue that because power plants emissions of hazardous air pollutants are regulated under section 112, the law precludes EPA from regulating power plants under section 111.
But EPA and its supporters argue that the House and Senate never reconciled conflicting amendment language in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and the agency should be given commonly afforded legal deference to decide the right path forward.
That issue could be handled in a trio of cases that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear next month. Or the court could turn the plaintiffs away since the rule isn’t final — a common response, but opponents are hoping for more.
“There are many attorneys in Washington, D.C., and around the country making large sums of money advising clients on which version the” law is correct, Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) noted at the hearing.
If the case ultimately makes it to the Supreme Court, “I don’t think the court would accept the agency’s interpretation. I think the statute is too clear. … The fact that greenhouse gases [are] a terrible problem doesn’t give a blank check to any agency to rewrite the law,” Tribe said.
Tribe doesn’t concede that there are conflicting requirements in the U.S. Code, and called the argument “fantasy” in his extensive 60-page written testimony. And he and Revesz — who both have several states and utilities backing on their side — don’t even agree on what the Supreme Court has previously said.
“The Supreme Court has never said anything that raises any questions about the value of the Clean Power Plan,” Revesz argued.
But Tribe pointed to a footnote of the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in AEP v. Connecticut as backing his argument. That ruling preempted citizens from suing a state over failing to regulate greenhouse gases under the reasoning that EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases.
The footnote says there is an exception: “EPA may not employ [Section 111(d)] if existing stationary sources of the pollutant in question are regulated under the national ambient air quality standard program, [in sections 108 or 110], or the ‘hazardous air pollutants’ program, [in section 112].”
In this case “existing stationary sources” means power plants. And in 2012, EPA regulated hazardous air pollution from power plants under section 112 of the act.
“Footnote 7 is subject to more than one interpretation,” Revesz argued, pointing to the Justice Department’s arguments in an upcoming court case. “I believe that [Tribe] is wrong, EPA believes that he is wrong, and we’ll find out — this issue will be argued extensively on April 16 before the D.C. Circuit.”
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) sought to score a “gotcha” moment at the hearing, but missed the mark: He noted that because a prior administration once conceded in court that it could not regulate power plants under both sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act and did not appeal the particular issue to the Supreme Court — so “have they conceded the point and they now are thrown out on their backside” for legal reasons, he asked.
Tribe didn’t give him what he was hoping for though, saying that under that previous case, New Jersey v. EPA, only New Jersey could make that claims. New Jersey is not one of the states suing to stop EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
“EPA is free to make these arguments. I just think that are wrong and will lose,” Tribe added.
On April 16, the appeals court will hear arguments in Murray Energy v. EPA, covering a trio of cases that opponents hope will stop the agency before it releases a final rule this summer.
But Tribe and Williams made clear that the EPA makes it past that hurdle, they’re ready with new legal arguments, many of them with a constitutional bent designed to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) called the constitutional issues “troubling,” and charged the proposed plan with tipping the balance towards “federal dominance over state electricity systems.”
Tribe argued that the proposed rule would give allow the federal government to overtake control of energy regulations, which would violate the 10th Amendment provisions that say the federal government only has powers conferred to it by the states or the people via the Constitution. The EPA can’t give states a “Hobson’s choice” by forcing them to adopt unpopular policies or face unpopular federal control, he said.
The uncertainty surrounding EPA’s federal plan is countered by the recent Supreme Court ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius, which struck down forced expansion of Medicaid eligibility, Tribe said. The EPA, which distributes more than a third of its budget to the states, could easily use the Clean Power Plan to threaten states with cuts to other types of grants — the same type of action the high court turned away from in NFIB.
Tribe, much to the chagrin of some more liberal members of the committee and on the panel, also argued that the proposed rule could violate the Fifth Amendment’s “takings” clause, by unfairly saddling coal-fired power plants with the costs.
The Harvard professor would not be limited there: He also argued that EPA’s view of the Clean Air Act “raises grave constitutional questions under Article I, Article III and The Separation Of Powers.”
If EPA is allowed to choose its interpretation of whether it may regulate power plants under section 111(d) and 112, the agency would essentially be making laws itself, according to Tribe.
“EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress and the federal courts all at once,” he said.
-
Coal-Fueled Clectric Co-Ops Push Back on EPA Power Plan
Mar 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
What impact will U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan have on the country's coal-dependent electric cooperatives? During today's OnPoint, Kirk Johnson, senior vice president for government relations at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, discusses his organization's opposition to the rule, citing reliability and affordability concerns. Today's OnPoint will air on E&ETV at 10 a.m. EDT.
-
Comments Show Split in State Support For EPA Proposal to Revise Ozone Standards
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Comments submitted by state environmental agencies show a lack of consensus for the Environmental Protection Agency proposal to set more stringent national ozone standards, with several state agencies urging the EPA to retain the current 75 parts per billion standard set in 2008.
State environmental agencies in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and South Dakota asked the EPA to consider leaving the current standards in place for several reasons.
These included the lack of new research since the standards were last revised, multiple federal environmental regulations that will improve air quality even without a more stringent ozone standard and concerns about the standards approaching background levels in rural areas.
However, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents 42 state air agencies, and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management both filed comments in support of the EPA's proposal, citing a conclusion by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that there is adequate scientific evidence to justify a more stringent standard.
The EPA in November proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the current standards to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. The agency estimated its proposed rule could cost up to $16.6 billion annually in 2025, while providing up to $38 billion in annual benefits from reduced incidents of asthma, premature death and other health problems (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
NACAA said in its comments that it supports the EPA's proposal, while NESCAUM, which represents eight Northeastern state air agencies including New York and Massachusetts, said in its comments that even the 70 ppb level included in the agency's proposed rule may not be adequate to protect public health.
The public comment period on the proposal closed March 17. The agency is under a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to finalize its decision on whether to revise or retain the standards, a regulatory time frame that bills introduced March 17 in the Senate and House seek to delay (see related story).
Concern Raised About Background Levels
Several individual state agencies raised concerns about background ozone concentrations, which is the level of ozone in a given area that would exist absent any man-made emissions from inside the U.S.
Both naturally occurring emissions of volatile organic compounds, an ozone precursor that is emitted from trees and other natural sources, and emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides from other countries can contribute to background ozone concentrations that states can't control, state agencies in South Dakota and Michigan said.
The EPA's proposal to tighten the ozone standards will bring the standards closer to or below background levels in many areas, the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources said.
The South Dakota comments reference 2014 monitoring data from six sites in the state that fall between 61 ppb and 68 ppb despite low emissions from industry, traffic and other man-made pollution sources in those areas.
States with low populations and “essentially zero” emissions of in-state ozone precursors won't be able to meet a more stringent ozone standard due to background levels and ozone transport issues but will still need to spend significant resources trying to meet an unattainable standard, the South Dakota agency said.
Compliance Called ‘Nearly Impossible.'
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality agreed that the EPA's proposal would make it “nearly impossible” for some states to come into compliance using available regulatory tools because of background ozone concentrations.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, which didn't include a recommendation to retain the current standard in its comments, also raised concerns about background ozone issues. The EPA's ozone analysis largely ignored background ozone issues in the Western U.S. because it relied mostly on studies and models that focus on summertime ozone concentrations in urban areas.
Given the high contribution of background ozone to measured ozone concentrations in the West, the EPA's proposal would put an “undue responsibility” on many high-altitude, rural states to address ozone levels that are beyond their ability to control, the Wyoming DEQ said.
Disagreement on Adequacy of Data
One of the biggest differences in the state comments is whether the EPA's proposal to set a more stringent standard is justified based on available data.
NACAA said it supports the EPA's decision that the current standard isn't adequate to protect public health.
“The serious threats to public exposure to ozone are well documented,” NACAA said.
NESCAUM cited the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's conclusion that even a 70 ppb ozone standard may not provide a large enough margin of safety for public health, specifically for sensitive subpopulations, including children.
Studies have linked exposure to ozone levels of 70 ppb to lung function changes and cardiovascular effects, NESCAUM noted in its comments.
“We expect EPA to uphold its legal obligation and set the ozone NAAQS at an appropriate level not exceeding the CASAC-recommended range that will protect public health with an adequate margin of safety,” NESCAUM said.
States Disagree Over Science
State air agencies in Georgia, Michigan and Indiana all disagreed that the science supports more stringent ozone standards. Those states all said there is uncertainty with the health studies cited by the EPA as justification for its proposal.
Additionally, the state agencies said that there hasn't been much new research since the last review of the ozone standards concluded in 2008, meaning that the EPA already considered those studies in setting the current standard.
Georgia and Kentucky's air regulatory agencies both noted that air quality will continue to improve even if the EPA doesn't revise the ozone standards in 2015.
The Tier 3 motor vehicle and fuel standards, the cross-state air pollution rule, the proposed Clean Power plan, the 2012 mercury and air toxics standards for power plants and other federal rules all will directly or indirectly drive reductions in emissions of ozone precursors, the states said.
EPA Should Evaluate Impacts of Several Rules
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), in a letter attached to the Michigan DEQ comments, said the EPA should evaluate the air quality impacts of all of those regulations before requiring industry to invest in additional pollution-control technology.
Eleven other governors, including potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Gov. Scott Walker (Wis.), also have called on the EPA to retain the current standard.
In a March 16 letter sent to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the governors said the EPA should not impose a new ozone standard alongside other environmental regulations that are already lowering ozone emissions at a cost of billions of dollars.
“Piling on the additional burden and expense of a lower ozone standard simply isn't necessary,” the governors said.
Push for Timely Guidance
One area of agreement among state air agencies is the need for the EPA to publish its implementation rule soon after the potential final ozone standard.
Implementation rules, which establish attainment planning requirements, permitting requirements under the new source review program and other implementation requirements, are typically issued by the EPA several years after a national ambient air quality standard is revised. The final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standards was only finalized in February 2015, a fact that several state agencies mentioned in their comments.
NACAA, NESCUAM and several individual state agencies all requested that the EPA issue the final implementation rule for the potential 2015 ozone standards as soon as possible after the standards are finalized. This would give states sufficient time to meet their regulatory obligations under a revised standard.
-
Kansas Emissions Plan Doesn't Satisfy Good Neighbor Duties Under Air Act, EPA Argues
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Wilhelm
Kansas failed to satisfy the Clean Air Act's good neighbor requirements when it submitted a plan to control emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, the Environmental Protection Agency argued in a brief filed in federal appellate court on March 13 (Westar Energy, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1333, brief filed 3/13/15).
Kansas had petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA's disapproval of the state implementation plan. The EPA told the court that its disapproval of Kansas's SIP was not arbitrary and capricious because the plan lacked technical analysis, and EPA modeling showed that the state's emissions caused nonattainment and maintenance problems for downwind states trying to achieve the 24-hour national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter.
In 2009, the EPA issued guidance to states on how to address the good neighbor obligations in their implementation plans. However, the EPA contended in its brief that Kansas did not adhere to the 2009 guidance in its SIP.
The plan contained “no substantive discussion or estimate of Kansas's contribution to downwind nonattainment or maintenance issues, nor did Kansas submit any technical data or analysis on the issue of interstate transport, including with respect to the [24-hour fine particulate matter standard],” the EPA argued in its brief.
Argument Already Addressed by Supreme Court
The EPA rejected Kansas's argument that states have discretion to determine whether emissions contribute to nonattainment or maintenance problems in downwind states absent an EPA rulemaking defining a state's good neighbor obligations.
“[T]his argument for essentially unfettered State discretion contradicts the text and structure of the [Clean Air] Act and is a mere re-packaging of the arguments squarely rejected by the [U.S.] Supreme Court” in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225 (U.S. 2014), the EPA argued in its brief.
While states have an obligation to submit adequate SIPs addressing the interstate transport of pollutants, the EPA doesn't have to provide specific metrics before states comply with their good neighbor obligations, the agency argued.
-
Republicans ‘Will Have to Change' Approach To Addressing Climate Change, Obama Says
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
Too many elected Republicans are “shills” for oil and fossil fuel companies and the fact that someone who denies climate change runs the Senate environment committee is “disturbing,” President Barack Obama said in an interview posted March 16.
“I guarantee that the Republican Party will have to change its approach to climate change because voters will insist upon it,” Obama said in an interview with Vice News that focused heavily on the subject. “Climate change is an example of the hardest problems to solve. The hardest thing to do in politics and government is to make sacrifices now for a long-term payoff.”
Obama said he would continue to push China for a “serious plan” to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to “leverage the entire world” toward reaching an international agreement to address climate change in December at international talks in Paris.
The president also vowed to continue aggressive domestic efforts to double clean energy production, improve the energy efficiency of appliances and improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles, while working to convince Americans that climate change poses “a serious, immediate threat.”
“If I'm able to do all those things now, when I'm done we're still going to have a heck of a problem, but we will have made enough progress that the next president and the next generation can start building on it and you start getting some momentum,” Obama said. “The challenge on something like climate change is there comes a point of no return, and you do have to make sure that we get at this thing quick enough and with enough force to make a difference.”
Asked about a recent incident in which Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, used a snowball as evidence climate change is a hoax, Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe leads the committee.
Republicans Will ‘Outgrow' Denial
Obama said too many Republicans are denying facts about climate change, but he expressed optimism that the party would “outgrow” its reluctance to address the problem, pointing out that younger generations support action.
Those comments come on the heels of similar remarks from Vice President Joe Biden, who said that denying climate change is “like denying gravity” (45 DEN A-1, 3/9/15).
Many Republicans will deny that human activity significantly contributes to climate change—a conclusion 97.2 percent of climate scientists support, according to a 2013 survey—because they receive significant financial incentives from oil and other fossil fuel companies, according to Obama.
“In some cases, though, you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry and there's a lot of money involved,” the president said. “Typically in Congress, the committees of jurisdiction, like the energy committees, are populated by folks from places that pump a lot of oil and pump a lot of gas.”
-
Industry Assails Obama’s Ozone Regulations
Mar 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Business groups are waging war on the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce ozone pollution, arguing the regulations would cripple the U.S. economy.
In order to comply with the proposed rule, many areas of the country would have to all but shut down land development and oil and natural gas drilling, industry groups charged on the final day for comments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being spurred on by greens and health groups, who argue that lower ozone emissions would benefit public health. The agency, they contend, is obligated to adopt the stricter standards.
But the rules would translate to higher electric bills for American families, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is said in comments it filed Tuesday.
“At the same time, declining real household incomes coupled with increasing energy costs are harming the 60 million American families with low and middle incomes."
The American Petroleum Institute (API) said it is too soon to change the standard of 75 parts per billion, the current standard set in 2008. The EPA is proposing a cut to between 65 and 70 ppb, but many states and localities have not yet begun to implement the 2008 regulation, the group notes.
“If President Obama is serious about lifting up the middle class and closing the income inequality gap, the last thing his administration should do is threaten jobs and our energy and manufacturing renaissance with unnecessary new regulations,” Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory affairs, told reporters.
The oil and gas group said the lower end of the range the EPA is considering would be within the amount of naturally occurring ozone levels of many areas.
“As proposed, the new standards could impose unachievable emission reduction requirements in virtually every part of the nation,” Feldman said.
Ozone is a byproduct from a reaction of some pollutants created by burning fossil fuels. It has been linked to various respiratory illnesses.
If the EPA were to make its rule final, states would be responsible for bringing their levels down, which the rule’s opponents warn would cause some businesses to close.
In a joint statement, the American Wood Council and the American Forest and Paper Association argued that the regulation would hurt them too.
“The costs of further tightening the standard are significant when there is such scientific uncertainty,” Donna Harman, the paper group’s president, said in the statement. “The proposed revisions could place most of the country in nonattainment, putting five times more paper and wood product mills at risk.”
Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology joined the assault Tuesday, criticizing the estimated costs and questioning the EPA’s estimated health benefits.
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) cited a study from Nera Economic Consulting, commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers, that finds the rule would be the most expensive ever, with up to $1.1 trillion in compliance costs.
“A non-attainment designation under the Clean Air Act has serious consequences,” Smith said.
But the EPA estimated that it would cost less than $15 billion annually and the rule’s health benefits — totaling up to $39 billion — would make up for that.
Environmental and health groups also highlighted the Clean Air Act’s requirement that the EPA set the standard based on public health without considering costs.
The groups said the EPA should go even further, with a 60 ppb standard, which the agency has agreed to consider.
“There is a robust body of scientific evidence that supports the adoption of a more protective standard of 60 [ppb],” the American Lung Association wrote in a letter signed by more than 1,000 medical professionals.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, cited overwhelming public support.
“Half a million Americans from across the country are calling on the EPA to heed the warnings of doctors and scientists on the health impacts of air pollution and strengthen the smog pollution standard to protect our communities from reckless polluters,” Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club’s beyond coal campaign, said in a statement.
The EPA had tallied just more than 50,500 comments as of Tuesday morning but expects many more, spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement.
The agency will consider changes to the rule based on the comments and has agreed in court to make it final by Oct. 1.
-
GOP Lawmaker Argues EPA Ozone NAAQS Science Justifies 'Reform' Bills
Mar 17, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House science committee, is arguing that EPA's proposed tightening of its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is based on flawed scientific data and justifies pending legislation to “reform” the process through which EPA collects such data and receives advice from scientific experts.
EPA has defended the science underpinning its proposal to revise the existing 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to a range between 65 and 70 ppb, saying it has the backing of its independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). But industry groups, GOP lawmakers and some state air regulators say there is no justification for a stricter NAAQS -- arguments they are making in comments filed on the proposal.
EPA's comment period on the potential stricter standard closed March 17, and lawmakers used the date to push legislation they say would help address their concerns about alleged problems in the NAAQS process.
For example, Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) along with Reps. Pete Olson (R-TX) and Bob Latta (R-OH) introduced legislation March 17 that would prohibit EPA from tightening the ozone standard until at least 85 percent of counties currently out of attainment with the 2008 limit are in attainment. EPA's critics note the agency only recently issued guidance to states on how to craft plans for meeting the 2008 standard.
Separately, Smith held a House Science, Space & Technology Committee hearing on the potential impacts of a stricter ozone standard, where several witnesses warned it would create economic harm and job losses.
In his opening remarks, Smith said it is “premature” for EPA to consider tightening the standard when states have not yet met the 2008 limit. However, the Clean Air Act mandates that the agency review -- and potentially revise -- its NAAQS every five years, meaning that that ozone standard review is already overdue. EPA proposed the revised ozone standard late last year and under a legally binding deadline must finalize it by Oct. 1.
Smith added, “I'm also concerned that the science used to justify this rule is not good science,” saying it fails to adequately account for the role of ozone-forming pollution from overseas that EPA cannot regulate, or uncontrollable, naturally occurring background ozone levels, “which would mean trying to beat Mother Nature.”
EPA's Proposal
Smith also expressed concern about EPA's process in developing and reviewing the science on the ozone standard to reach its conclusion that a 65-70 ppb limit is necessary to meet a Clean Air Act requirement that the NAAQS be set at a level that the administrator deems adequate to protect human health in an adequate margin of safety. Smith claimed EPA did not make key scientific data available, adding, “This raises a lot of suspicions.”
He argued that EPA ignored “inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzle[d] dissenting voices” that said there is a robust scientific basis for retaining the existing 75 ppb ozone standard.
“This hearing provides an example of why we should support both the Secret Science Reform Act and the Science Advisory Board [SAB] Reform Act, which are on the House floor this week,” he said.
The two bills -- which at press time House lawmakers were debating on the floor March 17 -- stem from concerns GOP lawmakers have raised about the science underpinning EPA's rules.
The Secret Science Reform Act, H.R. 1030, would force EPA to use the “best available” science in developing rules and make all data for its rules publicly available. The Senate version, S. 544, was introduced by John Barrasso (R-WY), who has criticized the costs of a host of EPA rules, including the ozone proposal.
H.R. 1029, the SAB Reform Act, aims to overhaul the membership of SAB, which advises the agency on a host of rulemakings. It would also authorize SAB to review EPA risk assessments that underpin regulations, among various other provisions which supporters say would help ensure the board's independence.
Although the House is advancing the measures, the Senate has not acted on such legislation, and the White House has issued veto threats for both bills. In its Statements of Administration Policy on the bills, the White House said they would undermine advisers' independence and impede the rulemaking process.
Ozone Proposal
During the House science panel hearing, Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, echoed concerns raised by industry groups that a stricter ozone standard would cause economic harm. Critics of the proposal say that it would place many current attainment areas in nonattainment for the first time. This would trigger requirements for those areas to impose potentially costly pollution controls on industrial sources of ozone-forming emissions, and EPA's critics say the threat of such controls drives businesses away from those areas.
A standard in the 65-70 ppb range EPA has proposed “will almost certainly cause economic harm” to the Chamber's members, Alford said, calling on the agency to retain its existing 75 ppb limit.
Similarly, Raymond Keating, chief economist of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council -- which he described as a non-partisan non-profit dedicated to small business -- warned of “considerable cost” from stricter ozone standards, saying it would lead to increased regulation that causes increased costs.
But EPA had some defenders at the hearing, with House science panel ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) saying a stricter NAAQS would be more protective of public health. And while she is “not insensitive” to the cost claims, she noted that the air law says EPA must set NAAQS based solely on scientific data. Under the statute and legal precedent, the agency cannot consider economic costs when setting the level of the NAAQS.
She also argued that the industry and Republican claims of increased costs from stricter EPA rules “is not a new story” and similar claims have been made on other rules, only to prove unfounded.
Dr. Mary Rice, a pulmonary care physician at Harvard Medical School and member of the American Thoracic Society's Health Policy Committee, used her witness testimony to warn about the adverse health impacts of ozone and suggested a 60 ppb standard is necessary to protect public health. “The science is strong and compelling” for a stricter limit, she said, noting that EPA based its proposal on a review of hundreds of scientific studies using multiple methods, such as human exposure and animal toxicology testing.
In a related development, environmental group Earthjustice March 17 touted the fact that more than 500,000 people from community, environmental and health groups have written to EPA seeking a 60 ppb standard.
Although Rice noted at the hearing that she is a health professional and not an economist, she said there are enormous cost-related health benefits from a lower ozone standard, including a reduction in lost work days due to adverse respiratory impacts from ozone pollution and savings on the use of medication for treating asthma.
Economic Costs
But the Chamber's Alford said in response to a question from lawmakers that a stricter ozone standard would cause job losses, arguing that “jobs are the linchpin to quality of life and to health.”
That statement echos remarks from Howard Feldman, the American Petroleum Institute's senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs, on a March 16 conference call with reporters. He said that although EPA touts benefits from a stricter NAAQS, there are “adverse health impacts” from the costs associated with a stricter standard. He urged the administration to retain the existing 75 ppb standard in its final NAAQS revision.
Various other industry groups -- including the American Wood Council and American Forest & Paper Association -- also issued statements March 17 urging EPA to retain the current ozone standard.
Some state and local officials are also raising concerns over the proposal, including 11 Republican governors who sent a March 16 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging her to abandon plans to tighten the standard. The governors representing Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin reiterate the concerns about costs from a more stringent NAAQS. “Our states’ resources are not infinite. At a time when we should be focusing on growing the economy and creating jobs, the EPA is imposing a steady stream of complex, expensive new regulations that require an army of policy and technical experts and lawyers to decipher, respond to, and ultimately implement. The proposed NAAQS for ozone is the most onerous and expensive yet,” the governors wrote
-
DOT Should Alter Crude Oil Order, Use Newer Tank Car Model, Oil Alliance Says
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
An alliance of oil sands developers wants the Transportation Department to rethink crude oil classification and to limit its requirements for rail transport to those that would deliver “meaningful” safety improvements.
These requests by the In Situ Oil Sands Alliance would require the Transportation Department to alter a February 2014 emergency order on crude oil classification. It would also require the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to choose for its final rule the least restrictive tank car requirements proposed in its tank car and operational controls rule governing certain flammable liquids transport by rail, specifically, the retrofitted CPC-1232 standard.
“IOSA members will bear the cost associated with regulatory changes to enhance safety and our interest is to ensure that any investment delivers meaningful improvement in safety outcomes,” said an alliance document given to the White House during a March 11 meeting.
The order and PHMSA rule aim to address safety concerns related to the shipment of crude oil by rail, such as concerns about the tank cars used and the oil's volatility in transport. This follows several derailments of trains carrying crude that led to a range of environmental and property damage and endangered the public.
The alliance's members include the Canadian oil sands developers Athabasca Oil Corp., Laricina Energy Ltd., MEG Energy Corp. and OSUM Oil Sands Corp. The White House received the PHMSA final rule for review on Feb. 5.
Packing Group III
The Transportation Department should allow crude oil to be tested, classed and shipped as a “Packing Group III” material, the alliance said.
This move would require the department to amend its February 2014 emergency order that explicitly prohibited Class 3 (flammable liquids) petroleum crude oil from being shipped with the less protective requirements of the packing group for less dangerous materials.
Additionally, PHMSA should use the retrofitted CPC-1232 tank car standard with a 7/16-inch shell in its upcoming rule that will govern tank car standards for rail shipments of crude oil, the alliance said.
CPC-1232 tank cars are the newer model of car used to ship crude oil. However, certain recent derailments have occurred with this model of tank car, leading several congressional lawmakers to say retrofitting this model of tank car may not be a safe enough option for crude oil rail shipment rules (42 DEN A-5, 3/4/15).
But the alliance said the retrofitted CPC-1232 tank car standard proposed under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration rule, which is expected to become final in May, would lead to nearly the same safety benefits as the more stringent tank car options in the proposed rule and cost industry significantly less, the alliance said.
Any timeline for retrofitting tank cars should be based on North America's manufacturing and retrofitting capacity, the alliance said.
-
Replace Unapproved Tanker Car Valves For Hazmat Transport, Authorities Say
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
Railroad tank cars equipped with certain unapproved valves are prohibited from transporting hazardous materials until the valves are replaced under a Transportation Department directive.
The Federal Railroad Administration March 13 issued a Railworthiness Directive calling on tank car owners to replace three-inch McKenzie UNNR threaded ball valves by May 12. Aside from not being approved for use on railroad tank cars, federal safety investigators found that the valves have caused tank cars to leak small amounts of hazardous materials when not properly configured.
In addition, the directive instructs tank car owners to replace one- and two-inch McKenzie valves by June 11. Those smaller ball valves don't appear to present the same safety concerns as the three-inch valves, but they're not approved for tank-car use and must be replaced, the FRA said.
McKenzie Valve & Machining LLC made and sold the valves in question. The company has sold about 11,000 of the three-inch valves to car tank owners and facilities since 2009.
About 6,000 railroad tank cars are equipped with the unapproved three-inch valves. McKenzie sold more than 37,000 of the one- and two-inch valves to tank car owners and facilities, although the FRA doesn't have estimates on how many cars are equipped with those valves.
The removal and replacement of the valves aren't expected to significantly disrupt freight rail traffic, the FRA said.
A representative from McKenzie wasn't immediately available for comment. As part of the FRA's investigation, the company gave the agency the Association of American Railroads’ approval letters for the valves.
The agency said there's inconsistencies between the type of valve in use and the type of valve depicted in configuration drawings.
FRA to Work With Railroad Association
The FRA said it will immediately begin working with the Association of American Railroads, which represents major freight railroads, to review the trade group's process for approving tank car valves and other components.
“I expect this audit to force a stricter adherence to the structures in place to keep our railways safe,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a March 13 statement.
Officials from the railroad association will be working closely with the administration in reviewing the tank car valve approval process to ensure the FRA is satisfied with the current approval requirements, association spokesman Ed Greenberg told Bloomberg BNA March 17.
The directive arose from recent FRA investigations that found several railroad tank cars leaking small amounts of hazardous materials.
In January, 16 tank cars out of a 100-car train were leaking crude oil during the trip between North Dakota and Washington state.
Although the FRA said it's identified “only a small number of relatively minor hazardous material leaks” caused by the McKenzie valves, the agency believes there's the potential for many more.
-
N.Y., U.S. Inspectors Cite Defects in Rail Cars, Tracks
Mar 18, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Inspectors from the Federal Railroad Administration and New York state found seven “critical” safety defects that needed immediate attention during inspections of crude oil tank cars and rail tracks in the state, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced March 17. Inspectors discovered 93 total defects in examination of 453 tank cars and 148 miles of track during the March 11-12 inspections, Cuomo said. Inspections are important because of recent derailments and “lack of tough regulations, which only Washington has the authority to impose,” he added. Critical defects included “deteriorated cross ties,” a chipped switch device on CSX tracks and missing bolts in rail joints on Canadian Pacific Railway tracks. The U.S. Department of Transportation plans to issue rules in May that are expected to require safety upgrades for rail tank cars that carry crude oil, along with various operating safety revisions.
-
Canadian Safety Board Call for Speedier Timeline for Rail-Car Standards
Mar 17, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bob Tita
Canadian crash investigators called for accelerated implementation of tougher standards for railroad tank cars hauling flammable liquids, adding to disagreement over how to respond to fiery crashes recently involving trains hauling crude oil.
Canada’s main transportation agency last week had proposed a 10-year timetable for retrofitting or replacing existing tank cars that carry crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids—a period double that suggested by U.S. regulators.
But the country’s Transportation Safety Board, which investigates rail, marine and air accidents, on Tuesday questioned that schedule, said it has “concerns about the implementation timeline,” and suggested more should be done to limit derailment risks for older cars.
The statement reflects broader discord over how aggressively to retool the tens of thousands of tank cars that carry flammable liquids in North American to avoid further accidents.
The U.S. Department of Transportation previously had proposed that all tank cars carrying crude oil, regardless of the age or the model, be replaced or upgraded in two years and ethanol tanks cars in three years. Those carrying other flammable liquids, such as heating oil, would have five years to be upgraded.
Last week’s proposal by Transport Canada could complicate efforts by the U.S. and Canada to develop a unified standard for tank cars, which routinely cross the border between the countries. Transport Canada said older tank cars, known as DOT-111s, should be retrofitted or replaced first before requiring modification to model CPC-1232 cars built since late 2011 with more crash-resistant features.
Preliminary reports suggest that, under Transport Canada’s proposal, the tank car models involved in crashes in Illinois on March 5; West Virginia on Feb. 16; and in northern Ontario on Feb. 14 and March 7 wouldn’t have to be retrofitted or taken out of service until 2023.
Kathy Fox, chairwoman of Canada’s Transportation Safety Board, said she urged regulators in Ottawa and Washington to “replace or retrofit existing tank cars as soon as practicable so that they meet new standards.”
Tank cars owners, which include leasing companies, oil companies, ethanol producers and chemical companies, have warned that the U.S. proposal would cause widespread disruption of rail service and force shippers to shift flammable liquids to trucks.
The Railway Supply Institute, which represents leasing companies and railcar builders, has said there aren’t enough shops to retrofit tank cars in time to meet proposed U.S. deadlines. The group has warned that tens of thousands of tanks cars would be idled while waiting for retrofit work. The backlog of orders for new tank cars already stretches for more than a year.
The ethanol industry’s trade association said it supports Transport Canada’s proposal, which would give most of the ethanol car fleet until May 2020 to be upgraded. Ethanol producers have argued that ethanol poses less danger than crude oil when transported by rail.
“Canada clearly understands that ethanol is not the same as crude oil and does not need to be treated the same,” said Bob Dinneen, chief executive of the Washington-based Renewable Fuels Association. He added that upgrading the crude oil car fleet first will “help overcome the physical limitations of retrofitting tank cars for both” oil and ethanol at the same time.
Transport Canada proposed replacing or upgrading the DOT-111 cars in crude-oil service, which are widely viewed as the least crashworthy, by 2017, roughly the same timeline proposed by the U.S. There are about 30,000 DOT-111s in crude service in North America. Upgrades to the DOT-111 cars carrying other flammables, such as ethanol, would be phased-in next, followed by the CPC-1232 models in 2023 and 2025.
But the uninsulated version of the CPC-1232 car has performed poorly in recent crashes. Even though the cars have slightly thicker steel tanks than the DOT-111s, their lack of heat-resistant insulation appears to make them susceptible to burning when other tank cars around them catch fire after a derailment. There are about 22,000 noninsulated CPC-1232 cars in crude-oil service, while the insulated version of the 1232 total about 35,400 cars.
“If older tank cars, including the CPC-1232 cars, are not phased out sooner, then [Transport Canada] and industry need to take more steps to reduce the risk of derailments or consequences following a derailment,” Canada’s Transportation Safety Board said.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested