Preview Newsletter
ACC AM June4
-
(ACC Blog) Listen To The Science On The Safety Of BPA In Canned Foods
Jun 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
For decades, epoxy resins made from BPA have been used safely as a protective coating in food and drink cans. These coatings help to prevent food contamination and foodborne illness, which are very real threats, and epoxy resins are very effective at this important task. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/ -
(ACC Mentioned) House TSCA Bill Headed For Floor In Late June
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The House bill on reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was sent for a floor vote, after a key committee gave it almost unanimous approval on 3 June. The full House is set to vote on the bill, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (HR 2576), the week of 22 June, according to a floor schedule released by House majority leader Kevin... -
(ACC Mentioned) Key US House Panel Gives Unanimous Vote To TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 3, 2015 | ICIS News
By Joe Kamalick
A key House committee on Wednesday gave unanimous approval to legislation to modernise the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a move broadly welcomed by the US chemicals sector. The unanimous vote by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015” (HR-2576) suggests that... -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Middle Class To Continue Growth Despite China Slowdown
Jun 3, 2015 | ICIS News
By Al Greenwood
The middle class will continue growing in emerging markets, with other parts of the world making up for the slowdown in China and other countries, the head of FMC said. The growth of the middle class in emerging economies has done much to increase demand for chemicals. As more people adopt middle-class lifestyles, they consume... -
House Committee Approves TSCA Update Bill; State Attorneys General Still Concerned
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved without opposition June 3 a bill that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act. The TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), approved by a 47-0 vote with one abstention, now moves to the House floor, which has scheduled a vote for the week of June 23. -
TSCA Bill Clears House Panel But Preemption Could Threaten Compromise
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has approved bipartisan legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but punted on how to resolve Democrats' emerging push to narrow the bill's preemption of state chemicals programs -- an issue that has frustrated previous TSCA reform bills and risks doing so again. -
EDF Statement on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Markup of TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576)
Jun 3, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the continued progress toward badly needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) represented by today’s markup of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee has continued to work in a bipartisan manner... -
Chemicals in Your Popcorn?
Jun 4, 2015 | The New York Times - Opinion Pages
By Nicholas Kristof
What do a pizza box, a polar bear and you have in common? All carry a kind of industrial toxicant called poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, that do two things: They make life convenient, and they also appear to increase the risk of cancer. The scientists I interviewed say that they try to avoid these chemicals in their daily lives, but... -
Details Emerge Of EU Commission's EDCs Screening Process
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
Details of a draft methodology for screening potential substances to see which are endocrine disruptors were presented by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at a European Commission conference this week. The methodology will be used to screen some 700 chemicals as part of an impact assessment of potential criteria for ... -
PHMSA Acting Administrator Butters Exits; Sutherland to Become Agency Acting Deputy
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Timothy Butters, who has been acting administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration since October, has left the agency, and Federal Railroad Administration Executive Director Stacy Cummings will be “delegated the duties” of PHMSA administrator, Bloomberg BNA has learned. -
Capps Calls For Field Hearing On Santa Barbara Oil Spill
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Debra Kahn
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) yesterday requested that Congress examine last month's oil spill on the Southern California coast with an eye toward oversight of federal pipeline regulators. Capps sent a letter to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) asking for a field hearing in her district... -
(ACC Mentioned) Appellate Court Backs EPA's Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected challenges by environmentalists and industry petitioners to EPA’s non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) rule, effectively allowing the rule to stand. The court issued a per curiam judgment June 3 in Eco Services Operations LLC v. EPA, following oral arguments that... -
(ACC Mentioned) Brazil’s Biggest Petrochem Company Considering Gulf Coast For Massive Natural Gas Project
Jun 3, 2015 | Bloomberg (in Fuel Fix)
By Jack Kaskey
Braskem SA, Latin America’s biggest petrochemical maker, will soon decide whether to build a plant in Texas or Pennsylvania to convert low-cost natural gas into polypropylene used in plastic packaging and car parts. The factory would produce at least 1 billion pounds (450,000 metric tons) of resin a year and would be the U.S... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips Chemical Eyes New Mega-Project In US Petrochemicals
Jun 4, 2015 | Bloomberg (in Hydrocarbon Processing)
By Jack Kaskey
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., a joint venture of Chevron and refiner Phillips 66, is considering a second “megaproject” in the US that would take advantage of low natural gas prices for making plastics and other materials. “We are certainly looking seriously about the possibility of another project in the US," CEO Peter Cella said this week. -
Practicality, Costs of Federal Fracking Rule Defended Against Industry Injunction Request
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Oil and gas industry plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction against the new federal rule on hydraulic fracturing have misread the rule, ignored explanations in the rule and failed to properly present evidence of imminent harm to justify an injunction, the government told a federal court (Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. Jewell... -
Senators Use Defense Bill As Vehicle To Lift Crude Ban, Advance Other Priorities
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Ariel Wittenberg and Geof Koss
Senators seeking to lift the nation's long-standing ban on crude oil exports are using amendments to the Defense Authorization Act to advance their cause. Several other energy amendments will also be considered on the Senate floor in the next several days. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took to the floor yesterday to outline three export-related... -
Legalize Energy Freedom
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Historians will view the early 21st Century as the time when America reversed its geographical energy deficit to become the world’s leading oil and natural gas producer. Human ingenuity, enabled by a private property-based, mostly free market system, is responsible, overcoming the federal policies of an opposition president. -
Methane Emissions Threaten To Undermine Natural-Gas Offensive
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tara Patel
The grainy black-and-white photograph taken with an infrared camera shows a smoky haze wafting from a natural gas storage tank. That cloud is methane escaping, said Philip Swanson, administrator of a United Nations-led industry partnership aimed at curbing leakage of the primary component of natural gas. -
Coal Miners Union To Sue Over Obama Power Plant Rules
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The head of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) said his union will sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over two rules designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions at power plants once the Obama administration finalizes them. "These regulations come on top of decades of clean air and clean water regulations ... -
West Virginia Delegation Wants State To Hold Off on Clean Power Plan Compliance
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Andrew Childers
West Virginia's U.S. House delegation urged Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) not to submit a plan for complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon pollution limits for existing power plants. “The EPA is trying to compel states to do more themselves than what the agency would be authorized to do on its... -
West Virginia Lawmakers Press Governor To Not Submit Plan For EPA Climate Rule
Jun 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
West Virginia’s House delegation today is calling on Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to heed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “just say no” campaign against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. “As you consider West Virginia’s response we urge you to consider NOT submitting a state implementation plan due to concerns over EPA’s legal justification... -
House Energy Efficiency Bill Draws Fire From Obama Administration, FERC
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House energy efficiency legislation that would block the Energy Department from issuing final energy efficiency standards for commonly used furnaces and roll back other energy conservation standards drew fire from the Obama administration June 3. The draft bill, a component of a broad omnibus energy bill slated... -
House Panel Nixes Climate Aid, Clears Path For Coal Financing
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick and Manuel Quiñones
A House Appropriations subcommittee approved legislation in a voice vote today that would cut Obama administration efforts to assist poor nations' efforts to battle climate change. The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations measure approved over Democratic opposition would prevent President Obama from following... -
New York Publishes Final Air Emissions Rules
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) published final regulations in the New York State Register June 3 to update and streamline its rules for controlling emissions of toxic air contaminants (6 NYCRR 212, 200). The regulations, which take effect June 14, clarify the interaction of state rules with the National Emission... -
State Senate Advances Sweeping Climate Change Legislation
Jun 3, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
California state senators approved legislation Wednesday intended to help the state tackle climate change by setting new targets for generating renewable energy, reducing gasoline use and increasing energy efficiency in buildings. The bill, which now goes to the Assembly, advances goals outlined by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this year. -
D.C. Circuit Rejects All Challenges to EPA's Nonhazardous Secondary Materials Rule
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A federal appeals court rejected all challenges June 3 from environmental and industry petitioners to an Environmental Protection Agency regulation exempting certain nonhazardous secondary materials from stricter air pollution requirements when burned in solid waste incinerators or boilers (Eco Servs. Operations LLC v. EPA... -
House Approves DOJ Spending Bill Including Ban on Climate-Related Funding
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The House passed by a 242-183 vote June 3 its fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill that includes funding for Justice Department environmental activities, with one amendment that would bar appropriated funds from being used on certain climate-related activities. The Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies ... -
'I Don't Need To Fight The Climate Deniers Now' -- McCarthy
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Americans' growing awareness of climate change and its threats has made it easier for U.S. EPA to promote regulatory proposals to the general public, Administrator Gina McCarthy said in an interview published online today. "I don't need to fight the climate deniers now," she told the Internet forum Big Think. "That's not what I think we need." -
Ozone Implementation Challenges Raised As Senators Spar Over Need for EPA Proposal
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Local government officials raised several challenges that more stringent ozone standards would pose during a June 3 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, while senators sparred over the costs and benefits of the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise the current standards of 75 parts per billion. -
GOP Senators Cite Costs In Push For Bills To Block Stricter Ozone NAAQS
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Republican members of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) are urging their colleagues to back legislation that would block or weaken EPA's expected tightening of its ozone air standard, saying that the potential major costs to industry and states of a stricter limit are sufficient reasons to prevent the agency's revision. -
Costs A Concern At EPW Hearing On Ozone Rule
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Republicans and Democrats yesterday sparred over U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Led by EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Republican members of the committee highlighted concerns about cost as a reason for not tightening the federal... -
Senate Panel Condemns Lack of Consultation With Small Business on Waters of U.S. Rule
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
In a resolution, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship condemned June 3 what it sees as the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to follow federal requirements on consulting small businesses before issuing a final rule defining Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Blog) Listen To The Science On The Safety Of BPA In Canned Foods
Jun 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges, Ph.D
For decades, epoxy resins made from BPA have been used safely as a protective coating in food and drink cans. These coatings help to prevent food contamination and foodborne illness, which are very real threats, and epoxy resins are very effective at this important task.
Contrary to what you might read in a recent report from an environmental activist organization, a strong scientific track record supports the safety of BPA in food contact materials, including epoxy resin protective coatings. For example, in January 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that “BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.” Similarly, in November 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that “FDA’s current perspective, based on its most recent safety assessment, is that BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods.”
If you listen to the science, the high performance of epoxy resins and safety of BPA together make a compelling story. But only if you listen, and not everyone does.
Ignoring the science this week, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) put out a report entitled “BPA in Canned Food: Behind the Brand Curtain.” Along with an aggressive fund raising effort, the report is presumably intended to apply market pressure on the canned food industry to move away from epoxy resin can coatings, which have 35 years of proven performance at protecting food safety.
To be sure that they can continue their pressure, not to mention fund raising, long into the future, EWG also writes: “The public cannot rely on current federal laws that regulate chemicals and food additives to ensure that BPA replacement chemicals are safer than BPA-based materials.” Questioning the safety of BPA replacement chemicals is particularly ironic since a main reason replacements are even being considered is because of groups like EWG.
Cut through the noise and listen to the science. The FDA answers the question “Is BPA safe?” with one clear, unambiguous word – “Yes.” - See more at: http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/listen-to-the-science-on-the-safety-of-bpa-in-canned-foods/#sthash.ejefAdpP.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) House TSCA Bill Headed For Floor In Late June
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
The House bill on reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was sent for a floor vote, after a key committee gave it almost unanimous approval on 3 June.
The full House is set to vote on the bill, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (HR 2576), the week of 22 June, according to a floor schedule released by House majority leader Kevin McCarthy.
Meanwhile, a more comprehensive Senate TSCA reform bill (Udall-Vitter bill) was marked up for floor action by a key committee in April (CW 29 April 2015).
The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed HR 2576, after representative Anna Eshoo (D-California) withdrew an amendment to insert clarifying language, stating that “preemption only occurs when it's impossible to comply with both state and federal laws.” That, she said, would “eliminate the need for litigation”.
The bill's author, John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois), said it is adequately “balanced” and warned that any attempts to “push us over the limit” would derail it.
Calling the bill “carefully crafted”, Energy and Commerce chairman John Upton (R-Michigan) said that, since it was expected to be taken up on the House floor by the end of the month, “I am not sure that we can negotiate something different than what we have now.” However, such issues could be taken up in conference committee, where differences between the House and Senate versions are reconciled.
In opening statements, Democrats called the bill a compromise that would improve current law. Mr Shimkus termed the measure a “breakthrough in regulatory reform, which keeps the best of old TSCA and retools some of the provisions that hindsight tells us were not working very well.”
Meanwhile, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana), who co-authored the Senate TSCA bill, said that the “overwhelming and bipartisan support” for the House measure is a “clear indicator of the momentum building to update our nation's ineffective, outdated chemical regulatory programme”. The House version, he said, “shares common principles and targets and many of the same issues as the [Senate] bill and I will continue working with the Senate leadership to pass our legislation soon.”
Separately, the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), a group of 146 trade associations forged by the American Chemistry Council and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, urged Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to schedule a floor vote on the Udall-Vitter bill, before the August recess.
In a letter, the alliance said passage of the bill “is critical to further ensuring the safe use of chemicals, while encouraging innovation and the development of new products, and maintaining America’s ability to compete in today’s global marketplace.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) Key US House Panel Gives Unanimous Vote To TSCA Reform Bill
Jun 3, 2015 | ICIS News
By Joe Kamalick
A key House committee on Wednesday gave unanimous approval to legislation to modernise the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a move broadly welcomed by the US chemicals sector.
The unanimous vote by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015” (HR-2576) suggests that the bill likely will win approval by the full House when it comes up for a floor vote.
A similar TSCA reform bill already has been cleared by a US Senate committee and is awaiting a floor vote in that chamber.
If both the House and Senate give full final approval to their respective TSCA reform measures, the two bills would then be hammered together into a single package in a House-Senate conference meeting.
After the resulting conference bill is given what presumably would be routine approval by both chambers, it would head to President Barack Obama’s desk for his signature.
In welcoming the committee vote on Wednesday, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) described the House bill as “the most credible legislative effort to reform the nation’s chemical control laws since TSCA was enacted in 1976”.
SOCMA vice president Bill Allmond said the committee-approved bill “is a remarkable improvement over current law because it improves the parts of TSCA most stakeholders agree have fallen short, while maintaining areas of the statute that have worked well”.
“We now encourage the full House of Representatives to quickly pass this important legislation,” Allmond, said, adding that the bill not only will restore public confidence in US chemical control laws but also will serve as a model for other nations.
“After years of failed attempts,” said Allmond, “Congress is just steps away from making TSCA reform a reality.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) also hailed the committee vote, saying that HR-2576 “represents another significant milestone in the growing momentum in the House and Senate to enact meaningful TSCA reform legislation this year”.
As part of a trade coalition of more than 140 business and commercial groups, the ACC sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican-Kentucky), urging him to bring the Senate TSCA reform measure to a floor vote as soon as possible.
The council noted that the Senate bill, “The Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S-697), was approved earlier by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 15-5.
The council urged McConnell to bring the bill to a floor vote before Congress begins its month-long August recess.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) also hailed the House committee vote, calling it “a critical and much welcomed step in the right direction”.
NACD president Eric Byer urged that “House leadership quickly bring HR-2576 to the floor for a vote so both the House and Senate can begin working together to produce a final version of TSCA reform legislation that carries our chemical management system into the 21st century”.
In the Senate, Senator David Vitter (Republican-Louisiana) said that “the overwhelming and bipartisan support to move forward with TSCA reform legislation in the House is a clear indicator of the momentum building to replace our nation’s ineffective, outdated chemical regulatory programme”.
Vitter, co-author of the Senate TSCA reform bill, also said the House bill “shares common principles and targets many of the same issues as the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, and I will continue working with Senate leadership to pass our legislation soon”.
That Vitter should see the House bill as sharing common principles with the Senate measure suggests that the two bills could be easily combined in a conference committee.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Middle Class To Continue Growth Despite China Slowdown
Jun 3, 2015 | ICIS News
By Al Greenwood
The middle class will continue growing in emerging markets, with other parts of the world making up for the slowdown in China and other countries, the head of FMC said.
The growth of the middle class in emerging economies has done much to increase demand for chemicals.
As more people adopt middle-class lifestyles, they consume larger amounts of chemicals.
Per capita consumption of chemicals in developing countries still remains below that in developed markets. Chemical producers expect demand for their products to increase as emerging economies catch up.
This expected demand growth will be crucial for the new plants being built in the US. On average, exports will account for 65% of their production, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
However, many emerging markets are showing signs of strain.
Brazil is expected to fall into a deep recession this year, with GDP shrinking by more than 1.20%, according to the most recent estimates.
While Mexico's GDP is still expected to grow, its forecasts have repeatedly been cut.
China will unlikely return to the 8-10% growth rates that characterised it in the past, said Kevin Swift, chief economist for the ACC. He made his comments during the ACC Annual Meeting.
"China will be a 6% economy," Swift said.
In contrast to China, Swift said growth in India should reach 7-7.5%/year. GDP could grow even faster if the government adopts reforms.
The new government of India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is more pro-business and it is more realistic about regulations, said Richard Preziotti, CEO of Vertellus, a US-based company that makes chemicals used to make pharmaceuticals.
The Indian rupee has also weakened, which should benefit Indian producers of active ingredients and intermediates, Preziotti said.
These are used to make pharmaceuticals.
Overall, the middle class should continue expanding in emerging markets, said Pierre Brondeau, CEO of FMC, a US-based producer of agrochemicals. Brondeau is also the ACC chairman of the board.
The growth, however, will not be as skewed towards China, he said. Instead, other countries should pick up the slack from China and other parts of the world. The Annual Meeting ends on Wednesday.
-
House Committee Approves TSCA Update Bill; State Attorneys General Still Concerned
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved without opposition June 3 a bill that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576), approved by a 47-0 vote with one abstention, now moves to the House floor, which has scheduled a vote for the week of June 23.
Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) agreed during the markup to meet with Democrats prior to that vote to listen for possible solutions they would suggest to address concerns 12 state attorneys general raised in a May 28 letter to Upton and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
Prior to the bill coming to the floor, however, Upton said, “My guess is we won't come up with a bipartisan agreement.” But, he said, “we will continue to listen and have somewhat of an open mind.”
Attorneys general from California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington said that H.R. 2576 could prevent states from taking certain regulatory actions they may deem necessary to protect their residents.
For example, the EPA's issuance of a regulation designed to prevent a cleaning-product chemical from causing cancer following long-term exposure could be interpreted as precluding a state regulatory action designed to protect workers or other populations against short-term respiratory effects the chemical also could have, the attorneys general said.
The attorneys general requested the bill's preemption provisions be narrowed and also clarified.
Eshoo Sought to Address Concerns
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) sought to do that through an amendment she offered during the markup.
“My intent is not to hold up the bill at all. We really need to have a good solid federal law,” Eshoo said.
States, however, need to be assured they can implement their existing laws and issue regulations in the future as long as a state requirement doesn't make it impossible also to comply with the EPA's requirement, she said.
Many members of Congress represent districts within the 12 states that have raised concerns, Eshoo said. “These are large delegations with a lot of votes.”
“I don't think we have much further to go [to compromise],” she said. “I don't think you want trouble from these delegations.”
Members to Discuss Concerns
Eshoo withdrew her amendment with the understanding that Democrats would meet with Republicans to discuss the concerns the attorneys general raised.
Upton said he has been told the carefully negotiated language in the House bill is closer to what California wants than is language in the Senate bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697).Revising the language could mean moving away from what California wants, Upton said.
Separately, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA, “What's really good about the House bill—which has a couple of problems—is they don't preempt one bit until there's a regulation, which is exactly what we want.”
“The House bill, in many ways, is better. I feel better about it, actually, given they have really protected my state,” she said.
S. 697 is getting better but still needs revisions, Boxer said. “Maybe we can actually get it done.”
Industry-Driven Assessments
At the House markup, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Col.) pointed to another issue the attorneys general as well as environmental and public health advocates have raised about H.R. 2576.
“I worry that the industry-driven assessments under this bill could result in EPA spending too much time on reviews important to the industry at the expense of time devoted to the chemicals of most danger to public health. There needs to balance in the EPA's workload,” DeGette said.
Under H.R. 2576, the human health and environmental risks of chemicals in commerce would be evaluated under one of two provisions.
Risk Evaluations to be Conducted
First, the EPA would be directed to conduct 10 or more risk evaluations each year “subject to the availability of appropriations.”
Second, the EPA would be required to conduct a risk evaluation if the manufacturer of the chemical requested and paid for the evaluation.
The 12 attorneys general referred to those provisions as illustrating a “marked imbalance.”
Industry would be given an unlimited ability to request, and pay for, assessments, while the EPA could choose to assess chemicals only if given sufficient appropriations, they wrote.
Catch-22 Remains
DeGette also said she is concerned that H.R. 2576 would retain a “Catch-22” provision of TSCA. Similar to current law, the agency would need to have evidence that a chemical was harmful before it could evaluate the risks of the chemical, she said.
Only then, after a risk evaluation was launched, would the bill provide the EPA increased authorities to obtain toxicity and other data, she said.
The EPA is “unable to require testing without evidence of risk,” DeGette said.
“This should be clarified, and I look forward to working on report language that makes clear EPA will have the data it needs to determine whether or not to initiate a risk evaluation,” DeGette said.
“I very much appreciate the hard work that has gone into this bill and the dedication of all involved to fixing America's badly broken chemical safety law,” she said.
“But we will ultimately be judged by how well the new law works of not the next few years, but the next few decades,” DeGette said.
Environmental Group Welcomes Progress
The Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement that it welcomed the progress made toward passage of H.R. 2576 but shared the concerns DeGette and other Democrats voiced.
“The legislation still needs significant work to live up to the promise of fixing the key flaws in current TSCA,” EDF said.
Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition of more than 400 advocacy organizations, released a blog post voicing strong reservations about what he said were unaddressed provisions of the House bill.
“The chemical industry would get to decide the majority, potentially the overwhelming majority, of the chemicals that EPA reviews,” Igrejas said.
Trade Groups Applaud Committee
The committee's approval of the TSCA Modernization Act was applauded by dozens of trade associations.
On behalf of 151 trade associations, the American Alliance for Innovation sent a letter to Upton and Pallone June 2 thanking the committee for the bipartisan manner it used in crafting the bill.
“The regulation of how chemicals are used in commerce has a significant impact on each of our industries, the products that we make and/or the services we provide, and the millions of workers we represent,” wrote trade associations for industries including car manufacturers; chemical manufacturers; electronics manufacturers; boat, marine engine and marine accessory manufacturers; frozen food, meat and egg producers; toy manufacturers; retailers; and restaurants.
“We thank the House Energy & Commerce Committee for passing this important piece of legislation out of committee,” Jennifer Abril, president of the International Fragrance Association of North America, told Bloomberg BNA.
Had Urged Congress to Complete Action
Fragrance companies, which provide chemicals used in products ranging from toilet paper to automotive fluids to perfumes, urged Congress to complete TSCA reform this year, the association said in a statement.
In a letter representing 146 of its members, the American Alliance for Innovation wrote Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), “Passage of S. 697 is critical to further ensuring the safe use of chemicals, while encouraging innovation and the development of new products.”
The alliance continued, “We believe S. 697 deserves consideration before the full Senate and ask that you consider it for floor action in June or July.”
If the Senate approves S. 697, many differences between the House and Senate bills would have to be negotiated in a conference committee.
The Senate bill addresses many aspects of chemicals management, while the House bill targets a few narrow provisions of TSCA (90 DEN B-1, 5/11/15).
-
TSCA Bill Clears House Panel But Preemption Could Threaten Compromise
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has approved bipartisan legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but punted on how to resolve Democrats' emerging push to narrow the bill's preemption of state chemicals programs -- an issue that has frustrated previous TSCA reform bills and risks doing so again.
Preemption has already emerged as perhaps the biggest hurdle to the Senate's TSCA bill, S. 697, introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM). Critics including Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say the legislation would broadly block states such as California from pursuing their own chemicals programs, and create potential regulatory gaps if EPA fails to pursue regulations.
In the House, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have to date been eager to express their tentative support for the lower chamber's TSCA bill, H.R. 2576. The legislation is more than 100 pages shorter than the Senate version, and avoids several controversial policy provisions, such as measures to allow industry to request reviews of chemicals.
But a June 3 House energy panel markup of H.R. 2576 highlighted growing concerns among Democrats about the bill's preemption provisions -- even though it takes a much narrower approach to preemption than the Senate bill.
The House bill would “grandfather,” or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken affect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on a chemical, unless they “actually conflict” with the new federal requirement. New chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction under TSCA. The Senate bill also contains grandfathering provisions to preserve existing laws, but preemption for new chemical rules and laws would occur when EPA launches a review of a chemical.
At the House energy panel markup, lawmakers punted on a Democratic amendment aimed at strengthening protections for state chemical safety laws, suggesting tough negotiations in the coming weeks over the issue as they seek to craft a bipartisan compromise on overhauling the 1976 TSCA.
Committee Markup
H.R. 2576, known as the TSCA Modernization Act, cleared the full committee in a unanimous vote, with 47 lawmakers voting in favor of the bill and one Democrat, Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA) voting to abstain.
A manager's amendment, offered by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), to clarify technical aspects of the bill language at the behest of EPA advisers, was unanimously approved by voice vote.
But lawmakers delayed a vote on an amendment offered by Eshoo that would modify the bill's preemption provisions. Eshoo's amendment would modify the language to bar only those laws and tort claims where it “would be impossible to comply” with both the state and federal requirements.
Eshoo cited a recent letter signed by twelve state attorneys general (AGs) that raised concerns over the House bill's preemption language. She said her amendment would help “prevent litigation over vague terms” in the current legislation and help preserve strong state chemicals programs.
California has been especially vocal on preemption in both House and Senate TSCA reform debates, given that the state's AG's office has concerns that a TSCA reform bill could preempt its landmark Proposition 65 law and green chemistry programs.
Eshoo agreed to withdraw the amendment after Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ, ranking member on the full energy committee, said that there was not ample time to discuss the issue during the markup.
Preemption Dispute
Nevertheless, Pallone vowed that the preemption dispute “is an issue we need to address” before the bill goes to the House floor -- which lawmakers have said could happen this month.
Pallone, who has voiced strong support for the H.R. 2576 bill, warned that if the preemption issue is not addressed, the bill will likely face increased opposition from House Democrats.
And Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) suggested that there are “still problems” with the bill's preemption language but said that she believes a compromise can be reached.
In response, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said he would set up a meeting to discuss the issue.
“I look forward to working on report language,” DeGette said.
But energy panel Republicans cautioned that compromising too far on the bill's preemption provisions could lose key GOP supporters ahead of a floor vote. “Be careful about pushing,” Shimkus said, adding that lawmakers drafted the bill's savings provisions “with a focus on making sure we were receptive to California's concerns."
Shimkus added that “I think we've got a balance that I think we can move with a pretty good majority vote,” but that he was concerned an amendment like Eshoo's “pushes us over the limits, not for your side, but our side.”
He warned that pushing the preemption issue too far in Democrats' favor could upset compromise on the bill, adding, “this gets disrupted and we come back to this next Congress.”
Upton added that the bill in its current form has been “carefully crafted” as a compromise and that “I don't want us to slip” but that “if it did slip, it would be away from California.”
But Eshoo pointed out that the letter had been signed by 12 state AGs, including Vermont, Oregon and Washington, and said, “I don't think you want turbulence from the delegation” because of the need for passage of a strong TSCA bill.
TSCA Reform
The markup highlights the ongoing struggle lawmakers face in how to structure a reform bill's provisions that dictate to what extent state chemical safety laws and regulatory programs should be preempted.
Strong preemption is a major driver of industry support for reform, but environmentalists, states and some Democrats support preserving state ability to act in the event of inadequate or delayed federal protections.
H.R. 2576, introduced by Shimkus May 26, includes revised language to “grandfather,” or preserve, existing state chemical laws if they do not conflict with federal TSCA rules, and would delay preemption of new state laws and programs until EPA enacts a restriction on a chemical or determines that a chemical meets the safety standard.
The bill currently has the support of three GOP sponsors: Reps. Upton, Gregg Harper (MS) and Robert Latta (OH), and three Democrats: Reps. Pallone, Paul Tonko (NY) and Gene Green (TX).
The House bill is considered a more narrow and targeted measure than S. 697, which currently has the support of 19 Republicans and 19 Democrats, excluding Udall and Vitter. The Senate bill cleared EPW April 28 in a 15-5 vote but Boxer strongly opposes the bill, in part over the preemption language. She has vowed to introduce dozens of amendments when the bill is debated on the Senate floor -- also slated for some time this month.
EPA's Authority
Both the House and Senate TSCA reform bills would boost EPA's authority to address the thousands of chemicals already in the marketplace, which, along with EPA's failed attempts to ban asbestos in 1991 are seen as major failings of the decades-old law.
During the June 3 markup of the House bill, lawmakers identified several issues they would like to see addressed in report language before a floor vote on the legislation.
For example, DeGette said she wants to ensure that a bill gives EPA adequate tools to designate chemicals for safety reviews, saying she has concerns that the bill, which allows industry to request reviews for certain substances, could result in overloading the agency with reviewing chemicals important to industry rather than the most dangerous ones.
She also warned that EPA's chemicals testing authority in the bill is “unclear” and must be clarified to rectify a “catch-22” in which the agency is unable to test the safety of a chemical without evidence that it poses a risk to public health -- which it cannot obtain without testing. Meanwhile, Reps. Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR) voiced concerns about the need for language to modify section 8(b) of TSCA, which establishes reporting requirements, which they say is crucial to encouraging beneficial reuse and recycling of certain substances. The language would require EPA to periodically collect data as needed to remove chemicals from the TSCA inventory if they are no long manufactured or processed in the United States.
-
Jun 3, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) appreciates the continued progress toward badly needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) represented by today’s markup of H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee has continued to work in a bipartisan manner on this legislation, essential to developing reform legislation that can be enacted into law. We appreciate the attention Representatives John Shimkus, Paul Tonko, Frank Pallone and Chairman Fred Upton have given to TSCA reform.
While EDF welcomes the progress toward passage of H.R. 2576 in the House, we share the concerns expressed by Representative Diana DeGette and other Committee members that the legislation still needs significant work to live up to the promise of fixing the key flaws in current TSCA.
EDF looks forward to working with all Members of Congress to ensure that the final legislation the President signs into law establishes a strong overall system of protection from dangerous chemicals, one that: ensures primary attention is given to the chemicals that EPA determines are of concern to health and the environment; provides for timely safety reviews for all new and existing chemicals against a purely health-based standard; gives EPA strong testing authority; broadens transparency and information access; provides adequate resources; and gives EPA robust authority to regulate chemicals presenting risks to the public.
-
Jun 4, 2015 | The New York Times - Opinion Pages
By Nicholas Kristof
What do a pizza box, a polar bear and you have in common?
All carry a kind of industrial toxicant called poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, that do two things: They make life convenient, and they also appear to increase the risk of cancer.
The scientists I interviewed say that they try to avoid these chemicals in their daily lives, but they’re pretty much unavoidable and now are found in animals all over the planet (including polar bears in Greenland and probably you and me). PFASs are used to make nonstick frying pans, waterproof clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, firefighting foam and thousands of other products. Many are unlabeled, so even chemists sometimes feel helpless.
This should be a moment when government steps up to protect citizens. But from tobacco to lead paint to chemicals, industry has used donations, obfuscation and lobbying to defer regulation until the human casualties are too vast to be hidden.
PFASs are “a poster child” for what’s wrong with chemical regulation in America, says John Peterson Myers, chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, a research and publishing group in Virginia. PFASs are just about indestructible, so, for eons to come, they will poison our blood, our household dust, our water and the breast milk our babies drink.
Warnings of health risks from PFASs go back half a century and are growing more ominous. In May, more than 200 scientists released a Madrid Statement warning of PFAS’s severe health risks. It was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal backed by the National Institutes of Health.
The scientists cited research linking PFASs to testicular and kidney cancer, hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis and other problems.
Arlene Blum is a chemist whose warnings about carcinogens have proved prophetic. In recent years, she has waged an increasingly successful campaign against modern flame-retardant chemicals because of evidence that they also cause cancer, but she told me that PFASs “are even a bigger problem than flame retardants.”
The chemical industry acknowledges that older, “long-chain” PFASs are a problem but says that it is replacing them with “short-chain” versions that should be fine. It’s true that there is less evidence against the short-chains, but that’s perhaps because they have been studied less.
Americans expect that chemicals used in consumer products have been tested for safety. Not so. The vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals available for sale in the United States have never been tested for effects on our health.
Congress may finally pass new legislation regulating toxic chemicals, but it’s so weak a bill that the chemical industry has embraced it. The Senate version is better than nothing, but, astonishingly, it provides for assessing high-priority chemicals at a rate of about only five a year, and it’s not clear that the House will go that far.Yes, of countless toxicants suspected of increasing the risk of cancer, obesity, epigenetic damage and reproductive problems, the United States would commit to testing five each year. And that would actually be progress.
For safety reasons, Europe and Canada already restrict hundreds of chemicals routinely used in the United States. Perhaps the danger of tainted brands and lost sales abroad — not the risk to Americans — will motivate American companies to adopt overseas limits.
Scientists are already taking precautions and weighing trade-offs in their personal lives. R. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says he now avoids buying nonstick pans. Rainer Lohmann, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island, told me that he is replacing carpets in his house with wood floors in part to reduce PFASs.
Simona Balan, a senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute, avoids microwave popcorn and stain-resistant furniture.
Dr. Blum says she avoids buying certain nonstick products and waterproof products, but reluctantly uses a glide wax for backcountry skis that contains PFASs. “Every time I spray it on, I realize the chemicals will be in my body for a very long time and on the planet for geologic time, perhaps longer than mankind,” Dr. Blum said. “But I do enjoy a good glide when I ski.”
Some brands, including Levi’s, Benetton and Victoria’s Secret, are pledging to avoid PFASs. Evaluations of the safety of products are available free at the GoodGuide and Skin Deep websites.
The chemical lobby is following the same script as the tobacco and lead lobbies a generation ago, throwing around campaign donations and lobbying muscle to delay regulation. The chemical industry spent $190 million lobbying in the last three years. If only it would devote such sums to developing safer products, rather than to defending its right to produce suspected carcinogens.
-
Details Emerge Of EU Commission's EDCs Screening Process
Jun 4, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Carmen Paun
Details of a draft methodology for screening potential substances to see which are endocrine disruptors were presented by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at a European Commission conference this week.
The methodology will be used to screen some 700 chemicals as part of an impact assessment of potential criteria for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under the biocides and pesticides Regulations (CW 1 June 2015). The Commission’s health and food safety directorate, DG Sante, is conducting the assessment.
The study will help distinguish which of the substances – including pesticides, biocidal active substances and other chemicals regulated by REACH, the cosmetics products Regulation and the water framework Directive – fall under the four regulatory options being considered for the introduction of EDC criteria.
The methodology is based on already existing data and will not entail any new tests or studies. It includes: a list of data sources to be consulted;types of data to be extracted from these sources;a template for recording and summarising data, anda decision tree to use for drawing conclusions.
The primary information sources to be considered are existing regulatory assessment reports based on evaluated data, Sharon Munn, scientific and technical project manager at the JRC’s Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, told the conference.
These will be mainly conclusions by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), which evaluates requests for pesticides approvals, as well as REACH restriction dossiers, documents supporting the identification of chemicals as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) and Opinions of the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS).
Additional information will come from databases such as the JRC’s Endocrine Active Substances Information System (Easis), TEDX, ChemSec’s SIN list and the US ToxCast.
The type of data to be captured from these sources, said Ms Munn, will focus on endocrine effects from tests for which OECD test guidelines have already been adopted, such as mammalian toxicity, impacts on reproduction and fertility, as well as developmental abnormalities.
The unnamed company conducting the screening exercise will feed the information gathered into an Excel template for each chemical. To help reach a conclusion, a summary template on the type of study, the animal species it was conducted on, the endocrine effect and the no observed effect level (Noel) are also included in the methodology.
The methodology also includes a decision tree addressing the adverse effects found in the data, the mode of action, and the link between the two. This will be used to draw the final conclusion on whether a chemical should be considered an EDC.
However, Ms Munn warned that the screening of many of the 700 substances may not result in definitive conclusions if there is a lack of data on their mode of action.
The contractor, she said, is testing the methodology on a set of 35 chemicals to see how it works in practice. Potential adjustments to it will be made by the end of this month.
The Commission will organise an expert meeting on the methodology in the autumn. The first screening results are also expected to be available by then.
The methodology will be applied to three of the four criteria options being considered. For the first option, which is no change from the current situation where interim criteria for EDCs apply, the contractor will look at which of the 700 substances are classified under the CLP Regulation as either a category 2 carcinogen and category 2 reprotoxic substance, or as a substance which is a category 2 reprotoxin and has toxic effects on the endocrine organs.
-
PHMSA Acting Administrator Butters Exits; Sutherland to Become Agency Acting Deputy
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Timothy Butters, who has been acting administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration since October, has left the agency, and Federal Railroad Administration Executive Director Stacy Cummings will be “delegated the duties” of PHMSA administrator, Bloomberg BNA has learned.
PHMSA Chief Counsel Vanessa Sutherland, who has been nominated by the White House to lead the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, will serve as acting deputy administrator. Butters will join the Federal Aviation Administration as a senior advisor, according to a PHMSA spokesman.
“In this new role, Butters will continue to advance safety for the Department and the country, and we wish him well,” Damon Hill, spokesman for PHMSA, told Bloomberg BNA.
Butters served as acting administrator after former PHMSA administrator Cynthia Quarterman left the agency. He previously served as deputy administrator of the agency.
Departure Date Unclear
Butters left PHMSA effective June 1, according to his out-of-office reply; however, PHMSA told Bloomberg BNA that Butters would leave the agency June 8.
Butters's departure comes days after the White House announced that it would nominate Marie Therese Dominguez to head the agency and sent the nomination to the Senate.
Dominguez, whose nomination was announced May 29 and was sent to the Senate June 2, is currently the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for civil works at the Defense Department (104 DEN A-6, 6/1/15).
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee told Bloomberg BNA it hasn't announced a confirmation hearing date for Dominguez.
Sutherland's confirmation hearing was held April 22, and its unclear when she will get votes that would move her to her new position (78 DEN A-4, 4/23/15).
-
Capps Calls For Field Hearing On Santa Barbara Oil Spill
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Debra Kahn
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) yesterday requested that Congress examine last month's oil spill on the Southern California coast with an eye toward oversight of federal pipeline regulators.
Capps sent a letter to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) asking for a field hearing in her district, the site of the May 19 spill by Plains All American Pipeline Co.
The release of oil from an onshore pipeline sent 105,000 barrels of crude onto Refugio State Beach, with about 21,000 gallons of that making its way to the Pacific Ocean -- the largest coastal spill in California in 25 years (Greenwire, May 28).
"The Plains Oil Spill is a tragedy, but one that we can and must learn from, particularly as we begin to consider the reauthorization of federal pipeline safety programs later this year," she wrote.
Capps criticized the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for "inadequate oversight" and for not fully implementing the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011, which requires the Transportation Department to study leak detection systems on hazardous material pipelines and decide if automatic or remote shut-off valves should be mandated.
PHMSA officials came under fire at an April hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials for its slow pace on rulemakings under the 2011 law (E&E Daily, April 15).
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to PHMSA last week asking the agency to look into whether Plains responded to the spill as quickly as it could have and whether PHMSA can require Plains to install automatic shut-off valves on the affected line.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) -- a leading candidate for Boxer's seat in the 2016 election -- announced last night that she will tour cleanup efforts and areas affected by the spill today. Harris' office and the Santa Barbara district attorney are conducting a joint investigation of the oil spill. Story Tools sponsored by The Corn Farmers Coalition resize text Resize Text Email  Email Print  Print
Advertisement
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appellate Court Backs EPA's Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected challenges by environmentalists and industry petitioners to EPA’s non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) rule, effectively allowing the rule to stand.
The court issued a per curiam judgment June 3 in Eco Services Operations LLC v. EPA, following oral arguments that were held May 11, where the three-judge panel strongly questioned both industry and environmental groups' positions.
The rule allows for the exclusion of some secondary material -- such as scrap tires, used oil and dewatered pulp and paper sludge -- from the definition of solid waste, thereby allowing the material to be burned in boilers with less stringent air requirements than commercial incinerators.
Specifically, the 2011 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) rule determines if a combustion unit must meet emissions limits in the Clean Air Act boiler maximum achievable control technology rule or the air law's more stringent commercial/industrial solid waste incinerator rule.
NHSM burned in combustion units is a solid waste -- and subject to the incinerator rule -- unless it falls under one of five conditions. For instance, exemptions are given if EPA has determined on a case-specific basis that the material has not been discarded, or if the material has been identified as a categorical non-waste fuel.
Earthjustice, representing a coalition of environmental groups, argued in the case for tighter emissions controls under the rule -- contending that secondary materials such as used oil and tires should be classified as solid waste and trigger the more stringent incinerator requirements when burned as fuel -- while EPA and industry attorneys defended it.
The environmentalist coalition, which included Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project, argued that EPA violated RCRA by allowing discarded materials to be considered non-wastes. They argued these materials should meet the air law's more stringent incinerator standards.
But the court rejects the environmentalists’ challenge. The environmental petitioners argue “that the rule is an end-run around the statutory scheme, and they ask us to vacate EPA’s definition of solid waste and remand for the agency to promulgate a new definition consistent with the Clean Air Act and RCRA,” the court says. They contend that EPA is impermissibly excluding materials that have been “discarded” from the definition’s ordinary meaning, it says.
But the court dismisses these arguments “because neither statute (the Clean Air Act or RCRA) nor this Court’s precedents prevent EPA from defining solid waste to exclude certain non-hazardous secondary materials combusted for energy or used as an ingredient for fuel.”
The decision says the court previously recognized the ambiguity of the term “discarded” under RCRA. Thus, EPA’s characterization of some types of NHSM as discarded is entitled to deference under the Supreme Court's Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ruling, according to the decision. It goes on to say the agency’s exceptions under the rule show “a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous language” and balance RCRA’s two goals of recovery of materials and conservation.
“Because EPA ‘has considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,' we uphold the rule,” the court says.
Legitimacy Criteria
On environmentalists’ challenge to EPA’s legitimacy criteria, the court says the arguments lack merit “because it is ‘eminently reasonable to treat materials that are indistinguishable’ from virgin materials as non-waste fuel.”
The court also denied industry petitioners’ petition contesting the rule. Industry argued for loosening the rule -- specifically calling for the exemption from solid waste to extend to third-party transfers of secondary materials for fuel burning and for sewage sludge to be exempt from solid waste under the rule.
Industry parties included the American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute, among others, and argued EPA wrongfully asserted jurisdiction over NHSM solely due to their transfer to third parties for combustion.
The court says it disagrees with industry’s suggestion that “’EPA’s upside down view’ of material transferred firm-to-firm ‘is contrary to the law regarding EPA’s limited jurisdiction.’” In regulating under RCRA, Congress intended for EPA “’to err on the side of caution,’” the court says, referring to a 2003 ruling it issued. Therefore, EPA may put the burden on the regulated party to show its materials should not be regulated, the court says.
“EPA is well within its statutory authority to assume that transferred material is solid waste until an interested party demonstrates that the material ‘has not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product,’” the court says.
On industry’s petition asking the court to vacate EPA’s classification of sewage sludge as solid waste, the court says it rejects industry’s arguments because they are “foreclosed by RCRA’s plain language." The law defines solid waste to include sludge from waste treatment plants, the court says, adding that sludge is “not the same as ‘solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage,” which is excluded from the waste definition. “We reject industry petitioners’ reading of the statute because it would render the definition of sludge meaningless.”
-
Jun 3, 2015 | Bloomberg (in Fuel Fix)
By Jack Kaskey
Braskem SA, Latin America’s biggest petrochemical maker, will soon decide whether to build a plant in Texas or Pennsylvania to convert low-cost natural gas into polypropylene used in plastic packaging and car parts.
The factory would produce at least 1 billion pounds (450,000 metric tons) of resin a year and would be the U.S. polypropylene industry’s first world-scale project in about 12 years, said Mark Nikolich, a vice president at Braskem. Preliminary engineering is under way for construction at existing Braskem sites in either La Porte, Texas, or Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania.
“The timing is soon,” Nikolich said in an interview at the American Chemistry Council’s annual meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “We are very active.”
Braskem, based in Sao Paulo, founded its America unit with the 2010 acquisition of polypropylene assets from Sunoco Inc. It became the largest U.S. producer of the resin the following year with an acquisition from Dow Chemical Co. Drilling in shale formations has produced abundant, low-cost propane, a gas liquid converted into propylene and then polypropylene.
“We are looking to continue to grow the North American business in a market that seems to have a pretty good outlook,” Nikolich said.
The decision on where to locate the plant hinges largely on the availability of propylene supply, he said. The company buys propylene on the Gulf Coast, while elsewhere it gathers and purifies propylene from an assortment of oil refiners, he said.
Similar Plants
The prospects for a plant in Marcus Hook may hinge on whether Sunoco Logistics Partners LP goes forward at an adjacent site with its proposed plant for converting propane into propylene, a process known as propane dehydrogenation, he said. Dow Chemical and others are building similar plants on the Texas coast.
In Mexico, Braskem plans to begin production of ethylene and polyethylene by year-end. The resin used in plastic packaging and grocery bags will be made at new plants being built with partner Grupo Idesa SA in the state of Veracruz. It will be Mexico’s largest ethylene plant.
The company decided in April to put on hold a planned ethylene-polyethylene complex in Parkersburg, West Virginia, amid lower oil prices.
Dow Chemical is among those constructing U.S. projects to convert gas liquids such as ethane and propane into ethylene.
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., scheduled to open a ethylene complex outside Houston in 2017, is considering whether to build another such project in the U.S. or elsewhere, Peter Cella, chief executive officer of the Houston-based company, said in a separate interview at the meeting.
Braskem rose 0.8 percent to 13.70 reais at 4:40 p.m. in Rio de Janeiro.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips Chemical Eyes New Mega-Project In US Petrochemicals
Jun 4, 2015 | Bloomberg (in Hydrocarbon Processing)
By Jack Kaskey
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., a joint venture of Chevron and refiner Phillips 66, is considering a second “megaproject” in the US that would take advantage of low natural gas prices for making plastics and other materials.
“We are certainly looking seriously about the possibility of another project in the US," CEO Peter Cella said this week. “This is the right time to get serious about the next project.”
The company is on schedule to begin producing ethylene in mid-2017 at its $6 billion project outside Houston, Cella said in an interview at the American Chemistry Council annual meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He’s looking globally for where to build the next ethylene and derivatives plants, given the multiyear timeline to complete major projects.
The Houston-based company has led a wave of new US facilities that make ethylene, used in plastics to polyester. Plants that use low cost gas from shale formations will help US production of basic chemicals increase for the next four years, starting with a 3.1% rise this year and peaking at 6% in 2018, according to the council.
A rapidly growing middle class in developing regions will boost long-term demand for plastics used in packaging, autos and other applications, Cella said.
About 65 percent of new capacity in the US will be exported, Kevin Swift, chief economist for the industry group, told reporters at the conference. Swift said the US will increase its global share of chemical production, grabbing sales from Europe and Japan, where oil is often used instead of gas.
The drop in oil prices hasn’t erased the cost advantages for the Texas project, Chevron Phillips’ biggest ever, Cella said.
Falling oil prices also have some benefits, including increasing the availability of skilled labor in the wake of energy sector job cuts, he said. That’s reduced the pace of wage-cost inflation and improved the quality of available workers, particularly welders, Cella said.
-
Practicality, Costs of Federal Fracking Rule Defended Against Industry Injunction Request
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Oil and gas industry plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction against the new federal rule on hydraulic fracturing have misread the rule, ignored explanations in the rule and failed to properly present evidence of imminent harm to justify an injunction, the government told a federal court (Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. Jewell, D. Wyo., No. 2:15-cv-00041, 6/1/15).
The rule will involve only “modest compliance costs,” the Interior Department said in a June 1 brief defending its rule. The higher costs assumed by the petitioners are not a basis for an injunction, the department told the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, in requesting the preliminary injunction, said the rule includes technical and legal requirements that in several instances can be impossible to comply with, making the rule “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (97 DEN A-2, 5/20/15).
The technical requirements aren't as much of a change from existing practice as petitioners claim and aren't impossible, according to the responding brief from the government. Similarly, the chemical disclosure requirements aren't a big change, and they do make adequate allowances for trade secrets, the government said.
The rule (RIN 1004-AE26) on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was issued by the Bureau of Land Management in March and is due to go into effect June 24. Judge Scott Skavdahl set a court hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for June 23.
Brief Explains Requirements
The lawsuit, naming Interior Secretary Sally Jewell as lead defendant, zeroed in on such problems as a requirement for a mechanical integrity test that, according to the plaintiffs, isn't defined and consequently makes compliance impossible.
The government brief countered that while the rule requires a more stringent mechanical integrity test than the established test designated Onshore Order 2, the new requirement is spelled out in the rule and is appropriate for making sure the well can cope with the greater pressures generated by fracking.
The petitioners said the operators of a well cannot provide affidavits on the chemical contents of fracking fluids if the fracking service providers refuse to share the chemical details with the operators. The government responded that there is nothing new in requiring a well operator to certify that a service company is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The rule also requires temporary storage of fluids recovered from a well pending approval of a wastewater disposal plan. Such a requirement may in many cases be inapplicable, but the work at the well wouldn't be hindered by the inapplicability of the requirement, the government said.
Risk of Harm Disputed
“Because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court may deny Petitioners’ motion on that basis alone,” the government said.
At the same time, an injunction should be denied because the petitioners failed to establish that their member companies would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, the government said.
The rule maintains protection for confidential information about fracking fluids despite the plaintiffs' concern about disclosure of trade secrets, according to the government.
The BLM estimated the cost of the rule at $11,400 per well, or no more than 0.21 percent of the typical cost of drilling a well, leading the government to argue that the harm wouldn't be enough to justify an injunction.
“Petitioners’ assertions that these and other costs of the rule are underestimated have been refuted and shown to be speculative,” the federal government said. Even if the costs were twice what BLM estimated, “they would still be less than half of one percent of the average cost of drilling and fracturing a horizontal well,” the government said.
-
Senators Use Defense Bill As Vehicle To Lift Crude Ban, Advance Other Priorities
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Ariel Wittenberg and Geof Koss
Senators seeking to lift the nation's long-standing ban on crude oil exports are using amendments to the Defense Authorization Act to advance their cause. Several other energy amendments will also be considered on the Senate floor in the next several days.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took to the floor yesterday to outline three export-related amendments he had filed aiming to ensure that U.S. allies in Europe are not subject to Russian "bullying."
"Russia has huge sources of oil and gas, but they're using them not only as a source of economic strength and to provide for the Russian people, but they're using it as a source of intimidation and coercion," Cornyn said, noting that Russia has previously threatened to cut off fuel supplies to Ukraine.
One of Cornyn's amendments would create an exemption in current law, allowing crude and natural gas exports to U.S. allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) when their energy sources are at risk. If a U.S. ally requested additional energy resources, the amendment would require the president to approve the request for crude oil or natural gas in a "timely fashion if he decided doing so was also in the interest of American national security," Cornyn said.
"This would provide our allies and our partners with an additional source of fuel and a little additional reassurance that if they are subjected to the kind of intimidation and coercion I mentioned a moment ago, that we as their friend and their allies would support them with an alternative source of energy they need in order to keep the lights on and keep their economy running," he said.
Another amendment, filed by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), would allow crude oil and condensate to be exported after the completion of a report to Congress on the ability of Iranian crude oil and condensate to enter global markets. A second required report would assess the effect of easing sanctions on Iran's ability to send its oil into the marketplace.
Cornyn teamed up with the trio on another amendment to require more intelligence reports on Russian impacts on European energy security. That amendment would also express the "sense of the Senate" that the president may lawfully use his authorities to allow exports of crude oil and condensate to U.S. allies and trading partners.
Another Cornyn amendment would require the secretary of Energy to approve liquid natural gas exports to NATO countries.
Cornyn and Hoeven also filed an amendment with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that would require the Energy Department to issue final decisions on natural gas export applications within 45 days of completion of the environmental impact statement.
Additionally, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have an amendment that would place the Coast Guard in charge of setting vessel discharge standards. The bill is a top priority for Rubio, a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination (E&E Daily, Feb. 5).
Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said yesterday that he expects a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues, including energy, during the defense debate. He estimated that somewhere between 100 and 200 amendments would be filed but said the measure would be finished by the end of next week.
In advance of the floor debate, the Office of Management and Budget released its statement of administration policy on Tuesday night objecting to language in the Senate bill that it said would interfere with DOE's nuclear waste cleanup at the Hanford Superfund site in Washington state.
DOE has spent multiple years building a $1 billion plant at the site, which was once part of the Manhattan Project and processed plutonium and other nuclear weapons materials.
The Senate Defense Authorization bill instructs Bechtel National Inc., the owner-representative to the site, to take over some government activities like overseeing the design and construction of the waste treatment and immobilization plant there.
But OMB's statement on the bill criticizes the Hanford provision, saying it "would interfere with the relationship between DOE and its representative by prescribing the representative's duties." The White House stopped short of issuing a veto threat, however.
-
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Historians will view the early 21st Century as the time when America reversed its geographical energy deficit to become the world’s leading oil and natural gas producer. Human ingenuity, enabled by a private property-based, mostly free market system, is responsible, overcoming the federal policies of an opposition president.
The benefits for U.S. consumers are enormous: ample supplies, lower prices, and less risk from unstable oil-producing countries. But for many energy workers, the supply boom has been a bust. At least 100,000 U.S. energy workers have been either laid off or furloughed by companies that are fighting to stay profitable in times of low energy prices.ADVERTISEMENTReduced investments by energy producing companies were a factor in the economy’s contraction in the first quarter, a GDP fall of 0.7 percent. But there is a solution: legalizing freedom. The low hanging fruit of regulatory reform, based on sound science, consumer sovereignty, and budget-deficit reduction, can spur investment and put highly skilled workers back in the energy marketplace.
Here are three areas of needed reform.
Federal-Land Production
Since 2009, the government has made less federally owned land available for energy development. As a result, oil and gas production on federal lands has declined by 11.3 percent. Conversely, drilling on state-owned and private land has increased by 57.4 percent.
Given the benefits that accrue from energy development—millions of jobs, tax revenues to federal, state, and local governments, and increased energy security—opening federal lands to drilling could increase economic growth substantially. The government owns and controls about 640 million acres of the country’s 2.27 billion acres, accounting for about 28 percent of the total. Much of it could contain large quantities of oil and gas that could be produced safely without harming the environment.
In fact, the environment could benefit by unlocking natural gas from U.S. shale formations. Natural gas burns more cleanly than coal and emits less carbon dioxide into the air. The government’s own data indicate that as natural gas consumption has increased, carbon emissions have declined markedly.
However, the government is not focusing on the benefits of natural gas. Rather it is poised to release more regulations that will discourage its production, including new federal hydraulic fracturing regulations which will be layered on top of existing state regulations.
According to the Groundwater Protection Council, the federal rules are unnecessary. A GWPC study that examined state regulations found federal rules would be “duplicative of state regulation, and ultimately ineffective because such regulations would be too far removed from field operations.” State agencies are more familiar with the hydrology, geology and characteristics of each locality and are better positioned to oversee energy development activities.
Ozone Overreach
The federal government is going overboard on ozone. Although the standards set in 2008 have not been fully implemented, the government is finalizing tougher ozone rules that experts say will have little, if any, benefit to public health. They will have a huge impact on the economy, however, jeopardizing millions of jobs and costing the economy an estimated $270 billion per year.
“The economically prudent course would be to leave the current standards in place,” advises Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, noting that ozone levels have fallen by 33 percent since 1980.
Methane Emissions
Methane emissions from oil and gas production likewise have declined markedly, with emissions from fracked natural gas wells falling by 73 percent since 2011. Yet the government is proposing very stringent methane reductions which could slow even today's pared back gas production.
Methane is a valuable commodity that producers seek to capture and sell. They have every incentive to prevent methane from escaping into the atmosphere, and government data indicate the industry’s technological advances to this end are working well.
So why fix something that isn’t broken? It does not take a genius to understand that the above three areas are part of Obama's multi-front war on fossil fuels. The idea is to keep in the ground what Americans want to consume to continue the virtuous process of today's consumption for tomorrow's production.
For the anti-energy environmentalists, less is more, and greater expense is a social virtue. Most Americans, thankfully, disagree. Let’s hope the fringe policy of attacking success will evaporate with the next White House.
-
Methane Emissions Threaten To Undermine Natural-Gas Offensive
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tara Patel
The grainy black-and-white photograph taken with an infrared camera shows a smoky haze wafting from a natural gas storage tank.
That cloud is methane escaping, said Philip Swanson, administrator of a United Nations-led industry partnership aimed at curbing leakage of the primary component of natural gas. His presentation at the World Gas Conference in Paris on June 2 highlighted how the energy being promoted as one of the solutions to fighting climate change is also contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“This is a reputational issue for the industry,” Swanson said. Methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas, and yet data on emissions during production and transport of natural gas “are still patchy.”
Conference discussion of methane leakage came in the midst of an industry offensive by the biggest oil companies to promote natural gas as the cleanest fossil fuel. Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA and BP Plc CEOs spoke in favor of using natural gas that would supplant dirtier coal-fired power. Demand for the energy is seen outpacing oil over the coming decades.
“Governments are seeing increasing natural gas in their economies but are starting to be concerned methane is undermining the economic benefits of gas,” Swanson said. “Some companies know more about methane emissions than others.”
Evaluating Methane
The Oil & Gas Methane Partnership, started in September as part of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition hosted by the UN Environment Program, was founded by seven gas-producing companies including Total, Statoil ASA and BG Group Plc.
The group is evaluating how much methane is emitted as natural gas is produced as well as looking at technological solutions to plugging the leaks, according to its website.
Flaring natural gas from oil wells, which produces carbon dioxide, is a far more visible way the industry emits greenhouse gases. It can be seen by satellite imagery, and a World Bank-led movement is aimed at phasing out routine flaring by 2030. The methane seeping from production, processing and transport installations like valves, pumps and pipes is less obvious.
“Methane is less visible so it's not talked about as much,” said Jerome Schmitt, executive vice president of sustainable development at Total, who also spoke at the conference. Natural gas is less polluting than coal as long as less than 3 percent escapes into the atmosphere, he said.
New Rules
“What we measure is about 1 percent so it's not close but remains a factor in emissions,” he said. “We can only be credible on gas if we do it well.”
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue rules this year targeting new production and transmission systems to reduce methane leaks by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.
Climate activists including the Environmental Defense Fund have pushed President Barack Obama to target methane seeping from the oil and gas production and distribution networks, arguing it represents the largest source of greenhouse gases so far unaddressed by any regulation. The industry in the U.S. has pushed back, saying voluntary measures are sufficient. Both Exxon and Chevron have addressed the issue on their websites.
“It's not rocket science” to fix the leaks, Swanson said. The partnership has identified nine “core” sources including pneumatic devices, seals and venting.
The EPA has estimated that about 30 million metric tons of methane was emitted in 2012, 9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide accounted for more than 80 percent.
While methane is more potent, it only remains in the atmosphere about 12 years while carbon dioxide lingers for decades, according to the EPA. About one-third of the methane emissions come from oil and gas production and transmission.
-
Coal Miners Union To Sue Over Obama Power Plant Rules
Jun 3, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The head of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) said his union will sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over two rules designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions at power plants once the Obama administration finalizes them.
"These regulations come on top of decades of clean air and clean water regulations coming out of Washington that have already changed our industry and our communities," UMWA president Cecil Roberts said at a union gather in Morgantown, W.Va. on Wednesday.“As we stand here today, I assure that our lawyers are preparing to sue the agency again once the Clean Power Plan and New Source rule become final,” he said.
The coal industry has strongly opposed the two rules, which look to reduce emissions from existing and new power plants respectively. Roberts warned the standards would further diminish the role of coal-fired power plants in the American electricity sector even as the industry struggles to keep up with falling demand due to cheap natural gas supplies.
The rules “will make it just about impossible to either continue burning coal to generate electricity at existing plants or build new coal-fired power plants in the future, unless there is a sudden and vast leap in technological development to capture and store carbon emissions,” he said.
UMWA has endorsed a handful of legislative efforts to blunt the effects of the rules, though those bills are likely to go nowhere as long as Obama is in office. Even so, Roberts said the bills are important ways to convince states and utilities not to move away from coal as an energy supply before the EPA’s rules even kick in.
UMWA has a history of suing regulators over rules that impact the coal industry. The union was among the groups that convinced a federal court to overturn George W. Bush-era mercury regulations, and it’s awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on an Obama mercury rule.
“We have not, and we will not, stand by while our members’ jobs are under attack from any source, in any administration,” Roberts said.
-
West Virginia Delegation Wants State To Hold Off on Clean Power Plan Compliance
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Andrew Childers
West Virginia's U.S. House delegation urged Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) not to submit a plan for complying with the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon pollution limits for existing power plants.
“The EPA is trying to compel states to do more themselves than what the agency would be authorized to do on its own,” the June 3 letter said. “By declining to submit a plan you will give the courts the necessary time to rule on whether the EPA's proposed rule is legal while also giving Congress a chance to address its concerns with the plan.”
Republican West Virginian Reps. David McKinley, Evan Jenkins and Alex Mooney signed the letter.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has urged states to “just say no” to the Clean Power Plan, but just one state so far—Oklahoma—has publicly endorsed his approach. The EPA would issue federal plans for states that choose not to develop their own (95 DEN A-6, 5/18/15).
Other States Expressed Concerns
Other states, including Texas and Wisconsin, have voiced grave reservations about the proposed carbon pollution rules but have stopped short of saying they would simply not comply with them.
The federal plans are expected to be more restrictive and expensive than state plans, because the EPA lacks the authority to implement energy efficiency programs or invest in new renewable energy generation programs.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) would set a unique carbon dioxide emissions rate for the power sector in each state.
State regulators would determine how best to achieve that target through a combination of heat rate improvements at individual power plants, shifting generation from coal to cleaner natural gas, investing in new renewable energy or through energy efficiency programs. The EPA would issue federal plans to states that chose not to comply.
The proposed rule as well as similar performance standards for new power plants (RIN 2060-AQ91) are both at the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review (106 DEN A-4, 6/3/15).
Both final rules are expected in August.
States Nearing Compliance
The call for West Virginia comes as the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a June 3 analysis that more than half of the states are more than halfway toward meeting their initial emissions rate goals for 2020 based on steps already taken or announced such as retiring aging coal-fired power plants and establishing renewable energy portfolios.
According to the analysis, 14 states are already on track to exceed their initial emissions rates targets under the Clean Power Plan. The rule as proposed would set an initial carbon dioxide emissions rate that states must achieve beginning in 2020, with a final target to be met by 2030.
The Union of Concerned Scientists points to that progress as evidence that the EPA should set even more stringent carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing power plants when it finalizes the Clean Power Plan later this year.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies outlined a comprehensive “menu” of emissions reductions strategies states can choose from to meet the EPA's proposed standards (99 DEN A-2, 5/22/15). Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
West Virginia Lawmakers Press Governor To Not Submit Plan For EPA Climate Rule
Jun 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
West Virginia’s House delegation today is calling on Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to heed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “just say no” campaign against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
“As you consider West Virginia’s response we urge you to consider NOT submitting a state implementation plan due to concerns over EPA’s legal justification and the impact the CPP will have on jobs, electricity prices, and reliability,” Reps. David McKinley, Alex Mooney, and Evan Jenkins wrote. All three are Republicans.
The CPP, EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants, will “undeniably force the state to change the way it produces electricity,” the trio added. The plan is also “detrimental to West Virginia’s coal industry and the jobs that depend on it.”
The letter also cites critical statements by Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, who is representing coal miner Peabody Energy in fighting the upcoming rule, as well as comments from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
Although the GOP lawmakers didn’t mention McConnell by name, they referenced his recent comments that called into question whether states could legally cooperate to reduce emissions without first getting Congress’ approval.
The letter adds: “The EPA is trying to compel states to do more themselves than what the agency would be authorized to do on its own. -
House Energy Efficiency Bill Draws Fire From Obama Administration, FERC
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House energy efficiency legislation that would block the Energy Department from issuing final energy efficiency standards for commonly used furnaces and roll back other energy conservation standards drew fire from the Obama administration June 3.
The draft bill, a component of a broad omnibus energy bill slated to be released later this summer, “undermines critical components of the President's Climate Action Plan,” Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, testified during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.
While the Obama administration has yet to formulate an official position on the legislation, Hogan told the Subcommittee on Energy and Power that the department has “a number of concerns” with the bill, including a section that would hinder its role in developing building codes related to energy efficiency.
The bill, released by the committee in April, is supported by trade groups representing utilities such as Xcel Energy Inc. and Southwest Gas Corp., as well as the National Association of Home Builders.
FERC Criticism
In addition, a separate subtitle of the bill related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, drew criticism from commission officials, who testified sections of it were unnecessary.
“The Commission is always looking for ways to improve the efficiency, transparency and competitiveness of its markets, but it is important to recognize the duplication of effort and potential unintended consequences that could result from this proposed legislation,” J. Arnold Quinn, FERC director of energy policy and innovation, said in his written testimony.
One section of the bill would require FERC to establish an Office of Compliance Assistance, which would be responsible for promoting improved compliance with commission rules and orders by, among other things, giving regulated entities the opportunity to obtain timely compliance guidance, making recommendations with respect to market behavior and enforcement, according to a committee bill summary.
Purchase Requirement Rollback
“While I support the goal of this section, I believe that the Commission, the Offices within the Commission and the Commission staff are currently and actively performing much of the work envisioned by this section,” Quinn said in his testimony.
The bill also includes a section to roll back language in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 effectively requiring utilities in organized markets to purchase power from renewable and cogeneration facilities of 20 megawatts or less.
That measure is backed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, the owner of three regulated utilities—MidAmerican Energy Co., PacifiCorp and NV Energy.
-
House Panel Nixes Climate Aid, Clears Path For Coal Financing
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick and Manuel Quiñones
A House Appropriations subcommittee approved legislation in a voice vote today that would cut Obama administration efforts to assist poor nations' efforts to battle climate change.
The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations measure approved over Democratic opposition would prevent President Obama from following through on his pledges of climate aid and complicating international efforts to secure a U.N. agreement on emissions and finance in Paris late this year.
Obama requested $1.2 billion overall for climate and energy technology-related assistance to poor countries in its fiscal 2016 proposed budget, including $500 million for the United Nations' Green Climate Fund.
The president unveiled his $3 billion four-year pledge to the fund last year during a gathering of major economies in Australia in a move timed to pressure the host country to contribute to the U.N. fund.
The bill approved by the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee today would provide nothing toward those accounts, although some of the difference could be made up through other State Department revenues.
John Coequyt, director of the Sierra Club's international climate campaigns, said in a statement, "The spending bill advanced today undermines even the limited climate initiatives of the George W. Bush Administration."
Poor countries have warned they will oppose any emissions treaty under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that doesn't offer them adequate financial assistance.
Alex Doukas, a research associate at the World Resources Institute, said in a statement that the appropriations bill could injure international trust ahead of the final negotiations.
"Developing countries are taking action on climate change and even pledging money to the Green Climate Fund, which is changing the conversation internationally," Doukas said. "If the U.S. doesn't follow through on its pledge, that progress and spirit of cooperation will be in jeopardy."
The spending bill would also roll back administration efforts to cut funding or financing for overseas coal-fired power plant projects that don't include significant carbon controls.
The measure would target new policies by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and instructions to the World Bank Group. Such a rider is already in place.
"These provisions will bolster U.S. job creation and ensure high-quality, cost-effective energy technology is available to developing countries and other nations," the Appropriations Committee said in a press release.
Whether to finance overseas coal projects is also part of the tense debate over the Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization. Republican-led bills include provisions to roll back its policy against coal power plant funding (E&E Daily, June 3).
Lawmakers released the spending bill as delegates huddle in Bonn, Germany, for a preliminary round of talks aimed at setting the stage for final negotiations in Paris in December.
The French foreign minister said at the start of the talks Monday that the final product must take into account the difficulty that President Obama will have in securing Senate ratification for a formal treaty.
"We know the politics in the U.S.," Laurent Fabius said, according to the Association Press. "Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse."
When the full Appropriations Committee will vote on the new spending bill is unclear. The same goes for its Senate companion.
-
New York Publishes Final Air Emissions Rules
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) published final regulations in the New York State Register June 3 to update and streamline its rules for controlling emissions of toxic air contaminants (6 NYCRR 212, 200). The regulations, which take effect June 14, clarify the interaction of state rules with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, lower the emission rate for when control requirements become applicable and includes a new alternative compliance option for high toxicity air contaminants. The regulations will “modernize and streamline New York's regulatory scheme for air quality control of process operations and, in so doing, would strengthen the Department's ability to protect public health and the environment, reduce confusion regarding applicability of the regulation for the regulated community, and preserve the State's air resources and sensitive ecosystems,” DEC said in a regulatory impact statement. Further information on the regulations is available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/101690.html.
-
State Senate Advances Sweeping Climate Change Legislation
Jun 3, 2015 | LA Times
By Chris Megerian
California state senators approved legislation Wednesday intended to help the state tackle climate change by setting new targets for generating renewable energy, reducing gasoline use and increasing energy efficiency in buildings.
The bill, which now goes to the Assembly, advances goals outlined by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this year.
Although Republicans opposed the measure, which they said would raise costs and stifle business with new regulations, it passed easily in the Democratic-controlled chamber.
"These standards are reasonable, achievable and consistent," said Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles).
At a press conference after the vote, he described the legislation as the "most far reaching not just in California history, but in U.S. history."
If approved by the Assembly and signed into law, the bill would require California to meet several objectives by 2030 -- generating 50% of electricity from renewable sources, doubling energy efficiencies in older buildings and reducing by half the amount of gasoline used on state roads.
Democrats tried to rebut concerns about the bill's potential impact on the economy, saying it would lead to new investment in cleaner technologies.
"This bill is not a job killer," said Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). "It is a major job creator."
De León also said it would lead to cleaner air in areas like the Central Valley, which has some of the state's most polluted areas.
Nonetheless, Republicans called the legislation an example of "coastal elitism," and questioned whether the targets are achievable.
"We have a very lofty and noble goal," said Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-San Dimas). But other than feeling good about it, what does it accomplish?"
Senators also approved two other climate bills on Wednesday morning. One of them, SB 32, codifies executive orders issued by Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill would require the state to reduce its emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and then to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The other bill would require the state's pension funds, the two largest public funds in the country, to divest from coal.
-
D.C. Circuit Rejects All Challenges to EPA's Nonhazardous Secondary Materials Rule
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
A federal appeals court rejected all challenges June 3 from environmental and industry petitioners to an Environmental Protection Agency regulation exempting certain nonhazardous secondary materials from stricter air pollution requirements when burned in solid waste incinerators or boilers (Eco Servs. Operations LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1189, judgment issued 6/3/15).
In a four-page unpublished judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the EPA appropriately utilized its discretion under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in promulgating its 2013 nonhazardous secondary materials regulation (78 Fed. Reg. 9112).
The court, in its judgment, said it had “accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion.”
One attorney involved in the case told Bloomberg BNA the court's approach was “highly extraordinary.”
Judges David Tatel, Robert Wilkins and David Sentelle said during oral arguments May 11 that much of the terminology under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act seemed ambiguous and seemed wary of overturning the rules altogether (91 DEN A-1, 5/12/15).
Discussed Materials as ‘Solid Waste.'
The final nonhazardous secondary materials rule outlined what materials could be considered “solid wastes,” which are subject to stricter emissions control standards when burned, and what items could be considered “fuels,” which are subject to less strict air control requirements under the Clean Air Act.
The regulation also listed specific legitimacy criteria for determining case-by-case if other materials could be exempted from the stricter regulatory standards and provided broad exclusions for certain categories of items like used tires and coal refuse.
Environmental advocates had asked the court to throw out the broad exclusions from solid waste regulations, because they said the exemptions represented a loophole that endangered human health and the environment.
The court disagreed and said “ambiguous” statutory language entitled the agency to deference in crafting specific exclusions from solid waste regulation.
Called ‘Reasonable Interpretation.'
“The exceptions constitute a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous language and strike an appropriate balance between RCRA's dual goals of ‘recovery and conservation,' ” the judgment said.
Industry groups had argued the EPA impermissibly said materials sent to third parties were discarded—becoming subject to stricter solid waste regulations—and urged the EPA to expand the exclusions to sewage sludge. The court again rejected those arguments.
“Their argument regarding sewage sludge is foreclosed by RCRA's plain language, and EPA's distinction between material burned by the generator and material transferred to a third party is consistent with RCRA and reasonable,” the decision states.
‘Highly Extraordinary.'
One attorney involved in the case told Bloomberg BNA the court's decision to dispense of the case in a four-page, unpublished judgment was “highly extraordinary” in light of the significant time and parties involved in the case.
“After a ton of briefs filed by industry, environmental groups, EPA, industry intervenors, environmental intervenors [and] full oral argument, the court issues a 4-page ‘judgment' that won't even be published,” the attorney said in an e-mail. “I have NEVER seen that in a major EPA rule challenge in all my years of D.C. Circuit watching.”
Other attorneys involved in the case didn't respond to requests for comment.
The decision from the court comes as the EPA anticipates further expanding the materials categorically excluded from the stricter standards to include demolition wood, paper recycling residuals and creosote-treated railroad ties. It also may propose categorically excluding various treated woods from the stricter Clean Air Act requirements (100 DEN A-6, 5/26/15). Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE HE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
-
House Approves DOJ Spending Bill Including Ban on Climate-Related Funding
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The House passed by a 242-183 vote June 3 its fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill that includes funding for Justice Department environmental activities, with one amendment that would bar appropriated funds from being used on certain climate-related activities.
The Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2578) also includes an amendment to reduce certain Justice Department funding by $2 million, instead funneling the money to be used by the National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Restoration Initiative.
The bill, which would appropriate $51.4 billion, faces difficult prospects if it reaches the president's desk. On June 1, the White House issued a veto threat for the appropriations bill, in part due to lack of funding for legal activities related to environmental protection.
H.R. 2578 would fund the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division at roughly $110 million, essentially level with fiscal year 2015 levels. That is millions lower than the White House-requested $127.5 million for efforts such as increasing environmental enforcement associated with oil and gas extraction in Indian country (38 DEN A-12, 2/26/15).
Would Bar Funding for Climate Reports
Among the amendments added to H.R. 2578 over the two-day debate and voting period was one introduced by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) that would bar appropriations allocated under H.R. 2578 from being used to “implement” several climate-related reports.
Those reports include the National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nations' Agenda 21 sustainable development plan or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Meanwhile, Rep. Curt Clawson (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment, adopted by voice vote, that would reduce the $885 million for the Justice Department's General Legal Activities by $2 million, instead pushing those funds toward the NOAA Fisheries Service.
Administration Raised Concerns
General Legal Activities encompasses funding for the environment division's activities, as well as others such as the civil rights division. While the reduction is small, the White House cited concerns in its June 1 statement of administration policy that the general activities funding was already too low to support priority activities (106 DEN A-20, 6/3/15).
-
'I Don't Need To Fight The Climate Deniers Now' -- McCarthy
Jun 3, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Jean Chemnick
Americans' growing awareness of climate change and its threats has made it easier for U.S. EPA to promote regulatory proposals to the general public, Administrator Gina McCarthy said in an interview published online today.
"I don't need to fight the climate deniers now," she told the Internet forum Big Think. "That's not what I think we need."
McCarthy said most Americans believe federal action is needed to cut emissions and adapt to climate change.
"We were predicting things that might happen, but it's taken so long to take action those predictions are already here," she said. "And frankly, we never predicted the kind of impacts that we are seeing today."
McCarthy decried media coverage of climate change as a "big debate," saying 97 percent of scientists say human emissions drive warming.
"That's an overwhelming majority, and that needs to drive the decision, especially in a democracy," she said.
EPA is set to finalize carbon dioxide emission rules for power plants and propose methane rules for new petroleum operations this year under President Obama's Climate Action Plan.
Environmentalists also expect EPA to signal as soon as this week that it will promulgate aggressive new Clean Air Act rules for aviation emissions before Obama leaves office (Greenwire, June 3).
-
Ozone Implementation Challenges Raised As Senators Spar Over Need for EPA Proposal
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Local government officials raised several challenges that more stringent ozone standards would pose during a June 3 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, while senators sparred over the costs and benefits of the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise the current standards of 75 parts per billion.
Representatives from the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board and Boone County, Ky., agreed that additional federal assistance would be needed to help state and local government agencies in implementing a tougher ozone standard, while an official with the Uintah County Commission in Utah said more resources were needed to research and monitor ground-level ozone in high-elevation areas.
However, Republican members of the committee spent most of the hearing highlighting the potential economic effects of the EPA's proposed revisions to the ozone standards, while Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and her fellow Democrats reiterated the public health risk of exposure to ozone.
The EPA in November proposed (RIN 2060-AP38) to revise the ozone standards to somewhere in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb, a regulation that the agency estimates could cost up to $16.6 billion annually (229 DEN A-1, 11/28/14).
The agency has a court-ordered deadline of Oct. 1 to issue a final decision on whether to revise or retain the standards. Opponents of the proposal have raised concerns about the cost and feasibility of meeting the standards, while supporters point to the billions in estimated health benefits from reducing asthma and other adverse health effects.
Push for More Assistance
Several witnesses highlighted implementation concerns with that proposal, including a need for more resources to aid the agencies that would implement the standards.
Gary Moore, judge/executive of Boone County, Ky., and president of the National Association of Regional Councils, said there is limited federal funding available to help rural communities that would fall into nonattainment status for the first time under a more stringent ozone standard.
Those counties are the ones that can “least afford it” because those governments typically have smaller budgets than metropolitan areas and have few staff members available to handle implementation issues, Moore said.
“I really feel for my colleagues in the rural counties that would be asked to try to meet these new requirements,” Moore said.
More Resources Needed for Monitoring
Michael McKee, chairman of the Uintah County Commission, said more resources are needed to study and monitor high levels of winter ozone that are present in some areas in the West.
The Uintah Basin, which is home to oil and gas development, would likely be unable to avoid nonattainment status under the EPA's proposed ozone standards, even though it's unknown how to address the winter ozone that would trigger exceedances of the standards, McKee said.
“The state, the EPA nor the county understand what measures would be effective to reduce elevated winter ozone,” McKee said. “Even if the EPA were to force the Uintah basin into nonattainment, absent additional years of scientific monitoring and modeling, a state implementation plan would unlikely be effective.”
Kanathur Srikanth, director of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, suggested that additional transportation funding for projects that reduce emissions of ozone precursors would be welcomed.
The federal government also could help the transportation sector by harmonizing and simplifying transportation conformity regulations that apply to transportation planning in nonattainment areas. The board is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area.
Economic Impacts Highlighted
Several Republicans used the hearing to highlight the projected economic effects of a more stringent ozone standard. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that the EPA isn't authorized 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)).
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), who addressed the committee in support of legislation (S. 751, H.R. 1388) that would prohibit the EPA from setting more stringent ozone standards until 85 percent of nonattainment areas can meet the current 75 ppb standards, cautioned that the EPA's proposal would halt economic growth and result in lost jobs in various industry sectors across the U.S.
“Healthy air and healthy water are priority one, but impossible rules help no one,” Olson said.
Inhofe Questions EPA Statements on Jobs
Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) questioned past statements by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy that air pollution rules will help communities with cleaner air attract new business investment.
Moore of Boone County, when asked by Inhofe if that was true, said EPA regulations “can get in the way of job creation and economic vitality.”
McKee of the Uintah County Commission said a nonattainment designation would force the oil and gas industry to relocate its development activities to other areas.
Sen. Boxer, ranking member of the committee, was critical of claims that EPA air regulations would cause significant economic damage, pointing to job growth in California, which she called a leader in environmental efforts.
“That is so much baloney,” she said of the economic concerns. “It is disproven by the facts.”
Cites Ozone Risk to Population
Boxer noted that none of the witnesses or members of Congress disputed the risks of ozone exposure, which were highlighted during the hearing by Gregory Diette a professor of medicine, epidemiology and environmental health science at Johns Hopkins University. Diette described “very strong, very compelling” science that ozone exposure affects at-risk populations and lung function in healthy people.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) used the hearing to question an often-cited economic analysis commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers that projected the costs of a 65 ppb ozone standard would be far higher than estimated by the EPA.
The report, released in February, found that a 65 ppb ozone standard could impose about $1.1 trillion in compliance costs on industry from 2017 through 2040 and cost the U.S. economy up to $140 billion annually (39 DEN A-14, 2/27/15).
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Institute for Policy Integrity have both questioned the methodology behind that report, specifically the method used to estimate the cost of unknown controls that would be needed in some areas.
Estimates of Cost to Economy Questioned
Merkley questioned the report's estimates that a 65 ppb standard would cost Oregon's economy $8 billion in lost gross state product from 2017 to 2040, even though all but one of Oregon's counties already meet a 65 ppb standard.
“How would it take Oregon $8 billion to comply if Oregon is already in compliance with the standards?” Merkley asked. “If the estimates are so grossly off for my home state, how much are they off for the rest of the country?”
Ross Eisenberg, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, told Bloomberg BNA in a June 3 e-mail that it is a “common misconception” that costs would only be incurred with states that have nonattainment areas.
The cost of complying with a more stringent standard would reverberate through the economy, affecting all states, and create additional costs and permitting delays in both attainment and nonattainment areas, Eisenberg said.
“The negative impacts will vary from state to state, but one thing is quite clear—no state will be spared,” Eisenberg said.
-
GOP Senators Cite Costs In Push For Bills To Block Stricter Ozone NAAQS
Jun 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Republican members of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) are urging their colleagues to back legislation that would block or weaken EPA's expected tightening of its ozone air standard, saying that the potential major costs to industry and states of a stricter limit are sufficient reasons to prevent the agency's revision.
But several Democrats on EPW countered that the agency's proposed tightening of its 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to between 65-70 ppb is vital to protect human health. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must base its NAAQS solely on scientific data on threats to human health from a pollutant, though the agency can consider costs when crafting rules for how states should implement a NAAQS.
Under a court-mandated deadline, EPA must finalize its rule by Oct. 1, and is expected by several sources to set the NAAQS toward the top of the proposed range floated late last year. Environmentalists and public health advocates continue to press for a standard as tough as 60 ppb to protect public health, while major industry groups challenge the scientific evidence supporting a tougher NAAQS and say EPA should leave the standard unchanged.
At a June 3 EPW hearing, panel Chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) warned of the adverse economic effects that some claim a tougher standard could have. While he described the science underpinning EPA's proposal as “dubious,” Inhofe and other GOP members of the committee focused their criticisms on the rule's potential costs.
“EPA's ozone proposal is the most expensive regulation in history with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million lost jobs,” Inhofe said, citing worst-case figures that industry-based analyses estimate.
EPA has projected that an ozone standard set at 70 ppb would create $6.4 to $13 billion in health benefits and an even-stricter limit of 65 ppb would generate between $19 and $38 billion in health benefits, compared to costs of $3.9 billion for a 70 ppb limit and $15 billion for a 65 ppb limit, EPA estimates. The agency bases the benefits on values such as avoidance of premature death, asthma attacks and missed work days.
Democrats at the hearing disputed the estimates of economic damage quoted by Inhofe and other Republicans, citing similar GOP warnings over previous NAAQS rules that proved unfounded.
The committee's minority members focused primarily on the adverse health effects of ozone, and the consequent economic damage that could be prevented by a tougher standard. “Ozone is extremely harmful to human health, that is not a debatable point,” said EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Pending Legislation
Despite Democrats' push-back, GOP members of the Senate environment panel urged support for three pending bills that they said would help address concerns about the costs of EPA's proposal. Inhofe commended the bills to the EPW hearing, but Boxer countered that they would “decimate” the NAAQS program.
For example, S. 640, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and co-sponsored by 11 other Republican senators, would delay the current ozone NAAQS review rule until February 2018, then require ozone NAAQS reviews every 10 years, rather than every five years as currently required under the Clean Air Act. The bill has a House counterpart, H.R. 1327, sponsored by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and four co-sponsors.
A second bill, S. 751, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and co-sponsored by 23 other Republicans, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), would block EPA from tightening the ozone NAAQS until 85 percent of counties classified as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as of Jan. 30, have attained the 2008 standard. The House companion bill is H.R. 1388, sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) and 45 co-sponsors.
The bill would also require that EPA take cost and feasibility into account when crafting the NAAQS, ending a Supreme Court prohibition on considering costs in setting the limits.
Under the bill, EPA could only use air quality monitoring, and not computer modeling, to determine an area's NAAQS attainment. The agency would also be required to include in its cost-benefit analysis at least one benefit assessment excluding benefits from reduction of co-pollutants.
The third bill, S. 638, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and co-sponsored by eight Republicans, would require EPA to revise its “exceptional events” policy, under which states can exclude air monitoring data gathered during wildfires, dust storms or other events beyond their control, from counting toward NAAQS compliance. The House companion is H.R. 1320, sponsored by Olson and 16 co-sponsors.
The bill would limit EPA's discretion to qualify an event as “exceptional,” requiring that EPA and states jointly set criteria to determine which events qualify. It would also set statutory deadlines for EPA to process such requests from states and create an appeals process for states should they disagree with EPA's decisions. A backlog of exceptional events requests has built up in Western states, where dust storms and wildfires occur with some frequency.
-
Costs A Concern At EPW Hearing On Ozone Rule
Jun 4, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Amanda Peterka
Republicans and Democrats yesterday sparred over U.S. EPA's proposal to tighten the national ozone standard at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Led by EPW Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Republican members of the committee highlighted concerns about cost as a reason for not tightening the federal standard. EPA in November proposed to lower the limit for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb.
"This proposal, like many of EPA's recent proposals, will have negligible environmental impacts, is based on questionable health benefits and comes with unequivocal economic costs," Inhofe said.
They pushed a trio of bills that would address EPA's handling of the ozone standard, among them legislation (S. 751) introduced by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that would delay a lowering of the standard until at least 85 percent of counties meet the 75 ppb limit, which was set in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration.
Ground-level ozone is a key component of smoggy air that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight and heat. EPA proposed a tighter limit because it says the body of scientific data shows that the 75 ppb standard is no longer adequate to protect public health.
Democratic members pushed back against the GOP cost concerns, arguing that economic growth has occurred in the past even as air quality has improved. They said a new standard was necessary to protect public health, pointing to research linking negative health effects to high ground-level ozone levels.
"Despite what some of my Republican colleagues may try to claim today," EPW ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said, "scientists overwhelmingly agree that EPA needs to adopt a stricter standard to protect the health of the American people."
The hearing featured a witness panel representing mostly local and regional governments and regulatory agencies that would be responsible for putting in place a new standard.
A tighter standard would impose costs on local agencies having to comply with the Clean Air Act's requirements for transportation projects, some panelists said. The law requires that transportation projects in areas out of compliance with a national air standard remain within the emissions budget contained in state pollution control plans.
"Those rural communities that will be added to the list of nonattainment are the counties that can least afford it," said Gary Moore, judge-executive of Boone County, Ky., and president of the National Association of Regional Councils. "They have smaller budgets. Many times, they have little to no staff to deal with these added requirements."
The panel of mostly local officials, however, expressed varying views on whether U.S. EPA should actually tighten the standard.
Moore, a witness invited by the Republican majority, said the agency should retain the 75 ppb standard based on the concerns about cost.
Larry Greene, executive director at the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and a witness invited by the minority, said he believed EPA should follow the advice of its scientific advisers, who recommended a tighter standard in the range of 60 to 70 ppb.
Some local officials, including Greene, pressed members of the Environment and Public Works Committee for more federal funding to help areas achieve a potentially tighter limit.
Kanathur Srikanth, director of transportation planning for the National Capital Region and a majority witness, similarly testified that local areas would face higher costs under a tighter standard, particularly in the area of transportation planning.
The planning board for the capital region -- which encompasses the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area -- currently devotes about 15 percent of its budget, or $2 million, toward analyzing air quality.
At a minimum, Congress should provide "increased transportation funding and flexibility in use of the funds for both planning and project implementation," he testified.
Srikanth also pressed for increased federal regulation over transportation emissions and fuels to help local areas meet national air standards.
-
Senate Panel Condemns Lack of Consultation With Small Business on Waters of U.S. Rule
Jun 4, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Berger
In a resolution, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship condemned June 3 what it sees as the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to follow federal requirements on consulting small businesses before issuing a final rule defining Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
The resolution said the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, despite the agencies' finding otherwise. It passed the committee by a vote of 11-8.
The clean water rule defines what constitutes a “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act and was released jointly by the EPA and corps May 27 (102 DEN A-1, 5/28/15).
“Despite these concerns, the EPA and Army Corps went about finalizing the rule without [consulting small businesses]. The resolution we are considering today is very straightforward and factual. It simply mirrors the [May 19] testimony of the Office of Advocacy and reflects the concerns of the small business community,” Committee Chairman David Vitter (R-La.) said.
No Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
That May 19 testimony was given in a hearing in which the committee heard from Charles Maresca, director of interagency affairs in the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, and others who said the agencies incorrectly determined the rule wouldn't have economic impacts on a significant number of small businesses and that agencies should have held Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act panels to get input on alternative regulatory options (97 DEN A-23, 5/20/15).
In proposing their rule, the agencies said it would narrow Clean Water Act jurisdiction compared to existing regulations and that, “because fewer waters will be subject to the CWA under the proposed rule than are subject to regulation under the existing regulations, this action will not affect small entities to a greater degree than the existing regulations.”
As a result, the agencies wrote in an April 2014 Federal Register notice, the proposed rule “will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.”
Basis of Findings Questioned
At the May 19 hearing, Maresca questioned the basis of those findings, saying the agencies used the wrong regulatory jurisdictional baseline to claim they were narrowing the jurisdiction.
The resolution passed by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee June 3 adopts Maresca's arguments.
The resolution “doesn't condemn EPA action to ensure clean water and doesn't condemn clean water,” Vitter told the committee. “It is very narrow, straightforward and factual [on] involving small business as mandated by law.”
Ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told the committee she supports efforts to ensure small businesses are included in rulemaking but didn't support the resolution accusing the EPA and corps of not following that process for the clean water rule.
Amendments, Prospects for Passage
“I know that there are folks who are concerned about the process, as I am, but I do think the final rule, as I understand it, addresses the concerns that we heard from those who testified at the hearing on this rule,” she said.
Shaheen proposed two amendments to restructure the resolution such that it would more generally call for including small business consultations in rulemaking procedures.
Vitter opposed those amendments because, he said, they would take all references to “waters of the U.S.” out of the resolution.
He reiterated that the resolution had been carefully drafted to discuss only the process of the rulemaking rather than its content. “However,” he said, “this amendment would take out the context of ‘waters of the U.S.’ as if it didn't happen. Well, it did happen—it's the whole reason we're here talking about it.”
The Shaheen amendments failed, en banc, to be adopted, 10-4.
Cantwell Questions Resolution's Issuance
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who chaired the committee for most of 2014, said she also understood concerns about the clean water rule but questioned whether the committee should be issuing the resolution.
“It is not germane to our committee, and when it's brought to the Senate floor, there will be a point of order brought against it,” she said. “I appreciate my colleagues’ concern about impacts on small business, but this measure won't be able to move forward on the Senate floor.”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested